Should Canada adopt a US-style senate

[Boris Godunov]

I know you get your jollies off being a rude imp to people, but it doesn't do much to make folks amenable to your position. Maybe one of the reasons more Canadians don't support the Albertan right is that they are composed of people who share your dazzling social skills.

I will contend that there is no way the Canadian government is more corrupt than the United States Government, especially since much of the heart of U.S. corruption lies in the hallowed halls of the powerful Senate, which you don't have. Such stories of corruption are also commonplace here in the U.S. The difference is that Canada is corrupt towards the left, the U.S. towards the right. So choose your poison.

And frankly, the obnoxious little "Oooh I've lived in both countries so I know what's best!" argument is meaningless and only makes you look more like a condescending snot.

And I do post in hundreds of other threads, so I don't feel it should be different here. If you didn't want anyone but Canadians posting, you should have said so in the thread title or in your first post.

So suck eggs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I know you get your jollies off being a rude imp to people, but it doesn't do much to make folks amenable to your position.

You should download Denis Leary's "I'm an *******". It's an awesome song.

Maybe one of the reasons more Canadians don't support the Albertan right is that they are composed of people who share your dazzling social skills.

Nah, I'm not like most Albertans. notyoueither is a better example. I'm a disgruntled "extremist" with a temper, there's a difference.

I will contend that there is no way the Canadian government is more corrupt than the United States Government, especially since much of the heart of U.S. corruption lies in the hallowed halls of the powerful Senate, which you don't have. Such stories of corruption are also commonplace here in the U.S. The difference is that Canada is corrupt towards the left, the U.S. towards the right. So choose your poison.

By what stretch of the imagination do you think that having a regional-based Senate somehow encourages corruption instead of a first past the post system? Perhaps you should stick to Opera Singing, da?

And frankly, the obnoxious little "Oooh I've lived in both countries so I know what's best!" argument is meaningless and only makes you look more like a condescending snot.

Well, it's a far better position to be in than you. You've clearly demonstrated little to no knowledge of how Canada works, yet you've made contentions like there's no way Canada is more corrupt than the US, and a US style senate is a bad choice, etc.

You're talking out of your ass since you don't know any of the fundamental facts to even begin a debate. Which is why I've asked you to go away, it's just disrupting.

If you didn't want anyone but Canadians posting, you should have said so in the thread title or in your first post.

I don't mind non-Canadians posting in here, assuming they know something about how the systems work (which several Americans who have posted here have demonstrated). You do not.

So suck eggs.

After you've had them up your ass? I'll pass.

[chequita guevara]

Diable: the devil chicken of goats.com, "I'd like to buy my own senator."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher
By what stretch of the imagination do you think that having a regional-based Senate somehow encourages corruption instead of a first past the post system? Perhaps you should stick to Opera Singing, da?

When did I ever assert this? Sure as heck didn't.

Perhaps the forms of corruption are different, but the regional-based Senate is rife with corruption. Just look at the campaign finance debate here. You can buy a Senate seat for $30 million, as John Corzine proved in NJ. Look at the massive amount of pork that comes out of DC in every bill for every Senator's constituencies, excluding the ones who need the most aid from the government--the urban and rural poor.

Well, it's a far better position to be in than you.

Since when was equality of position necessary for debate? You elitist, you.

You've clearly demonstrated little to no knowledge of how Canada works, yet you've made contentions like there's no way Canada is more corrupt than the US, and a US style senate is a bad choice, etc.

I explicitly stated in an earlier post I know jack squat about Canada's system, other than it appears to be parliamentary, and I assume it runs on a standard parliamentary structure. Nonetheless, nothing I've said has relied on such a knowledge. I'm merely pointing out what I do know, and that is that the U.S. Senate is certainly a haven of corruption, and I believe it to be as much so, if not more, as the Canadian government by the sheer volume of material and money that passes through the US Chamber as opposed to Canada's.

