Should Canada adopt a US-style senate

[Boris Godunov]

How can a majority government represent only 40% of the people? Seems like you're contradicting yourself.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How can a majority government represent only 40% of the people? Seems like you're contradicting yourself.

Yeah, it's pretty stupid isn't it?
40% of Canadian voters voted Liberal, but because of how the system is set up they won something like 60% of the seats.

Since the Senate is actually useless, it's not a factor.

So Canada has 2 branches of government left: House of Commons, and the Prime Minister & his Cabinet. In fact, they're one and the same.

Whoever has >50% in the House of Commons makes up the Prime Minister as well as his cabinet.

So right now in Canada, the Liberals have full and complete control over everything in the federal government. Even though only 40% of the population voted for them.

Which is why the system desperately needs some kind of reform.

[KrazyHorse]

The fundamental rights and all minorities are guaranteed by the Constitution. Any system of arbitrarily assigning more power to certain regions does nothing to alleviate the problem of a minority being trampled on; it simply gives better protection to one brand of minority (people living in PEI), while taking away protections from another brand (English Quebecers, for instance).

[markusf]

Originally posted by Asher


Right now in Canada, we simply have rule of the majority. This is well and good for those of you in the majority (KrazyHorse), but for anyone not in the majority, you get the sharp end of the stick from a large and overbearing Ottawa with seemingly unlimited power given to the "majority government" (which in fact only represents the view of 40% of the people, but that doesn't really matter...)

You are whining.


democracy is the rule of the majority.. Anything else is a dictatorship

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How can a majority government represent only 40% of the people? Seems like you're contradicting yourself.

Because of first past the post and multi-party elections.

[Seeker]

You mean, it needs Reform...

I'm putting my faith in a provincial Marijuana Party victory in BC spurring them on to Federal politics...

(could happen, check last elections stats!)

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The fundamental rights and all minorities are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Shut up about individual rights, when did I ever mention individuals?

Any system of arbitrarily assigning more power to certain regions does nothing to alleviate the problem of a minority being trampled on; it simply gives better protection to one brand of minority (people living in PEI), while taking away protections from another brand (English Quebecers, for instance).

What the hell are you talking about?

[Boris Godunov]

But I'm assuming that, even though they got 40%, that was the highest percentage of votes for a single party, and ergo they won the plurality.

That seems the same as the American system to me, because winning an election is (generally) based on winning a plurality, not a majority. I mean, Clinton never won a majority, so it's logical to assume that his administration was one big minority administration, under this logic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by markusf
You are whining.

democracy is the rule of the majority.. Anything else is a dictatorship

Rule of the majority is a dictatorship when there's nothing stopping the party in power.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by markusf
democracy is the rule of the majority.. Anything else is a dictatorship

So if I can get 51% of the people in Canada to agree that people with the internet nickname markusf should die, you'd abide by thier decision?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That seems the same as the American system to me, because winning an election is (generally) based on winning a plurality, not a majority. I mean, Clinton never won a majority, so it's logical to assume that his administration was one big minority administration, under this logic.

The difference is you actually have different branches of government.

There is effectively 1 branch in Canada, while there are 3 in the US. That's why Canada needs to be reformed.

How would you like it if Bush had full and complete control over everything? Bush and his cronies are the ONLY people who can propose bills. Bush and his cronies have majority in the only legislative body that can pass or fail it. Bush and his Cronies fire people from the party who get in their way (see Paul Martin/Chretien fiasco).

Welcome to Canada.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


So if I can get 51% of the people in Canada to agree that people with the internet nickname markusf should die, you'd abide by thier decision?

No, because the rule of the majority is tempered by the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, because the rule of the majority is tempered by the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

That's not democratic according to markusf. In fact, it would qualify as a dictatorship.

[Boris Godunov]

Asher, the Bush scenario would be entirely plausible if the Senate were once again under the control of the Republicans, so the analogy fails.

The Liberals don't have to exercise total control in Canada, as the people can vote them out in the next election should they wish. That is not tyrany, that is democracy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


That's not democratic according to markusf. In fact, it would qualify as a dictatorship.

Yeah...well...what do he know?