[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20061217" target="_blank">Neanderthal Reforms</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> December 17, 2006

Prime Minister Harper has formally unveiled his plan to make Canada\'s senate an elected body, ending his previous vague statements on the matter. <br> <br>Under the Harper plan, at the next election Canadian voters who live in provinces with Senate vacancies will get to vote for their choice of replacement senators from a list of candidates. The ranked list will then be given to the PM, who will supposedly \"consult\" it the next time he appoints someone. <br> <br>It\'s not a perfect plan by any stretch, but what is incredible is the amount of vitriolic opposition this plan has generated from the opposition parties, as well as many of the provincial premiers. No one wants to talk about senate reform ever, it seems, and whenever someone like Harper dares bring it up, the chorus of \"shut ups\" are loud and long.

[Rhoffman]

uhhh.... the process, while seemingly a right step towards uh.... oh, I don't know, actually having a sensible, two-chamber democratic legislature, the idea seems little more than a convoluted and almost worthless attempt to just appease those advocating reform. The idea that people are virulently opposed to such a half-assed measure is astonishing. Having a second house of the Parliament, being entirely independent of the House of Commons and featuring set terms would in and of itself bring more accountability to the government at large and would even allow minority parties to have a say when the House of Commons is held by a single party for a prolonged period.

eh, I guess there's a reason why the 17th Amendment happens to be one of my favorites.

[PTBO]

Personally I dont think the Senate should be accountable to the public. I used to be for abolishing the Senate like the NDP but I realized that Senate Committees come out with some very interesting non-partisan recommandations because they not under strict party control and they aren't subject to fluctuations of public opinion. For example the Senate has come out for full legalization of marijuana, breaking up our media coglomarates, and suspending all oversea duty for our armed forces so they can rebuild.

But the problem is when the government just ignores their advice completely as Martin was good at and Harper is apt at doing. I think senators should be elected (this would get rid of patronage) but only to one really long term- say 8 or maybe 10 years. And at the very least NB and NS should each give up 4 seats knocking them down to 6 and give them to BC and AB bringing them up to 10. Times have changed since the 19th century.

And the Senate has to be a body of sober second thought not just some yes man body. The only time recently it has stopped something is the Accountability Act cause I guess it wasn't strong enough so they got the opposition to make 90 changes- probably in reponse to Gomry's comment about the Act- "it doesnt really address the meat of my recommandations". That's the way the Senate is supposed to work.

[RUEZ]

PTBO wrote:

Personally I dont think the Senate should be accountable to the public.

So I'm confused. You think the senate should be elected but not accountable to the public?

[PTBO]

Quote:

Quote:

PTBO wrote:
Personally I dont think the Senate should be accountable to the public.

So I'm confused. You think the senate should be elected but not accountable to the public?

Yep thats right. They should be elected (to end patronage) to one really long term. So they can continue making constructive non-partisan recommandations-I dont see the point of the just making a another HoC.

[camerontech]

PTBO wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

PTBO wrote:
Personally I dont think the Senate should be accountable to the public.

So I'm confused. You think the senate should be elected but not accountable to the public?

Yep thats right. They should be elected (to end patronage) to one really long term. So they can continue making constructive non-partisan recommandations-I dont see the point of the just making a another HoC.

I would love the see the candidates campaign for a non-patisan position. But somehow I highly doubt that's ever going to happen.

[CanadianJeff]

As far as I know have there been problems with the senate?

Nope. Why change what already works.

[RUEZ]

CanadianJeff wrote:

As far as I know have there been problems with the senate?

Nope. Why change what already works.

Some people have a strange need for elected members of the senate. Elected Senators in a democracy? What will they think of next?

[lonewolf23k]

Looks to me as if the Opposition's just splitting hairs with Harper...

[Jabrwock]

PTBO wrote:

Yep thats right. They should be elected (to end patronage) to one really long term. So they can continue making constructive non-partisan recommandations-I dont see the point of the just making a another HoC.

I'm not entirely sure how that makes things better. I mean they just have to lie during one election then. If they're caught you can't elect the other guy next time.

But I suppose the appointed senate has the same problem.