You're talking out of your ass since you don't know any of the fundamental facts to even begin a debate. Which is why I've asked you to go away, it's just disrupting.

No, you've asked me to go away because you don't like my position and you don't want to face the fact that the Senate isn't an optimal way to go, either, it's just a new way to be corrupt. Maybe you'll like it because it will be corrupt more in your favor, but as I've said, I hope a better system could be devised.

After you've had them up your ass? I'll pass.

So young and so b*tchy...claws in you, cat!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher

While it is technically a democracy, it's still strictly rule of the majority.

If that's what you consider a true democracy, you're not technically wrong but I disagree with that philosophically.

But whatever, trample on the little people. There's not too many of them so they don't matter, at all...

It's pretty damn easy for people living in provinces that are on the receiving end of Ottawa's generosity continually to not see a problem with it, while others who are consistently on the end ignored by Ottawa see problems with it.

Voters in Alberta have been effectively marginalized by this setup, to the point where the Liberals don't even campaign here. Our interests, our needs, and our desires are simply not important. We're a minority. All Ottawa focuses on now is the majority. Good for you, bad for the country as a whole.

Someday you'll see that.

reason why geographical minorities need protections also.

Jon Miller

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
By what stretch of the imagination do you think that having a regional-based Senate somehow encourages corruption instead of a first past the post system?

Simple, in the American system one party tends to control the senate when another party controls the house. The only way to get things done is to "buy" votes. I'll support your bill if you support my bill. As a result, you get crazy legislation like the massive subsidies to farms. The majority of Americans are against these subsidies, but politicians from farm areas threaten to block other legislation if they don't get the subsidies. The same thing happens with dozens of other issues.

It could be argued that the American system creates too much power for the minority.

Your claim that the Liberals have complete power is false. They do not have full and unchecked power. Parliament's power is limited and checked by the Supreme Court of Canada. The 1982 Constitution gave the judicial arm extensive powers to control parliament.

You also seem to think that the majority is some type of homogeneous group. It is not. There are extensive divisions among people who voted for the Liberals and there are divisions within the Liberal Party, just as with any party.

Yoru example of election ads is ridiculous. Those types of ads appear in any type of elections. Just look at the ads that have been used in the States.

A true democracy is when decisions are made by representatives elected by the most votes.

What you are proposing will simply create barriers that prevent the will of the people from being exercised.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
When did I ever assert this? Sure as heck didn't.

Perhaps the forms of corruption are different, but the regional-based Senate is rife with corruption. Just look at the campaign finance debate here. You can buy a Senate seat for $30 million, as John Corzine proved in NJ. Look at the massive amount of pork that comes out of DC in every bill for every Senator's constituencies, excluding the ones who need the most aid from the government--the urban and rural poor.

Boris, a regional based senate is not any more prone to corruption than the first past the post system.

I know corruption exists in all governments (69% of Canadians surveyed believe the Liberals are corrupt in power as of 2 months ago).

Switching to a regional senate won't encourage more corruption, so why don't you just drop that silly argument and be done with it? If that's not what you're arguing, why are you off ranting about US Senate corruption?

Since when was equality of position necessary for debate? You elitist, you.

I would love to see a debate between a first grade student and a professor of economics about, say, economics. Equality isn't necessary, right?

I explicitly stated in an earlier post I know jack squat about Canada's system

Yet you feel the need to give input in how Canada's government should be run? If you're not doing that, you're threadjacking -- go away.

No, you've asked me to go away because you don't like my position and you don't want to face the fact that the Senate isn't an optimal way to go, either, it's just a new way to be corrupt. Maybe you'll like it because it will be corrupt more in your favor, but as I've said, I hope a better system could be devised.

Your position is nonexistant, you're upset the US Senate is corrupt. ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE CORRUPT. Making the Canadian Senate regional will not increase corruption -- just GO AWAY DAMNIT. You're not even DEBATING THE TOPIC. Do you even know the topic?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Simple, in the American system one party tends to control the senate when another party controls the house. The only way to get things done is to "buy" votes. I'll support your bill if you support my bill. As a result, you get crazy legislation like the massive subsidies to farms. The majority of Americans are against these subsidies, but politicians from farm areas threaten to block other legislation if they don't get the subsidies. The same thing happens with dozens of other issues.

