Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I know that this makes me seem like less of a westerner than I really am, but electing senators is not a good idea. The whole point of the senate is sober second thought, and really the last thing we need is another house of commons to deliberate bills that were already deliberated by the real house of commmons!
|
the Senate would be a good idea if it wasn't the last resting place for patronage in our government. Where you try to stack the body with friends who's only purpose is to pay back the favors that got you in there. The Senate right now accomplishes very little and to me is a governmental organ like a tail on a human. Combine that with the abuses that the member put it through (never showing up to work, expensing useless trips) and you have major problems. While an elected body might not be the answer, there needs to be some serious thought towards reforming the concept of the upper house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Stephen Harper is wrong on this point. If they want real change to the senate, its the other "E": Equal. As it stands now, you will elect a disproportionate number of senators and come out with the same results as a federal election. I don't think that we need more of the same! Either abolish the senate entirely, or make real changes. Otherwise, leave well enough alone!
|
I don't neccessarily believe that Harpers idea is a bad idea as it will bring some accountibility to the voters, something that the senate really lacks. And with the appointed senate you really have a disproportionate number of senators who are pretty much representing one party since the Libs were in power for so long they appointed a lot of thier friends and associates. I don't know how you can have an equal senate because of the population concerns. I don't agree with abolishing the senate, it should be an oversight body, but right now I don't think it fulfills that duty very well.