Should Canada adopt a US-style senate

[markusf]

Originally posted by Asher

The current system is an unfair distribution of representation. Canada is huge and diverse, and you still seem to think it's okay that if 1001 of the people want to do something, and 1000 people don't, then it's still fine because the majority has ruled.

You make no sence, that is what rule of the majority is. So your saying if 900 people want to something and 300 don't then you can't do it? maybe 900 vs 30? So what exactly are you saying, that you can't do something unless 100% agree?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ramo
Err... no. IOW, the minority ends up trampling on the "rights" (assigning rights to political parties/divisions is silly) of the majority.

How so? Give me an example.

[Asher]

Originally posted by markusf
You make no sence, that is what rule of the majority is. So your saying if 900 people want to something and 300 don't then you can't do it? maybe 900 vs 30? So what exactly are you saying, that you can't do something unless 100% agree?

Go away blackice.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
There has never been a government, ever, that has served the will of every one of its citizens, nor will there ever be. This is because, realistically, there will be completely contradictory ideaology among many citizens.

The best any government can hope to do is to serve the will of as many people as it can while adhering to constitutional protection of all citizens.

The problem is some people's brains can't fathom the possibility of large minority groups seeking representation as well.

They prefer to dumb everything down to simple "50.00000000000000001% want this, so we shall do it" type approaches. There needs to be a system that allows for the large minority groups to have a say in politics as well. This is their country also, who cares if they're not the complete majority? They don't MAKE bills, but they can still have their (overrepresented in one branch) say in a bill if they strongly disagree with it.

[KrazyHorse]

No, you go away.

Markus sees the eventual results of your line of reasoning, and you're either deliberately or accidentally missing them.

The Constitution guarantees fundamental individual rights. The rest is up to the electorate of 50%+1.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Asher

Go away blackice.

I am not a DL. Now are you going to answer the question? How many people have to vote no before your not allowed to do something?

[KrazyHorse]

There needs to be a system that allows for the large minority groups to have a say in politics as well

There already is. That's the beauty of representational democracy; you don't vote on every single issue, so the value you place on an issue has a role to play in who you vote for.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Asher
There needs to be a system that allows for the large minority groups to have a say in politics as well. This is their country also, who cares if they're not the complete majority? They don't MAKE bills, but they can still have their (overrepresented in one branch) say in a bill if they strongly disagree with it.

We tend to call those lobby groups, and they are catered to far more then the so called majority.

[Boris Godunov]

And once again, the U.S. Senate can and does make bills, so what you're in favor of is not a U.S.-style Senate.

[Tingkai]

Asher is living in a dreamworld if he thinks Alberta's interests will be protected by a US-style senate. His theory is severely flawed

Alberta won't get a bigger voice
Just look at the numbers. Under a US-style system, Alberta would only have 10 per cent of the seats while Eastern Canada would have 60 per cent. A US-style senate would make it easier for Eastern Canada to dominate the government.

A US-style senate won't protect Alberta's interests
With only 10 per cent of the senate seats, Alberta would not be able to block bills that hurt it.

The system isn't to blame for the Liberal's power
Asher blames the parliamentary system for the Liberal's dominance in government. This is untrue. The Liberals dominate federal politics because the right-wing is divided. When the right-wing is united, the conservatives have formed the government.

US-style system leads to passing the buck
As Boris said, under the parliamentary system, the electors know who to blame and who to praise. When the Liberals created the NEP, they were kicked out of office in the next election. The PCs were kicked out of office after Mulroney screwed things up.

The Senate system allows politicians to blame each other for problems they have created.

US-style system leads to deadlock
Usually, if the Republicans control the senate then voters elect the Democracts to control the house. So you end up with a perpetual deadlock.

US-senate gives too much power to the minority
Under the US system, individual politicians gain too much power. The only way to get a bill passed is to hand out goodies to individual politicians. (politican A will support farm subsidies if politician B supports corporate welfare) The result is inefficient.

A democratic system is based on majority rules
Asher doesn't like this system because his far right-wing voice doesn't get heard. But why should his minority opinion be forced upon the majority?

The Canadian senate is useless, but that does not justify creating an American-style senate.

[KrazyHorse]

Ah, tingkai. I agree wholeheartedly with each and every one of those points.

[Ramo]

How so? Give me an example.

Sure.
Can't think of a recent example at the moment, but consider, for example, the Compromise of 1850. The Compromise arose over the fate of the Western territories annexed from Mexico. The majority of people and the House and President supported making the territories free states. But the Senate didn't like it, so they forced the majority to accept the Fugitive Slave Act, a law that forced Northern states to return escaped slaves to their owners, and have the fate of slavery in the territories excluding California be determined by their populations.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Alberta won't get a bigger voice
Just look at the numbers. Under a US-style system, Alberta would only have 10 per cent of the seats while Eastern Canada would have 60 per cent. A US-style senate would make it easier for Eastern Canada to dominate the government.

A US-style senate won't protect Alberta's interests
With only 10 per cent of the senate seats, Alberta would not be able to block bills that hurt it.

Hey, Tingkai. Perhaps you should read sometimes.

I said the Senate would give the Liberals a minority in the Senate, I've said nothing specifically about getting Alberta more power.

The system isn't to blame for the Liberal's power
Asher blames the parliamentary system for the Liberal's dominance in government. This is untrue. The Liberals dominate federal politics because the right-wing is divided. When the right-wing is united, the conservatives have formed the government.

I don't care for the reasoning behind WHY the majority exists.

All I know, and have been talking about, is that the majority government has unlimited power in Canada. And that's outrageous.

US-style system leads to passing the buck
As Boris said, under the parliamentary system, the electors know who to blame and who to praise. When the Liberals created the NEP, they were kicked out of office in the next election. The PCs were kicked out of office after Mulroney screwed things up.

You can't blame unless you vote for parties only? Are you that stupid, Tingkai?

US-style system leads to deadlock
Usually, if the Republicans control the senate then voters elect the Democracts to control the house. So you end up with a perpetual deadlock.

Strangely the US has more productive stuff going on than Canada. How long did it take us to make the anti-terror legislation again?

US-senate gives too much power to the minority
Under the US system, individual politicians gain too much power. The only way to get a bill passed is to hand out goodies to individual politicians. (politican A will support farm subsidies if politician B supports corporate welfare) The result is inefficient.

"Too much power" is relative. If you're in the majority, then it's too much. If you're in the minority, it's not enough. Strike a balance.

A democratic system is based on majority rules
Asher doesn't like this system because his far right-wing voice doesn't get heard. But why should his minority opinion be forced upon the majority?

Why should your opinion be forced on mine? Because you outnumber me?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And once again, the U.S. Senate can and does make bills, so what you're in favor of is not a U.S.-style Senate.

Okay, US style senate without bill making ability. I was assuming that part of Canada's system would remain fixed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by markusf
You make no sence, that is what rule of the majority is. So your saying if 900 people want to something and 300 don't then you can't do it? maybe 900 vs 30? So what exactly are you saying, that you can't do something unless 100% agree?

There must a reason that the 300 people don't want to do it. And would those reasons be?

Perhaps it's something that acts in the benefit of the 900 people at the expense of the 300?

That's the whole idea of the system.