This is complete bull, because I could write the same trite stuff but say that in order for the corporations to get their way they'd need to buy the votes of the left wing Liberal MPs under the current system.

Very nice try though. A for effort.

Your claim that the Liberals have complete power is false. They do not have full and unchecked power. Parliament's power is limited and checked by the Supreme Court of Canada. The 1982 Constitution gave the judicial arm extensive powers to control parliament.

The Liberals have shown a complete lack of respect for previous agreements with provinces, what's stopping them from doing it again? Who would stop them from ammending the constitution, even if they do it illegally?

You also seem to think that the majority is some type of homogeneous group. It is not. There are extensive divisions among people who voted for the Liberals and there are divisions within the Liberal Party, just as with any party.

Not when King Jean tells you which way to vote. Failure to do so results in demotion in the party, which is pretty much political suicide.

Yoru example of election ads is ridiculous. Those types of ads appear in any type of elections. Just look at the ads that have been used in the States.

Why hasn't the CRTC banned the use of such horribly blatant lies in advertisement? Should it not be illegal to spread blatant lies about the people running against you? Do you honestly think the Liberal government wouldn't use their power over the CRTC & Co to get the CA's ads pulled if they did the same thing?

A true democracy is when decisions are made by representatives elected by the most votes.

A true democracy is where everyone votes on every matter.

What you are proposing will simply create barriers that prevent the will of the people from being exercised.

The Will of the people?
Please.

Was it the will of the people to put a $1.50 tax to go straight to the record companies on CD-Rs?
Or how about the $20/GB tax on digital audio players, also go to the record company?

Woo, the people love that. Go Liberals!

[Boris Godunov]

Asher, these temper tantrums are really unbecoming of you. You'll get wrinkles really fast.

Yes, I know the topic. You're asserting the Senate will make things better. I do not believe they will.

Switching to a regional senate won't encourage more corruption, so why don't you just drop that silly argument

So what if it won't encourage more? I don't believe it will encourage less, and you seem comfortable with that possibly being the case. If there is no change in corruption, why bother changing it? Wouldn't you rather find a better answer than breaking even on corruption?

(I bet way more than 69% of Americans think their government is corrupt, btw)

Yes, I know the Topic. It's should Canada adopt a U.S.-Style Senate. And I'm saying no, because I know the U.S.-style Senate and think it's a crock of horse****. If you want a non-U.S. Style Senate, then that's different. But which is it you want?

And if you don't think I'm contributing, then just don't respond to me. That's far better than wasting your time and energy posting insulting, bitter threads that jack up your blood pressure and shave valuable moments off your life. Maybe you'll grow up someday and see that arguing with people doesn't necessitate becoming an angry, childish b!tch. In fact, that just makes your position look worse. Notice how you've chased away all the other pro-Senate posters with your behavior, as they likely don't want to be associated with it.

Chill out, relax, cut the caffeine. No wonder conservatives drop dead of strokes at 50 all the time.

[Asher]

BTW, Tingkai, who appoints the judges in the Judicial Branch?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
This is complete bull...

You can call it bull, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens.

Originally posted by Asher
The Liberals have shown a complete lack of respect for previous agreements with provinces, what's stopping them from doing it again? Who would stop them from ammending the constitution, even if they do it illegally?

Ever hear about a thing called rule of law? The courts have overturned unconstitutional laws on numerous occassions.

Originally posted by Asher
Not when King Jean tells you which way to vote. Failure to do so results in demotion in the party, which is pretty much political suicide.

This clearly indicates you have no idea about how leadership works. JC ability to stay in power is directly connected with his ability to bring together different viewpoints within the party. He is not a dictator.

