[Canadian_Mind]

I know it comes up all the time. Frankly to see the debate cycle over and over again is rather dissapointing, and I've never liked the options.

So here's my take. Democracy is supposed to be a government of the people. While you're average joe shouldn't be expected to draft bills the way our MPs do, there is no justifyable reason why he/she shouldn't be able to review it and either approve or deny. I'm not talking about referendums, but reforming how our senate functions. Much as it is a civic duty to be on a jury, why can't it be a civic duty to serve in the senate if summoned? Allow a certain number of people from each province/territory, then hold a lottery or get a computer to select peoples SINs.

After that, function could be in several fashions. People could either be required to hold a term, or selected on a law-by-law basis.

Either way, you would now have direct involvement of the canadian public. No matter how in tune with their constituents, no MP or senator is able to see the issues from the perspectove of the general population like a member of the general population can. And being a random draw, not an election, you will have a diverse range of political opinion that is current and reflective of the overall population.

I don't know if this kind of idea has been brought up before. But I'm curious to see what other peoples thoughts are?

[bootlegga]

In some ways, it's a good idea (randomness, civic duty, etc) but it basically is conscripting people to do it, and that is probably the biggest problem right there.

Would everyone of voting age be eligible for this database? Can people 'opt out' (by paying a fee or doing some other civic service) if they so desire?

Could you drop everything on your plate and become a Senator if you were selected tomorrow? What happens to your career? Or your job? Are you going to force employer's to hold someone's job for 4 years or 6 years (or however long the term is)?

How will this affect your family life if you are expected to fly off on Monday morning and spend the week in Ottawa? Or do you pay for relocating all those people (and their families) to Ottawa for the term? If you relocate them, what compensation do you give the spouse for giving up his/her job?

Would you let some people 'work from home' and telecommute, or would they have to physically be present in Ottawa each week the Senate is in session?

On the surface, I like the idea, but it would need a lot of work.

[DrCaleb]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

No matter how in tune with their constituents, no MP or senator is able to see the issues from the perspectove of the general population like a member of the general population can.

One of the benefits of being Senator-for-life is you can take up a cause, and follow it and progress it for many decades on end. The general population is unable to follow the minute details that such a long relationship can have.

You can also move to Mexico, never show up in the house and still collect a paycheque!

As far as Senate Reform goes, I'm still a Triple-E guy.

[Unsound]

i was triple-E for a long time, but now I'm stgarting to lean more toward abolition.

I think that if we give the senate more liegitimacy through elections and such, it's more likely to flex it's muscles and constrict government, mucgh lilke what we see happening in the states all the time lately.

The senate's original prurpose was to defend the interests of the provinces afaik, but it seems to me the premiers have been doing more and more of that on their own. Do the provonces really need a bunch of people living in Ottawa(or wherever) to do what the elected premiers are already doing?

[Thanos]

The US Senate serves the vital role of being a bulwark against the rampant populism and urges towards mob rule that dominates the House of Representatives. Without the Senate the only thing that would prevent a really nasty tyranny of the majority coming out of the House would be the Presidential veto, and too much use of the veto to stop the House would essentially result in a permanently paralyzed government. That would be great according to the tiny minority of anti-government, libertarian, and crypto-anarchist weirdos but it would truly suck for the vast majority of everyone else.

Direct democracy, when it's guided by the chaos of populism, has been a disaster everywhere it's been tried. Maybe it works in some places on a local level where politics can't cause that much damage when they go bad, but on higher levels (state/province, federal, international) it shouldn't even be considered at all. An upper house with defined powers is essential to serve the purposes of the electorate and the state. If anything the upper houses should be even more powerful than they are now, not less.

[Canadian_Mind]

The thing about people being able to opt-out is that you would lose true randomness and diversity. Unless you had a cause to defend or were a stout patriot, why wouldn't you opt-out? This would invariably lead in some degree to special interest groups in a dominant position in the senate.

I wasn't thinking of terms that long. If a sitting term system were followed, I'd say maximum one year. A lot can change back home in a year, so you can't say for sure that a person from a given location would still be in touch with the local needs, issues, and priorities. This is why I considered having people selected on a per-bill basis where a new group is selected for each bill, or a bill cycle: 5 bills lined up, all reviewed over a 2 week period by same group of people. Next 5 bills the next 2 weekd by a different group, etc.

If it is sitting terms, I'd expect very advanced notification so as to allow a person to properly prepare themselves. If it is on a per-bill or bill cycle basis, it shouldn't be difficult to displace a person for a week to a month, compensate them for lost wages, and carry on from there.

Saying all that boots, I actually like your idea for a teleconference/communication. Even if it were a forum one simply were to log in to for definition, discussion, debate, etc. I'd think voting should be done by a far more secure medium (in person).

Dr. Caleb, you shouldn't be on the public dime to fight for a special cause or interest. I get what you mean, but those kinds of pursuits the parties in the house should be responsible for.

