Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
The only reason I don't like the idea of an elected Senate is I don't like the thought of another house as dysfunctional as the cluster**** we have just gone through.
I would agree to a lot of changes, but seeing partisan politics x2 and elections x2 would suck. Set term limits, age limits, one term per member, minimum attendance requirements, etc, but once appointed I want smart people weighing the bills based up their own knowledge, not based on what party whip has told them to do. A Senator should not be beholden to anyone beyond the the Canadian public. Not appeasing a political party, not positioning himself for re-election, but for doing the right thing as he sees it to be. A naïve wish, but how I see it.
|
Agreed.
The ideal situation would be to have elected senators from each province, with no party affiliation. They should vote according to what is in the best interests of their province.
I am also happy with the proposal of a fixed 8 year term. Also I believe Senate elections should be staggered. So that every 2 years, 1/4 of the Senate seats are up for renewal. That way you will always be getting new people in there, with new ideas.
I would also like to see more of a balanced number of seats allotted to each province as in the Triple E Senate
‘Triple-E’ Proposals: An Equal, Elected & Effective Senate
During the 1980s, a new approach to Senate reform, commonly referred to as the “Triple-E Senate,” began to receive public and scholarly attention. This approach to reform supports a Senate that is:
- Equal: A reformed Senate should have greater equality in provincial representation, with a more equal distribution of Senate seats among provinces.
- Elected: The Senate should be more democratic with members directly elected by citizens, rather than being appointed by the federal government.
- Effective: The Senate should have effective legislative powers, which it could use to play a greater role in the federal legislative process.