Originally posted by Asher
Why hasn't the CRTC banned the use of such horribly blatant lies in advertisement? Should it not be illegal to spread blatant lies about the people running against you? Do you honestly think the Liberal government wouldn't use their power over the CRTC & Co to get the CA's ads pulled if they did the same thing?

It's called freedom of speech. If the Liberals are telling lies like you claim then it is up to the opposition to show that these are lies.

No Canadian political party would ever use the CRTC to silence another political party. Any attempt would be immediately blocked by the Supreme Court and any party that tried to do so would be kicked out of office.

When the Alberta Socreds tried to limit freedom of the press, they were blocked by the Supreme Court. Of course, the Albertans *****ed about how this was an example of the goddamn Easterners interfering in provincial rights.

Originally posted by Asher
Was it the will of the people to put a $1.50 tax to go straight to the record companies on CD-Rs?
Or how about the $20/GB tax on digital audio players, also go to the record company?

If they don't like it, they'll vote them out of power. Of course, that's assuming that there was alternative. Right now the Liberals suck, but alternative is even worse. That will change if the NDP can find an effective leader.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yes, I know the topic. You're asserting the Senate will make things better. I do not believe they will.

How would you know one way or another, you've said yourself you don't have a clue what Canada's like?

So what if it won't encourage more? I don't believe it will encourage less, and you seem comfortable with that possibly being the case. If there is no change in corruption, why bother changing it? Wouldn't you rather find a better answer than breaking even on corruption?

The problem isn't with corruption, it's with having safeguards to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Tingkai and KrazyHorse think a democracy is strictly about having what the majority want happen. Which even then isn't even true, that's why we have a Bill of Rights type thing.

Yes, I know the Topic. It's should Canada adopt a U.S.-Style Senate. And I'm saying no, because I know the U.S.-style Senate and think it's a crock of horse****. If you want a non-U.S. Style Senate, then that's different. But which is it you want?

You're saying no, and you openly admit to not knowing anything about Canada or what Canada needs. All you know is the US Senate is corrupt (go figure) and therefore no one needs it. Do you know how really dumb that is? Really?

In fact, that just makes your position look worse. Notice how you've chased away all the other pro-Senate posters with your behavior, as they likely don't want to be associated with it.

The position isn't viable for Canada anyway, most Canadians would never buy it. I'm not going to change the world by posting on Apolyton, that's not how the world works. I do this to blow off steam since we don't even get anyone listening to us when we do it IRL. Chretien would mumbles something and the Liberals would boo and the day would end.

Chill out, relax, cut the caffeine. No wonder conservatives drop dead of strokes at 50 all the time.

Just get out of the thread. My thread, my rules.

Perhaps you can come back after you do your research.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You can call it bull, but that doesn't change the fact that it happens.

It happens under all systems, it's bull that you're implying it happens more under a regional Senate.

Ever hear about a thing called rule of law? The courts have overturned unconstitutional laws on numerous occassions.

Yeah, kinda like a bunch of the stuff that came with the NEP. It took a long time, but they got their taxgrab's worth after the Supreme Court struck down the Liberal's greedy little hands. The damage had already been done, though.

This clearly indicates you have no idea about how leadership works. JC ability to stay in power is directly connected with his ability to bring together different viewpoints within the party. He is not a dictator.

OHHHHHHHHHH.
I see. See, the thing is, I see stuff all the time saying otherwise. People fear him in the party, because he determines if they're a cabinet minister or a backbencher. It's that simple. If they're a backbencher they can never become PM -- no one knows about them. And once they do become a cabinet minister and become too popular, Chretien FIRES them and demotes them back down to backbencher.

He's not a dictator, he's just an ******* who loves the spotlight and complete control.

It's called freedom of speech. If the Liberals are telling lies like you claim then it is up to the opposition to show that these are lies.

The US has laws against false advertising -- we don't?

No Canadian political party would ever use the CRTC to silence another political party. Any attempt would be immediately blocked by the Supreme Court and any party that tried to do so would be kicked out of office.

