Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The Maritimes are still insanely overrepresented (this will get even worse; Nfld has lost 7% of its pop. in the last 5 years) and the West and Ontario are slightly underrepresented (which will also get worse). What's the problem with tying Senate seats to population?

That kind defeats the purpose, Einstein.
What good is having two House of Representatives?

Just more red tape, not much different.

And if we're going to do that, then I want the grandfathering rules on seats in Commons lifted too. PEI should have 1 (maybe 2) seat(s), not 4.

Aye. House of Commons should be fairly represented by population, nothing more, nothing less.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ah, but that's the system both we and the US have right now. Just because you can't find that 51% by picking up individual states and clumping them together doesn't mean that the will of 51% of the pop still can't opress everybody else.

No. In the US, generally it can't. That's because RI has the same 2 senators that NY has. You can easily have 51% of the pop unable to impose their tyrannical will on the majority of the regions of the US.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher


Just how well, exactly, do you know how the US government works?

Very. You've got an oversimplified mindset, Asher. You can't see how the proper distribution of votes in the US would get a majority in both houses and a president into office with only 25% of voters selecting the party in question?

[notyoueither]

BTW. The Maritimes currently have more Senate seats than all of the West.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Very. You've got an oversimplified mindset, Asher. You can't see how the proper distribution of votes in the US would get a majority in both houses and a president into office with only 25% of voters selecting the party in question?

KH, you're making extremely stupid (to be blunt) scenerios.

The Senate balances out the majority of power strugle problems where the heavy populated states could use a heavy hand over the sparsly populated states.

The senate isn't perfect, but it goes a LONG way in ensuring that smaller states don't have their interests trampled over by heavy hitters like New York and California (or Ontario and Quebec in Canada's case).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No. In the US, generally it can't. That's because RI has the same 2 senators that NY has. You can easily have 51% of the pop unable to impose their tyrannical will on the majority of the regions of the US.

Yes, but it can still easily occur with the right distribution (pick up enough small states and enough total), and now you can have 15% of the population (41 million people in the 25 smallest states) stopping the rest of the pop. from doing what's best for the country because it hurts their states' special interests.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
BTW. The Maritimes currently have more Senate seats than all of the West.

We've already agreed that the current Senate is less than useless. I wouldn't mind seeing it go.

[notyoueither]

If it hurts the interests of 50% of the area of the United States it likely is not in the interests of the United States as a whole.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
The senate isn't perfect, but it goes a LONG way in ensuring that smaller states don't have their interests trampled over by heavy hitters like New York and California (or Ontario and Quebec in Canada's case).

It also goes a long way towards insuring that the small states use their undue influence o get themselves a bigger share of the pie.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
We've already agreed that the current Senate is less than useless. I wouldn't mind seeing it go.

Abolishing the Senate would be the worst possible scenario, except for dictators.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If it hurts the interests of 50% of the area of the United States it likely is not in the interests of the United States as a whole.

15% of the population, notyou. Cutting farm subsidies is one of the things that won't happen because of rural states' undue influence in the Senate.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It also goes a long way towards insuring that the small states use their undue influence o get themselves a bigger share of the pie.

Yes, and having a single entity as a leader will ensure that he cuts himself a share of the pie too!

KH, let's cut it out. It's getting really annoying debating you because you're tossing out the entire idea on whimsical notions with no historical basis or real reasons at all, just that "NO I DONT LIKE THE IDEA", mostly because you're already seeing your political influence being peddled. Not all of us have that luxury.

Yes, but it can still easily occur with the right distribution (pick up enough small states and enough total), and now you can have 15% of the population (41 million people in the 25 smallest states) stopping the rest of the pop. from doing what's best for the country because it hurts their states' special interests.

Fabulous, and now provide us some historical documents where that's happened.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Abolishing the Senate would be the worst possible scenario, except for dictators.

The Senate already doesn't do anything. Personally I'd like unicameral legislature, but I'm willing to discuss the idea, unlike Asher's "one province 2 senators".

[notyoueither]

Oh contraire. The Senate gets up on its hind legs every time there is a non-Liberal government.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The Senate already doesn't do anything. Personally I'd like unicameral legislature, but I'm willing to discuss the idea, unlike Asher's "one province 2 senators".

Well, maybe not one province 2 senators. One region two senators makes more sense.

PEI and whatnot are too small, way too small. They'd need to be clumped.