Should Canada adopt a US-style senate

[Imran Siddiqui]

They don't like the *******s who inhabit the Senate, but the institution would have the respect.

And some of them would have Senators they liked. Like John McCain and Paul Wellstone.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
The people voting "No" to a US-style senate if you don't live in Canada or know anything about the Canadian government should stay out.

The people voting "yes" because they're from the US and are pretty sure they know what's best for everybody else should stay out too, then.

[Boris Godunov]

I like neither McCain nor Wellstone. The only U.S. Senators I really like are Babs Mikulski and Russ Feingold. 2 out of 100 is not a good ratio.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Asher, you edited your post! No Fair!

You said "Ventura" first!!!!!!!!

He's a notorious editor. And he never notes when he edits either...

[Boris Godunov]

That's ok, KH, because I edited my quoting him to reflect what he really said.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The people voting "yes" because they're from the US and are pretty sure they know what's best for everybody else should stay out too, then.

Yes, I agree.

He's a notorious editor. And he never notes when he edits either...

I edited it seconds after changing a name.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I like neither McCain nor Wellstone.

Yes, and I don't like you either .

Most Americans like both (at least one of the two though). Most Americans have a Senator they like. And Most Americans like the Senate.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You're N-U-T-S

No, I think you are the nutty one . Most Americans like their Senate. I think it is a wonderful instiution.

The Senate is the worst branch of your government. No way I'm letting crap like that end up here. MtG's got the historical context right. States used to be seen as independent entities who had banded together to form a very weak union. Over time, especially due to the influence of such notables as Lincoln, this idea was relegated to the past. In today's world, the Senate serves no purpose other than advancing the will of those living in small states so that it counts more than those living in large states.

And while we're at it, the gerrymandering that gives priority to rural areas needs to stop. The government of a country is supposed to represent the will of people, not land.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, I agree.


I edited it seconds after changing a name.

I've caught you doing it so many times that it's not funny.

[Asher]

KrazyHorse serves as the typical attitude of both the federal government and most Canadians.

The majority of the population is having THEIR interests served. Canada's government exists to serve the the interests of the majority, and only the majority. This is alright by them.

Canadians are so stupid, you know that?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Senate is the worst branch of your government. No way I'm letting crap like that end up here. MtG's got the historical context right. States used to be seen as independent entities who had banded together to form a very weak union. Over time, especially due to the influence of such notables as Lincoln, this idea was relegated to the past. In today's world, the Senate serves no purpose other than advancing the will of those living in small states so that it counts more than those living in large states.

I think the Senate is the BEST branch of our government! The States need representation in the federal government. **** the big states... they can't run roughshod over the smaller ones. I won't allow our states to be like your provinces .

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I like neither McCain nor Wellstone.

Yes, and I don't like you either .

If you could only see the tears that formed in my eyes when I read this.

Most Americans like both (at least one of the two though). Most Americans have a Senator they like. And Most Americans like the Senate.

And again, most Americans have the common sense and taste of a potato. Why would Republicans, who spent 8 years talking about how the public will didn't matter, care what the American public thinks?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


And what exactly was wrong with that?

Now, it wouldn't make a hell of a lot of difference, since states are required to adhere to the US Constitution in their suffrage requirements.

Back in those days, the notion of simply allowing any ol' white male citizen over the age of 21 to have an indirect say in government was simply radical. The idea that common rabble without property or stature within the community should be allowed to cast judgment on who among their betters was fit to serve in the state government? Preposterous!

At the time of Dorr's Rebellion in 1842, the state of Rhode Island still operated under terms of it's royal charter from the 1660's, which placed significant land ownership requirements for suffrage. A majority of the white male population (obviously nobody else had the franchise in the US at the time) and virtually all townspeople except the few elite mill owners had no vote in state government. You had a hereditary economic nobility which operated in the limited guise of a republican government to promote it's self-interest at the expense of the disenfranchised majority.

The same issue, in modified form, was also responsible for Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts, but that was before the ratification of the Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would Republicans, who spent 8 years talking about how the public will didn't matter

*Cues Troll Song*

[Boris Godunov]

Ah, you cop out because you've been defeated. HAHAHA!