Why is Canada still a constitutional monarchy?

[Asher]

Yes, I included that in my description of what you were trying to say.

[notyoueither]

Ummm. The Maritimes is the single biggest block in the Senate as it stands.

30 seats.

Ontario: 24
Quebec: 24
The West, with territories: 27

[DinoDoc]

KH, I'm really trying to avoid presuming ignorance of basic facts on your part.

1) The seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned on the basis of the population of the various States.

2) Controling the 25 smallest States delegations to the Senate will not give you control of the Senate. You can see an example of this from the '00 election when Trent Lott was forced to work out a power sharing arangement for the Senate. No party could really be said to be in control.

3) Do I really have to explain the Electoral College to you?

[KrazyHorse]

For the third time, I did not say that controlling the 25 smallest states would give you control of the entire government. I said that there was still no bar to 51% (actually 26%, but that's unrealistic) of the pop. telling the rest what to do, despite the overrepresentation of smaller states.

As long as your majority of popular vote isn't dependent in large part on the largest states, the Senate is no obstacle

[Asher]

Let's just all agree to disagree then, since we have no common ground.

*hugs KrazyHorse*
I still love you.

[KrazyHorse]

Sure. Just one last thing

Asher's Senate

75 seats from Alberta (Appointed by a committee consisting of Asher, Preston Manning, Ralph Klein and in special consultation with the ghost of "Bible" Bill Aberhart)

10 seats for the no-good BC commies (elected on a 1 tax dollar paid = 1 vote system)

5 seats for the Maritimes (selected by lot from the population)

3 seats each for Saskatchewan, Ontario and Manitoba (candidates with University degree need not apply, winners selected through trial by ordeal)

1 seat for Kuhbek (popular vote, voters must pass English proficiency exam and have served in the Canadian armed forces)

-------

Total = 100

[Asher]

Re: Sure. Just one last thing

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Asher's Senate

75 seats from Alberta (Appointed by a committee consisting of Asher, Preston Manning, Ralph Klein and in special consultation with the ghost of "Bible" Bill Aberhart)

You were doing so well!
I don't want Aberhart on my team.
Replace him with Al Duerr.

10 seats for the no-good BC commies (elected on a 1 tax dollar paid = 1 vote system)

You're overrepresenting the commie bastards. Cut them back to five.

5 seats for the Maritimes (selected by lot from the population)

5 seats for the maritimes? That's like their entire population.
Make this 1.

3 seats each for Saskatchewan, Ontario and Manitoba (candidates with University degree need not apply, winners selected through trial by ordeal)

Sounds great!

1 seat for Kuhbek (popular vote, voters must pass English proficiency exam and have served in the Canadian armed forces)

If I was making the Senate, Kuhbek would be knocking on the door asking to be let in again. They never expected that the Prime Minister would tell them to go to hell when they asked for more money.

-------

Total = 100

I'm too lazy to readjust.

[Asher]

On a semirelated note, tomorrow I will be attending "Canada and The New West" as presented by Preston Manning during a guest lecture at my university.

I will come back with even more crazy ideas than before.

Brace yourselves.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
There is not a single political party in Canada that I think is worthy of taking office right now.

Well, at least we agree on something.

[Tingkai]

I've quickly read over about four pages of comments and it seems to me there is a major flaw in Asher's arguement. He contends that a regionally based senate would have prevented the NEP from being passed. I doubt that.

The only province that screwed by the NEP was Alta. Meanwhile, it benefited most of the othe provinces. Maybe BC and Sask vote against it, but only three against seven. So odds are it passes.

I'd be in favour of a proportional parliament with no senate. Forming a government would require representation from likely all provinces.

Eliminating the Senate makes it more difficult for politicians to blame the another party for the country's problems. (That's what happens in the US where usually neither party controls the house, the senate and the president's office at the same time so they have an easy excuse for explaining why nothing gets done).

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Sorry, this makes absolutely no sense to me.
No matter who we vote for, Alberta's vote is expendable. It won't make or break elections.

Until the rise of the BQ, people in Ontario said their vote didn't really matter because the election was decided in Quebec.

In the last couple of elections, Ontario has gone solidly Liberal and has ended up decided the election, but that is only because the right wing idiots can't get their act together and end up spliting the vote. If there was a single right wing party then neither Quebec nor Ontario would decide the election. Quebec would be split Liberal-BQ and Ontario would be split Lib- (right wing party)

Originally posted by Asher
So how does voting for liberals help us at all? They'll still get into power by an even more overwhelming majority, and they can still continue to ignore the province because they still don't need our votes to stay in power. Actually, they need to worry less about competition, since they have an even larger majority now.

