Should Canada adopt a US-style senate

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

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


What the hell are you talking about?

Asher, by giving more power than numbers dictate to certain areas, you diminish the representation of minorities living in other parts of the country. English Quebecers, for instance, are a geographic, linguistic and political minority in our own province. We have unique issues and concerns, such as federal Constitutional protection from provincial authority, to mention just one issue. You want a Senate that grants you, say, 10 representatives for your 3 million people and that grants Quebec as a whole 10 representatives for our 7 million people. This means that English quebecers might get one representative out of 100 into this Senate of yours. If we distributed the seats in this Senate equally according to population we'd get 2 or 3. You've protected yourself by taking away our representation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by 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.

Of course it's possible for the republicans to still have control of all three bodies, but it's not GUARANTEED EVERY TIME like in Canada.

Did you know we don't even elect the Prime Minister in Canada? We just vote for the members of the house of commons. Which ever party has the most seats in the house can arbitrarily select someone to lead the country.

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.

Alberta has been voting out the Liberals for 50 years, what has it done for us?

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Asher, by giving more power than numbers dictate to certain areas, you diminish the representation of minorities living in other parts of the country. English Quebecers, for instance, are a geographic, linguistic and political minority in our own province. We have unique issues and concerns, such as federal Constitutional protection from provincial authority, to mention just one issue. You want a Senate that grants you, say, 10 representatives for your 3 million people and that grants Quebec as a whole 10 representatives for our 7 million people. This means that English quebecers might get one representative out of 100 into this Senate of yours. If we distributed the seats in this Senate equally according to population we'd get 2 or 3. You've protected yourself by taking away our representation.

No, KrazyHorse, they're not getting any less representation.

They're getting ZERO representation as it is with the current Senate. You know that, right? The only thing the Senators represent is the Prime Minister's interests.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by 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.

We also have far more voting options than you down South do, and have a tradition of electing minority governments when the will to back a certain party isn't strong enough.

The unequal distribution of seats in the senate and votes in the EC is unfair both on its face and in substance.

A Constitution protects against a tyranny of the majority. All unequal representation does is steal power from certain citizens and give it to others.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by 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.

Not really; a 60 seat majority is pretty much the standard these days to really control the Senate. Though even a one seat majority is preferable, it still wouldn't provide Bush with complete governmental control.

A Constitution protects against a tyranny of the majority. All unequal representation does is steal power from certain citizens and give it to others.

That would be true if the Senate didn't have a companion house (The House of Representatives in our case) that had proportional representation. That way, the people of the country and the states of the Union get a say in the government.

[KrazyHorse]

No, KrazyHorse, they're not getting any less representation.

They're getting ZERO representation as it is with the current Senate. You know that, right? The only thing the Senators represent is the Prime Minister's interests

That's because the representation that would be in the Senate currently resides in the House of Commons.

Asher, there's no extra political power coming into it. What you gain, you can only gain at my expense.

[Asher]

You know what's unfair? Having the Prime Minister select the Senate. You know why that's unfair? Because Ontario and Quebec select the Prime Minister.

No matter how you paint it, KrazyHorse, the current system with the tyranny from central canada is more unfair than a US style senate.

You think it's "unfair" because you'll be getting a taste of your own medicine.

[markusf]

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?

Oh i don't know, rule of law for starters?

Why the hell should every special interests group vote be worth more then mine? So if we have 12 canaibals in some remote area in the artic, and we make that a province those 12 people votes should be worth a million times more then everyone elses?

[Asher]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's because the representation that would be in the Senate currently resides in the House of Commons.

Asher, there's no extra political power coming into it. What you gain, you can only gain at my expense.

Representation is not zero sum, particularly when you're adding a new branch.

You realize that it's still the Cabinet that makes all the bills, right?

The US-style Senate would exist only to knock down/send back bills that trample on the rights of minority provinces, basically.

It can't create any new laws, so that's hardly a candidate for "tyranny of the minority".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher

Of course it's possible for the republicans to still have control of all three bodies, but it's not GUARANTEED EVERY TIME like in Canada.

But the potential is there for it to be that way in the U.S. In fact, that's what the U.S. 2-party system seems to be vying for. One party exercising total control over each branch.

Did you know we don't even elect the Prime Minister in Canada? We just vote for the members of the house of commons. Which ever party has the most seats in the house can arbitrarily select someone to lead the country.

Yes, I knew that, and that is the crux of the Parliamentary system. However, I find that to be a better one than the U.S. system, as there is accountability. The citizenry know exactly who to blame for bad policies and who to credit for good ones. Under the U.S. system there is no such accountability, hence the ease of corruption here. The fact that the Liberals in Canada have held power for so long is testament to their ability to work the greatest good for the greatest number. Isn't that the purpose of a Federal government?

Should it cease to do this, it will be voted out, as it should be. Until then, it seems you're just resentful that the party you don't agree with holds power and you want to take it away from them any way you can.

Yeah, so I advocate the U.S. switch to a "Only Votes for Liberals Count" to make the government more akin to what I want.

Alberta has been voting out the Liberals for 50 years, what has it done for us?

But Alberta isn't Canada...

[markusf]

Originally posted by Asher
You know what's unfair? Having the Prime Minister select the Senate. You know why that's unfair? Because Ontario and Quebec select the Prime Minister.

No matter how you paint it, KrazyHorse, the current system with the tyranny from central canada is more unfair than a US style senate.

You think it's "unfair" because you'll be getting a taste of your own medicine.

senate is just a rubber stamp body. It doesn't matter who rules, the problem is only corrupt morons are elected in canada. How many cabinet ministers have resigned in a scandel in the past month? lol

[Ramo]

That would be true if the ENTIRE DAMN SYSTEM WAS BASED ON THE IDEA.

But it's NOT.

2/3 of the branches are based upon population. The other 1/3 is there for minority rights.

You can't "insure the rule of the minority" when the minority has slightly more control in 1 out of 3 branches, when the Majority still has way more control in 2 out of 3 branches.

I take it you're not familiar with compromises. When our Senate disagrees with the House over a bill, each branche may have to sacrifice certain issues if they ever want to pass anything. So, divisive bills in our government generally imply the minority forcing the majority to accept its dictates.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by markusf
Oh i don't know, rule of law for starters?

So, now you support dictatorships? Nazi!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by markusf


Oh i don't know, rule of law for starters?

Why the hell should every special interests group vote be worth more then mine? So if we have 12 canaibals in some remote area in the artic, and we make that a province those 12 people votes should be worth a million times more then everyone elses?

Exactly, markus.

Asher's arguing for special interest representation. Once you start trying to protect minorities by giving them more representation in governmetn you've just started a "me too" debate. PEIans are a minority so they deserve special treatment. English Quebecers are a minority so we deserve special treament. French Canadians are a minority so we deserve special treatment. On and on.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ramo
So, divisive bills in our government generally imply the minority forcing the majority to accept its dictates.

IOW, the majority being upset that it can't trample the rights of the minority. Understandable, but suck it up and move on.