[Curtman]

Unsound wrote:

I think the reason for caring is that if they do start putting elected senators in, it gives them a little more legitimacy to stop being a rubber-stamp kind of place. And of course, the rubber stampingdoesn't always happen as smooth as some governments would like either... remember the GST?

I remember the GST.. When the Liberal senate tried to stop it, and Brian Mulroney created new senate seats so he could appoint rubber stamp senators to pass the GST legislation.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce wrote:

Well, I'm glad smoking drugs is at the top of your priority list.

Well I'm horrified that after all this time, your simplistic view of things prevents you from seeing that reducing violent organized crime is, and that smoking drugs is no where on it.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Like I said, Harper has a majority in the Senate (65 of 103) or close to two thirds - he hardly needs to keep padding the lead - especially when he's the only PM in decades not to appoint people from outside of his party. A pity appointment or two would go a long way to making him not seem like such an ogre.

Sorry boots, gotta correct you again.

Harper has 65 of 105, not even close to 2/3's. 61%

Pity appointments are worthless, symbolic gestures that people on either side will find a way to criticize. He'll take just as much heat for a pity appointment as he will stacking the Senate....so you might as well stack the Senate and take the heat.

You're seriously going to quibble over 5%? Really? Even after I said, "close to two thirds" - which 61% is in the eyes of most people I've ever met.

Whatever - keep drinking the blue kool-aid.

[bootlegga]

Unsound wrote:

As for Boot's point about only conservatives running in the senate races... who's fault is that? I'm sure they were open to all parties. If the conservatives were the only ones who thought it was worth doing... more power to 'em.

I wonder if your POV would eb the same if only NDP candidates had been selected...or only Liberal ones.

That's not meant to be a partisan attack, but a serious question if you really think that having only one party in an election makes any sense in a democracy.

IMHO, it makes a mockery of democracy, just like the 'elections' in Communist countries during the Cold War.

[Unsound]

bootlegga wrote:

IMHO, it makes a mockery of democracy, just like the 'elections' in Communist countries during the Cold War.

The difference being, anyone from any party could have run in those elections. The fact that the other parties didn't choose to run a candidate is their fault, and their fault alone.

Hopefully the othe parties will run candidates next time. I'll vote for a liberal or NDP senator, just in the hope of seeing if the PM will appoint an elected senator from a different party. That'll be the real test imo.

[EyeBrock]

Scrap the Senate. Waste of time, money and effort.

[RUEZ]

EyeBrock wrote:

Scrap the Senate. Waste of time, money and effort.

Here here, we can use the money we save to pay for the new mp's we're being saddled with.