themasta themasta:
SprCForr SprCForr:
So why not keep Senators from affiliating with a party? If they were accountable solely to their electorate, then they would have to represent those people who elected them. They would be rising or sinking strictly on their own merit. By keeping the Senate's ability to sink bills, wouldn't it then keep alot of the BS out and reflect what the people want, not what the ruling party desires?
There's the problem right there "ruling party". That's bullshit. When an election is called you elect a representative who should be there for you, not his party. Basically, by creating an elected Senate as you've proposed, we are fixing a problem in the HofC which is that it has become party dominated. MP's should be representing their constituencies, not their parties. Why not fix what's broken rather than trying to band-aid the problem with an elected Senate.
How do you suppose we elect a Senate without using the party system? How do you suppose we elect anybody on a basis larger than municipal without using the party system? It's impossible or impossibly expensive. How do individual candidates advertise? How do they make their views public in comparison to other individual candidates? With an elected Senate, half of Canada would be voting for people they know nothing about.
I agree with your views in your last post SprCForr, especially withe whole Conservative example wich is very true for many people here in Alberta. But I just don't see how the whole thing is possible. Unless individual Senators are elected, then the Senate really is just an other House of Commons. The only viable way to solve the problem really is Senators who are unbound by party platforms, but how caould it be done? This is not Athens of 450. B.C., such a direct form of democracy is not possible.