If you elect a good MP, that MP would get a seat in Cabinet and would be able to argue that the Liberals need to throw some benefits to Alberta so that the party can develop a power base there.

As long as Alta votes conservative consistently then there is no political reason for the Liberals to pay attention to it.

Originally posted by Asher
I have huge problems following your logic on that.

You seem to be saying that by electing liberals to the federal government, they will meet our conservative needs better. Am I getting that right?

What's the difference between a Liberal and a PC? None from my perspective.

The fact is that Alberta will never be able to impose its extreme right wing beliefs on the rest of the country.

The Canadian system gives Alta the power to create a home for right-wingers. Now if you want to argue that Alta doesn't have enough power then that is completely seperate from the discussion about the composition of the Senate and Parliament.

Originally posted by Asher
But that's not the point. SOMETIMES Alberta may get a real voice in government. Great. But why it it SOMETIMES?

You do have a voice in cabinet. He's called David Anderson. The problem is he is not a very good voice for Alberta. If you elect a better MP you'll get a better voice.

Originally posted by Asher
Aren't you all for equality?

Yup, one person, one vote.

There is no political system that will allow Alberta impose its views on the rest of Canada, when, as you say, Alberta, is so far to the right as a whole.

The majority of Canadians disagree with the Alta approach on health care, as far I know so a regionally based senate won't help you.

[David James]

I'm getting a little bit distressed at all this because I'm starting to see the old Central Canadian anti-Alberta bigotry rearing its ugly head again. You know that Alberta is probably one of Canada's most loyal provinces; Preston Manning could have campaigned on a slogan of "The West Wants Out" but he didn't. Instead he tried to funnel Albertans' frustrations to improving the country rather than destroying it. And some of you seem to think that Alberta is "right-wing" and therefore not good. Well compared with the rest of the English-speaking world Alberta is right in the middle. It's the rest of Canada that is to the left of the rest of the English speaking world.
As for Alberta and Bill 11 (and health care generally), well I've got news for you too; Bill 11 is a timid step in the direction of.... Sweden, that bastion of right wing yahoos. I have to admit that I find it a strange day when Alberta's healthcare policies are to the "left" of those in Sweden and the Netherlands, but there you go.

Anyway, back to the Senate debate. Personnally, in an ideal world, we'd simply break up the provinces of Ontario and Quebec into, say, 4 and 3 provinces (maybe with one of the new provinces possessing parts of both along the Ottawa River) each and a couple of territories in the north. Then do something with PEI and assign equal numbers of senators to each province. You won't have perfect inter-provincial population parity but it'll be a lot closer, which is what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind in designing the Senate. The other advantage of doing this (which increases the number of provinces by 5, or 50%) is that a greater number of provinces lessens the significance of any one province's actions. This is why the US state system works despite the potential for problems because the chance of all the small states going the same way on an issue to the detriment of the larger states isn't too likely. As for the argument that nothing gets done in the US, well, I regard that as an added bonus. The less government "works" the less it taxes and spends, so I would argue that it is indeed working quite well.

[General Ludd]

Could someone tell me why some people here think that it's so important that each province gets an equal say in the federal goverment? shouldn't it be each person?


Sure, each province has it's own specific needs - but isn't that what the provincial goverment is supposed to look after?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I said that there was still no bar to 51% (actually 26%, but that's unrealistic) of the pop. telling the rest what to do, despite the overrepresentation of smaller states.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how that would work.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Asher
Let me summarize this thread for people just joining:

KH is happy with how the system is, as his province gets what he wants since it's a "majority" province. He rejects reasoning otherwise based upon far-fetched scenarios that exist only in his mind and not reality.

I am not happy with how the system as, as my province doesn't get what it wants (fair enough), but has been historically exploited by the rest of Canada because of the smaller population (not fair). I propose reforming the senate close to a US-style senate to counter abuse from "majority" provinces. I have an entire country's history of proof that it works.

Did I miss anything?

So you're basically asking that we change the system so that a minority of people get a different (better) treatment because they don't like the way things are done by the majority of people ?

Now where did i ever hear something like that ?



It's Quebec's position at every constitutional conference!

I knew you were one of us Asher ! Viens nous voir! On t'attends!