Some have made a valid point though, what's the use of 2 elected houses? Both will be split along roughly the same party lines, just like in the US. At that point you might as well just merge the two.

While appointments do seem "undemocratic", they are a bit of a braking force against any radical changes to law. Especially since the senators don't have an electorate to answer to, so they aren't necessarily bound by party lines, or making strategic votes just to ensure their re-election.

I do see this as an attempt to get the provinces involved in recommending appointments, but it doesn't really change anything. I mean the PM is still free to ignore the election results. I think the provinces' biggest beef right now is that they want better representation in the senate, rather than a change in how the senate is appointed. Alberta right now wants more senators, since it's population is rapidly increasing...

[Psudo]

Rhoffman wrote:

eh, I guess there's a reason why the 17th Amendment happens to be one of my favorites.

Have you read anything about the arguments for repealing the 17th Amendment? Here's a simple one from Montana State Senator Jerry O'Neil that I like.

The 17th Amendment is one of my favorite political topics of conversation.

[Pitchfork]

Old Watergate hound John Dean also discussed problems with the 17th Amendment. Zell Miller also criticized it after he announced he was retiring from the Senate.

[JJ]

As far as the Senate's brilliant "non partisan" recommendations go, as far as I am concerned that's why we have think-tanks. I don't care to have my tax dollars funding the salaries of 100 hacks who occasionally might come out with a slightly innovative suggestion that will later be ignored entirely.

Also, even if Senators sometimes act reasonably non-partisan while in office, it should be clear that the appointment process is the most disgustingly partisan process imaginable. The present senate is just a collection of failed candidates, party bureaucrats, fundraisers, and countless other old men and women who have been rewarded for their loyalty to whatever party was in power at the time.

I am of the belief that we should either have a triple E senate (elected and equal representation) or no senate at all. And since I think the stupidity of making Prince Edward Island a separate province has forever ruined the possibility of having an equal senate, I am leaning towards just abolishing the whole institution.

[Jabrwock]

JJ wrote:

As far as the Senate's brilliant "non partisan" recommendations go, as far as I am concerned that's why we have think-tanks. I don't care to have my tax dollars funding the salaries of 100 hacks who occasionally might come out with a slightly innovative suggestion that will later be ignored entirely.

As opposed to what happens to recommendations from actual thinktanks?

Quote:

I am of the belief that we should either have a triple E senate (elected and equal representation) or no senate at all.

I like the idea of elected senators, but only if the ability to offset the current government control is kept intact (long term limits, or something like that). Otherwise you might as well just dissolve the senate altogether.

[Kjorteo]

Jabrwock wrote:

Some have made a valid point though, what's the use of 2 elected houses? Both will be split along roughly the same party lines, just like in the US. At that point you might as well just merge the two.

The difference in the United States is that each house is a different answer to the question of how to keep state representation more or less equal. It's a known fact that big cities and densely-populated areas are more liberal than rural farm and ranch areas and places with low population. (With the possible exception of Salt Lake City, Utah.) So, how do you represent each state in one big Congress?

If each state has direct equal representation, it skews the balance of power sharply in favor of the sparsely-populated areas. California has more population than any three small states like Wyoming or Montana combined, but in an equal-representation system, would be outvoted three-to-one by them. That's hardly fair to the extra people in California, who are essentially wasted.

In a direct popular vote system, or a district-level system with representatives based on population, the problem still exists but the other way around. This is more or less what you see in Presidential elections. California has 55 electoral votes, Wyoming has three, and that's after everyone gets a flat +2 just for having Senators. If districts were all that mattered, any President could just take the approach of hitting every major city (San Francisco, Denver, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.) and completely ignoring the lesser states. That's also essentially what would happen in Congress, as the small states are just too small to have a say whenever the big cities want to do something under this system.

So, they came up with the system we have. The House of Representatives works on a district level, seats according to population. Meanwhile, the Senate has two seats per state, period. To top it off, the House and Senate have to agree before a law is passed. It's a brilliant compromise. My only complaint is that too much importance is placed on the Senate (Senators getting six-year terms instead of two, a Representative running for Senator is seen as a "promotion," they're the only house that gets to deliberate on Presidental appointments, etc.) when the two should ideally be equal.