The CRTC should pull any ads that are false advertising. At least that's how it works for commercial companies, so why are Federal Government commercials exempt? Does it have anything to do with the Federal Government controlling the CRTC?

If they don't like it, they'll vote them out of power.

No, they won't. They'll vote them constantly in power. Canada is full of sheep. 69% believe the government is corrupt yet they don't want to reform it or elect a new government. What does that tell you about the attitudes of Canadians?

Canadians will live with it and just order the CDs from the states, like I do. It doesn't change the fact that they're NOT doing it in the interest of the people, in fact the recording industry has bribed them into passing such a law (include your stupid rant about corruption here).

[Boris Godunov]

Sorry, King Asher, but you don't get dictatorial control over who posts in your threads and who doesn't.

You seem to be forgetting that this is a wonderful opportunity to educate the unenlightened masses such as I about how Canada works and perhaps get people to support your position. Why not do that instead of telling people to go "do the research?" You're pretending your posts here are a lot more intelligent and in-depth than they really are. Your hermiting is really hampering your ability to conduct productive debates and just turning you into an obnoxious boor.

If Canada is need of government reform, that's fine, but I'd advocate looking elsewhere than the Senate to achieve the protection of "minority rights" (although you clearly only want to protect a certain minorty's rights, that of Alberta). The U.S. Senate was founded on the notion of the sovereignity of the states that were forming a union out of similar interests. One thing I know for a fact is that Canadian government was not founded in the same way and Canadian provinces do not exercise the autonomy U.S. States are given. Maybe you want to reverse-engineer the Canadian system to mimic the state structure, but I doubt such a backing-into-it approach to a state's rights format would work as well as you think it would.

And what about the minority of Alberta? Who protects those in Alberta who like and support what is going on in Ottawa and aren't the right-wing nutjobs? Does Alberta have a governing system that insures minority rights within its framework? If not, advocating such a thing on a national scale seems rather hypocritical.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Sorry, King Asher, but you don't get dictatorial control over who posts in your threads and who doesn't.

I can call for it to be closed, why can't I ask people to leave?

You seem to be forgetting that this is a wonderful opportunity to educate the unenlightened masses such as I about how Canada works and perhaps get people to support your position. Why not do that instead of telling people to go "do the research?" You're pretending your posts here are a lot more intelligent and in-depth than they really are. Your hermiting is really hampering your ability to conduct productive debates and just turning you into an obnoxious boor.

Because I'd rather not delve into the boring nature of Canada. The simple thing is for you to just not post in here if you don't know anything about the country in question. If you want to find out more, you're on the internet, there are thousands of websites on the matter.

If Canada is need of government reform, that's fine, but I'd advocate looking elsewhere than the Senate to achieve the protection of "minority rights" (although you clearly only want to protect a certain minorty's rights, that of Alberta).

Another example are Saskatchewan and Manitoba who are getting the cold shoulder from Ottawa when it comes to helping the farmers, simply because they're smaller provinces. The second the Ontario Auto Industry is in trouble, though, the Federal Government swoops in and saves the day.

And what about the minority of Alberta? Who protects those in Alberta who like and support what is going on in Ottawa and aren't the right-wing nutjobs? Does Alberta have a governing system that insures minority rights within its framework? If not, advocating such a thing on a national scale seems rather hypocritical.

What the hell, Boris? You're confusing provincial and federal governments.

There are essentially three regions in Alberta: Calgary, Edmonton, and Rural. All three are overwhelmingly rightwing (Edmonton has the odd Liberal but it's still mostly right wing).

There are tiny minorities in all regions that can never have their way (neo-fascists, communists, etc) because they're so tiny and their views so extreme.

The "minority" in this case represents about 35% of Canada's popular vote, while the current majority Liberal government received only 40%. There's actually not that much difference between them. But right now, it's ENTIRELY what those 40% of the people wanted, and the 35% who wanted otherwise can be totally ignored. Do you think that's right, Boris?