Unsound, to me an elected senate is pointless for the reasons you stated. It'd be the same as having two houses and would invartiably lead to conflict and dysfunction far more than any minority government ever did. Saying that, I do believe there is a need for a senate to ensure that what the MPs are drafting is actually good for the people and not for special interest groups/corporations/etc.

[Unsound]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Saying that, I do believe there is a need for a senate to ensure that what the MPs are drafting is actually good for the people and not for special interest groups/corporations/etc.

It's a sound theory, but in practice is the senate actually any less partisan or short-sighted than the house? I don't see it beng so, and can't think of a way to ensure that it would be.

[martin14]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

The thing about people being able to opt-out is that you would lose true randomness and diversity. Unless you had a cause to defend or were a stout patriot, why wouldn't you opt-out? This would invariably lead in some degree to special interest groups in a dominant position in the senate.

I would support people becoming Senators who DIDN't want the job.


Triple E still the best way forward, but it's such a mess now,
no one has the balls or support to change it.

[saturn_656]

I don't care as much about this issue as I used to, Canada is increasingly being ruled from the bench.

[Thanos]

Unsound Unsound:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Saying that, I do believe there is a need for a senate to ensure that what the MPs are drafting is actually good for the people and not for special interest groups/corporations/etc.

It's a sound theory, but in practice is the senate actually any less partisan or short-sighted than the house? I don't see it beng so, and can't think of a way to ensure that it would be.

I'd hate to think of how much worse things in the US would have been the last three or four years if the Senate hadn't been there to restrain the worst of the anarchy the Tea Party types in the House have been trying to unleash on the American citizenry.

[Archten]

Canada needs an elected Senate. It is simplistic, even insulting, to have the ruling party nominate Senators and we have seen the results, over and over and over and over..... A Senate's primary function is to mitigate the possible totalitarian behaviour of a majority government. It is even more important in a Parliamentary system as there is no executive branch: the elected representatives fall in line to THEIR elected party leader: I really don't care too much who the leader of any particular party is, but the leader of my country? That's a whole different position of power and responsibility.

A secondary Senate function, almost as important, is a more effective representation of geographical values unfettered by economic or population distribution of the nation's geography: in an elected Senate, Prince Edward Island would have an equal voice to Ontario. THIS IS IMPORTANT, especially in Canada. One house dominated by Ontario and Quebec is enough.

Last I heard, the arguments holding back a representative Senate are based on minutia and tactical stalls, such as who would pay for the election: the provinces or the feds? That answer is obvious: it's a federal position, the federal parties pay for it. In addition, provincial Premiers have NOTHING to say about it, it is a federal house, END OF STORY. In addition, Canadians have an excellent opportunity to create the rules for electing reps for this house, such as how candidate campaigns are financed, creating mandatory structured election dates, possibly even a recall clause to keep the representative's leash both real and tight to name just a few.

The most important qualities though, are spelled out in the title: Triple 'E': 2, possibly 3 senators for each province, elected by the province they represent and given the power to challenge the parliamentary government as necessary to ensure a more democratic platform: I am really tired of having to live with the governments Ontario and Quebec elect and ashamed of having to support a prime minister that knows absolutely no fear so long as their party has one more vote than the combined opposition.

A Triple 'E' Senate is no cure-all, not even close. It should, however, be able to challenge a government when, say, it moves to shovel another omnibus bills down our throats, threatens our national resources, personal safety and health by silencing and firing our own scientists or shows the world how inept we are upgrading our national defence systems with submarines or jet aircraft and then lectures other nations on fiscal responsibility.

[Thanos]

It remains a great idea that'll never happen in anyone's lifetime.

[Freakinoldguy]

Thanos Thanos:

Unsound Unsound:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Saying that, I do believe there is a need for a senate to ensure that what the MPs are drafting is actually good for the people and not for special interest groups/corporations/etc.

It's a sound theory, but in practice is the senate actually any less partisan or short-sighted than the house? I don't see it beng so, and can't think of a way to ensure that it would be.

I'd hate to think of how much worse things in the US would have been the last three or four years if the Senate hadn't been there to restrain the worst of the anarchy the Tea Party types in the House have been trying to unleash on the American citizenry.

To bad they have a real Senate and we have an unelected body of political appointees that use the term Sober Second Thought as the mantra for fooling the public into believing they actually have any real authority or ability to influence law or policy making.

Sorry, but it's like comparing apples and oranges. Until we either abolish it or turn it into a functioning body of government like the US Senate we're going to see more Duffy's, Wallins and Harb's, political affiliation not withstanding.

[Jabberwalker]

The paradox is that any party that gets enough power and position to change the Senate will not because the Senate is a part of the machine that brought them power and position. We've just seen that happen.

[Archten]

For once we Canadians should be a little less typical as complacent, polite Canadians: Make noise, get mad as hell and not take it any more. We have the option, and the responsibility, to demand an end to an appointed Senate, to demand an effective Senate, one of equal representation and not settle for anything less.