Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
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.

1) If a party got the 25 smallest states, it wouldn't get them the majority of the House of Representatives.

2) 25 States wouldn't give you control of the Senate either.

3) You can forget gaining the Presidency as well in that case.

[KrazyHorse]

Asher

See? I knew you could see my point.

Now, the only problems I see for a Senate distributed along regional lines by pop is that it limits the effective power of the government. That's not always a good thing. We've seen the kind of politics it leads to in the US where nothing ever changes because of the amount of steps bills have to take...

[Asher]

Also, KH, regarding your "15% pass the law for everyone" idea, you do realize that the Senate alone cannot pass that law? The House would also need to approve it?

[KrazyHorse]

Read what I wrote, honey. I said they could stop laws that everybody else wanted to pass.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Now, the only problems I see for a Senate distributed along regional lines by pop is that it limits the effective power of the government. That's not always a good thing. We've seen the kind of politics it leads to in the US where nothing ever changes because of the amount of steps bills have to take...

No, the senate is not done strictly by population. But there has to be some kind of population floor in Canada, because it doesn't make sense for PEI to have the same as Ontario. So, say, the Maritimes work as one region with the same number as Ontario, etc.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


1) If a party got the 25 smallest states, it wouldn't get them the majority of the House of Representatives.

2) 25 States wouldn't give you control of the Senate either.

3) You can forget gaining the Presidency as well in that case.

Sigh. Read what I wrote. Control of 26 states plus 51% total national support could easily get you a mjority in all 3 places.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Read what I wrote, honey. I said they could stop laws that everybody else wanted to pass.

Okay, now say that this did happen by some weird coincidence. Why was that law so horrible that these minority states object to it?

Obviously, this system is working. The minority states are standing up against the system that would really hurt them more than help them.

Thanks for the example!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

No, the senate is not done strictly by population. But there has to be some kind of population floor in Canada, because it doesn't make sense for PEI to have the same as Ontario. So, say, the Maritimes work as one region with the same number as Ontario, etc.

Why? You're simply going halfway. Now you've got the Maritimes only being overrepresented by a factor of 2.5 instead of by 10. Go all the way. Why not?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Okay, now say that this did happen by some weird coincidence. Why was that law so horrible that these minority states object to it?

Obviously, this system is working. The minority states are standing up against the system that would really hurt them more than help them.

Thanks for the example!

My example is right there. Farm subsidies.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why? You're simply going halfway. Now you've got the Maritimes only being overrepresented by a factor of 2.5 instead of by 10. Go all the way. Why not?

Having the senate done by population is simply having a second House of Reps. Why bother?

The purpose of the senate IS to "overrepresent" the minority states compared to their population, the whole PURPOSE is to give them a voice so bills that would exploit those provinces will not see the light of day (see: NEP).

You keep thinking I want to reform the senate into another House or something. The Senate can't make bills, it can simply stop bills that would hurt minority provinces.

If you see that as a bad thing, you're obviously used to being in a province that sits in majority governments...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Sigh. Read what I wrote. Control of 26 states plus 51% total national support could easily get you a mjority in all 3 places.

Uhhhh. Doesn't that fulfil your requirements and mine, and Asher's and DD's?

Point out where I err. 51% of pop. 51% of regions. You have a super majority.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Having the senate done by population is simply having a second House of Reps. Why bother?

It's not the same, because they're elected by the region as a whole. Now if you want to "screw over" Alberta you need to get by the 30% of seats that represent the whole West instead of just the 10% that represent Alta.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My example is right there. Farm subsidies.

GRRR.
Farm subsidies?

You're worried about FARM SUBSIDIES?

WHAT ABOUT THE NEP?
HOW COULD THE NEP HAPPEN?

I want YOU to guarantee me your stupid majority government won't ever f*ck up like they did with the NEP.

Find me a mechanism to stop the inherent stupidity of your liberal governments, and I'll be happy. I'm proposing this senate reform, which makes perfect sense, but you don't wanna do it because you don't think FARM SUBIDIES WOULD BE LIFTED WITH IT?

I want to smack you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's not the same, because they're elected by the region as a whole. Now if you want to "screw over" Alberta you need to get by the 30% of seats that represent the whole West instead of just the 10% that represent Alta.

No, if you're doing it by population, the same population in Alberta that is being "screwed over" would be reflected in the senators elected for the region Alberta's in.

Having a regional senate by population is nothing but having larger electoral territories with the same result.

Although it does sound like a phenomenal waste of time and money, I'm not surprised that a left-winger came up with that one.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Uhhhh. Doesn't that fulfil your requirements and mine, and Asher's and DD's?

Point out where I err. 51% of pop. 51% of regions. You have a super majority.

Yes, and it can easily be accomplished with 51% total. As a matter of fact, in a two party system it can be accomplished with 26% total, but the odds of that happening defy imagination, as opposed to the odds of my scenario (which you can take my word on are not).