Should Canada adopt a US-style senate

[Asher]

Pros: Prevents the tyranny of the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. Replaces our existing useless senate. Adds a check/balance situation with the PM.
Cons: May hurt productivity, as the Liberals won't have a majority in all sections of the government (may be classified as 'pro' if you share my opinion)

This is an extension of this threadjack: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=53140

[JohnIII]

ARRGH! Why can no-one write a reasonably objective first post in a poll thread/poll rather than biasing the options towards them?

[Asher]

Piss off, you grubby Brit.

And everyone's biased anyway, so why can't I be upfront with it?

[JohnIII]

Because you are conducting a poll. You won't get any useful results (well, more useful than an Internet poll anyway ) by biasing the poll.

[Asher]

Originally posted by JohnIII
Because you are conducting a poll. You won't get any useful results (well, more useful than an Internet poll anyway ) by biasing the poll.

The poll itself is unbiased, genius.

My post was not. Just like all other posts below won't be unbiased either.

Deal with it.

[JohnIII]

Yes, but the first post is connected to the poll. You can post your thoughts in a separate post to the opening of the poll.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes. We should adopt a US-style Senate. Next, we should propose an Act of Union with the States. Finally, we can disband the government entirely and let Microsoft run the country.

[Asher]

Yes, but the first post is connected to the poll. You can post your thoughts in a separate post to the opening of the poll.

Whiner go home, you're not even Canadian.
What difference does it make if it's in the first or second post? Honestly? Can't you find something else to troll about?

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yes. We should adopt a US-style Senate. Next, we should propose an Act of Union with the States. Finally, we can disband the government entirely and let Microsoft run the country.

I'm glad you have an opinion on the matter, jackass.
And knock it off with the Microsoft crap already. It wasn't funny the first time, it wasn't funny the second time, it wasn't funny the third time, and it's still not funny ten thousand times later. Get over it.

[KrazyHorse]

Ease up, honey. I meant that to be taken lightly. I'm a UNIX-hater, BTW...

Someone like UR means it seriously when he baits you. Learn the difference.

[*End Is Forever*]

Whilst I'm no fan of proportional representation, I find the US Senate the most unproportional, unrepresentative chamber I know. Giving the senator from, say, South Dakota, equal power and influence to the one elected in California, New York or Texas seems incredibly perverse.

It's also one of the most inaccessible chambers in the world. I mean, I could (not necessarily do) hold a reasonably realistic aspiration of becoming a member of parliament - indeed, at least one of my friends is picking out a seat he hopes to stand in at the next election. However, the chances of entering the US Senate - hell, even the House of Representatives - are minimal to zero for the average citizen, depedent far more than in the UK or Canada on patronage, profile, and ultimately, money. The money wasted on US election campaigns is absolutely phenomenal. I swear that the most expensive Senate contest probably cost more in publicity than the entire UK general election.

And I've not even mentioned how well-connected and rich you have to be to become President...

[Clear Skies]

Famous quote from President Kennedy (IIRC; don't kill me cos my history stinks) on why his victory over Nixon was so narrow.

"Because my father couldn't buy a landslide."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yes, you can adopt ours, all 100 of them, and we'll start over.

Iain is right about the outmoded and undemocratic nature of the senate now. That is because the US is viewed as the nation-state, with individual states being subdivisions with a tiny little bit of local independence. When the senate was created, first with the Articles of Confederation, then with the Constitution, the US was more analogous to the EU - a collection of independent, sovereign states who agreed to form a limited standing association to handle common defense, trade, and "foreign" policy issues. (Foreign in this sense including dealings with other states in the US, as in the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution) Originally, it was even more undemocratic, because the Senate was elected by members of each state legislature, not by the people themselves.

The view was that larger states would use the Federal "supergovernment" to economically and politically dominate smaller, weaker, but still nominally independent and sovereign states.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally, it was even more undemocratic, because the Senate was elected by members of each state legislature, not by the people themselves.

The way it should be!

Senate:

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Originally, it was even more undemocratic, because the Senate was elected by members of each state legislature, not by the people themselves.

And what exactly was wrong with that?

[Seeker]

The Canadian Senate does need reform.

Either reform it or dump it.

IMO, we need to make a national decision (LOL for Canada, the non-national country) about whether we want to give the future Jean Chretiens of the world even more unfettered power, or a more balanced PR like system (at least in the Senate).

Oh, and I assume a reformed Senate would have more powers, other than merely delaying a bill.

What is so bad about the old US system?
You get an experienced statesman, dedicated enough to have hung around the state legislature for years, not just some billionaire who decided to blow a bunch of money on an election.

The unproportionality of the US Senate is complex topic...on the one hand, it is not very democratic that if I vote for a senator in North Dakota my vote is worth several times what it would be in California...but on the other hand what's in it for small states in the union? it levels the playing field.

The most rational solution would be to periodically 'redistrict' the states to even out population, but that's not very realistic.

And the political reality too, is that small states tend to be much more conservative. If the United States was governed in a Westminster style parliament, it probably wouldn't be much different than most european countries politically. Which of course is a nightmare to many vested US interest groups.