Should Canada adopt a US-style senate

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ramo
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.

Alright, and how for counterexamples:
1. NEP
2. Liberals inability to redraw Alberta's ridings
3. Kyoto

Neither system is perfect, but the US' is least flawed.

[KrazyHorse]

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

It would force the Liberals into a coalition with the NDP, whose voice would be huge relative to their support. I'm sure you'd be happy with that.

[KrazyHorse]

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

Yes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It would force the Liberals into a coalition with the NDP, whose voice would be huge relative to their support. I'm sure you'd be happy with that.

So why are you afraid of it?

I don't think the NDP would go into a coalition with the Liberals on most issues. They're not the same party.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yes.

And you honestly expect those continued minorities to "suck it up because Ontario and Quebec want it this way, so you should learn to deal with it"?

Get over yourself, man.

[KrazyHorse]

The Liberals have formed coalition governments with the NDP before. It got us Medicare the first time. The Liberals couldn't ally with anybody else, since the PC are too mule-headed and are traditional enemies.

[Ramo]

Alright, and how for counterexamples:

Conterexamples for what? What do they demonstrate?

[KrazyHorse]

Nothing. He's taken policies he disagrees with and says that that's what you get when you let the great unwashed decide things.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Asher

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.

Why do 5% of the population believe elvis is alive?

So if 95% of the population says we want more free trade with the USA we can't do it because 5% say no?

Whats the percentage of people who accidently mark the wrong box on a ballet? Your living in a fantasy world, there is no way your going to get a 100% vote on anything.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ramo
Conterexamples for what? What do they demonstrate?

They demonstrate how the lack of a regional-based counterbalance can lead to the interests of the majority at the expense of a minority.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

And you honestly expect those continued minorities to "suck it up because Ontario and Quebec want it this way, so you should learn to deal with it"?

Get over yourself, man.

I expect anybody who's decided against on national policy issues to suck it upi and live with the law of the land, agreed to by a majority of citizens.

EDIT: forgot two or three words in my haste.

[Asher]

Originally posted by markusf
So if 95% of the population says we want more free trade with the USA we can't do it because 5% say no? How many of those 5%.

This is outrageous, a Senate wouldn't allow for that and you know it.

Your living in a fantasy world, there is no way your going to get a 100% vote on anything.

I never said that. At all.

Are you even following this thread?

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I expect anybody who's decided against on national policy issues to suck it upi and live with the law of the land, agreed to by a majority of citizens.

EDIT: forgot two or three words in my haste.

And you honestly don't think there will be a growing movement for Alberta to secede since the rest of Canada has that attitude, while at the same time taking 70 cents per dollar in energy revenue we have?

[KrazyHorse]

Are you even following this thread?

Are you? If 90% of Canada thinks energy policy should be run a certain way and Alberta disagrees wih it, then you'll have to do some fast talking and interpret the idea of democracy pretty loosely if you think that this should be enough to stop it from going through.

EDIT: Added quote because of X-post.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

And you honestly don't think there will be a growing movement for Alberta to secede since the rest of Canada has that attitude, while at the same time taking 70 cents per dollar in energy revenue we have?

You're at 10% support. Quebec has whined for 30 years with solid 40%+ support and still hasn't gotten much in the way of concrete gains. Welcome to the club, Asher.

By the way, Albertan distrust of Ottawa is nothing new. It has very little to do with any particular issue. It's like Quebec separatism that way...