Klein warns Ottawa of separation threat

[Asher]

Or hey, maybe we could do the senate by contribution to the budget, and give it absolute control over the budget.

[Ben Kenobi]

The liberals Run candidates in every single riding in the country, and make a decent showing in all of them (minus, perhaps, some of Alberta's). The CA runs 50 or 60 serious candidates and 240 sacrificial lambs.

Frogger:

So what's the difference? Some of the Liberal candidates in Alberta are 'sacrificial lambs'. You never know 'till the election is over who is what.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Frogger


Nope. I already presented a pretty good, (in my mind) vision for reform of the Senate. It was also supposed to be a check on Commons and was to be elected in a different way than the Commons is. Scroll back to page 5 or 6.

If I had my druthers I'd just toss the Senate and use a unicameral Parliament, but most people don't seem to agree with me so I came up with a plan.

My settings are 50 posts per page so it's only on page 4 now I don't remember your senate reform package, but then I only went back to my page 3.

Yeah prop rep in a senate would be ... not bad.

What is a unicameral Parliament?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

So in other words, your "solution" is nothing but a duplicate of the house??

How the **** do you draw this conclusion?

Man, Asher, you're really stuck on this nonexistant divide between provinces. You still haven't adequately explained why somebody living in Western Ontario should have less say than somebody living in Eastern Manitoba.

And how would this system protect against tyranny of the majority if some party managed to pick up its majority by winning Quebec, Nfld, NS, NB, PEI and BC? And why would such a govenment have more of a legitimate popular mandate than one which wins Quebec and Ontario, two huge provinces with a lot of political diversity?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Garth Vader


My settings are 50 posts per page so it's only on page 4 now I don't remember your senate reform package, but then I only went back to my page 3.

Yeah prop rep in a senate would be ... not bad.

What is a unicameral Parliament?

Bicameral means two legislative chambers (Senate+Commons in Canada)

If we completely tossed the Senate we'd have a unicameral parliament composed only of one legislative chamber (Commons)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Frogger:

So what's the difference? Some of the Liberal candidates in Alberta are 'sacrificial lambs'. You never know 'till the election is over who is what.

I mentioned that some in Alberta were sacrificial lambs...but that may be 30 out of 300. The CA sacrifices 240 candidates. In Quebec they place behind the Marxist-Leninist party with ~1%

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Man, Asher, you're really stuck on this nonexistant divide between provinces. You still haven't adequately explained why somebody living in Western Ontario should have less say than somebody living in Eastern Manitoba.

Why is the concept of protecting the interests of the minority such a hard concept to follow...

Democracy should be about rule of the majority while protecting the interests of the minority. In Canada, it's strictly rule of majority. In the US, it's a "proper" democracy. How sad is it when Canada is a couple centuries behind the US in political systems?

The Senate doesn't create bills. Creating a US-style senate would allow the minority provinces a disproportionate say in okaying a bill, in the case that it hurts that specific province (such as raping it of its resources, neglecting it with funding, what kind of thing).

The only people who have a problem with such a system are those who are scared their free reign over the country is over.

And how would this system protect against tyranny of the majority if some party managed to pick up its majority by winning Quebec, Nfld, NS, NB, PEI and BC?

I'm not saying it's a perfect system. Just better than what we have by a longshot, and more producitve than a proportional representation system. Although I could live with PR Senate.

And why would such a govenment have more of a legitimate popular mandate than one which wins Quebec and Ontario, two huge provinces with a lot of political diversity?

You sure have a weird concept of political diversity for Ontario. Quebec is diverse, I'll give you that...

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, they've focussed on winning regional support (like the BQ does in Quebec). The Liberals want national support. Even the PC does a pretty decent job of attempting to appeal to all Canadians. They may only have 14% support...but that 14% comes from across the board.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
The Liberals want national support.

Where national is defined as "places other than Alberta".

Good point.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Why is the concept of protecting the interests of the minority such a hard concept to follow...

And how come the only minority you're interested in protecting are those living in small provinces? Why does the guy living in Manitoba need more protecting than the guy living in Kenora, Ontario? The Liberals care just as much about the guy in Manitoba, as long as there's a possibility they can get his vote without losing more votes somewhere else.

The "protection of minorities" is exactly what a Constitution is supposed to do. An undemocratic Senate is just an institutionalisation of electoral privilege for those who live in small provinces.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Where national is defined as "places other than Alberta".

Good point.

The Liberals want Alberta's 30 seats as much as they want Quebec's 30 BQ seats.

How do you propose they get them without losing more seats somewhere else?

The Liberals aren't in business to screw Alberta; they're in business to keep getting reelected for the next century, and they'll take any seat they can get. The CA is and remains the voice of Western discontent. Until they move their platform, they'll never get more than 1/3 of the seats that the Liberals have.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
And how come the only minority you're interested in protecting are those living in small provinces? Why does the guy living in Manitoba need more protecting than the guy living in Kenora, Ontario? The Liberals care just as much about the guy in Manitoba, as long as there's a possibility they can get his vote without losing more votes somewhere else.

The "protection of minorities" is exactly what a Constitution is supposed to do. An undemocratic Senate is just an institutionalisation of electoral privilege for those who live in small provinces.

Okay, I see what you're saying.
My focus was mostly on provincial minorities because of Ottawa's spotty record with being a bit too greedy and forthright in trampling provincial rights where they see fit, particularly where votes are considered expendible.

But at the same time, minority political voices in Kenora, Ontario are being unheard.



Two problems, both of which can be fixed by the senate.

Perhaps a PR Senate is the best way to go.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
The Liberals want Alberta's 30 seats as much as they want Quebec's 30 BQ seats.

Man, they didn't even campaign here. At all.

That tells you just how badly they want seats in Alberta.

How do you propose they get them without losing more seats somewhere else?

A good start would be to...I don't know...campaign...

The Liberals aren't in business to screw Alberta

No, they're in the business to appease the people who voted for them. Which makes sense, really.

Quebec and Ontario have hydro power. Hey, we can okay Kyoto. The province who'll get screwed by it doesn't vote for us anyway, right? Hell, just to be safe, we can exempt Ontario's auto industry...

The Liberals aren't in the business to screw Alberta, it's just that Alberta gets the shaft so the people in Ontario and Quebec can be happy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Frogger:

So you are saying the CA does not want votes in Quebec?

To quote the founder of the party:

'Ou est La Fontaine?'

I agree, the CA needs to do more to improve it's position in Quebec, but you don't improve votes by not running candidates.

Otherwise, they would rightfully fall to the charge: "just a regional party."

How do you propose they get them without losing more seats somewhere else?

Good question. See the above quote. Federalists in Quebec should support the Canadian Alliance in order to preserve Canada, since the Liberals are not a canada wide party.

More than 2/3 of the Liberal seats are in one province, Ontario, a larger proportion than any other 'regional party' excluding the BQ.

[KrazyHorse]

So you are saying the CA does not want votes in Quebec?

I'm saying that the CA isn't willing to significantly alter its position to be more mainstream in order to appeal to a broader support base. They've got Alberta locked up, and some other seats in the West, but haven't shown any signs of becoming the sort of broad coalition party that the Liberals are.