Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
It's interesting that you mentioned Rhode Island. Let's contrast that state with our smallest province, PEI.
Rhode Island has a population of just over 1 million, or roughly 0.3% of the national population. PEI has a population of about 140,000, about 0.4% of the total national population. Yet in the US senate, Rhode island has only 2% of the total seats, whereas PEI, under your "two senators per province" proposal, would have 10% of the total representation. How can you justify that?
|
To use another US example... California has 33,871,648 people, or roughly 12% of the national population. Yet, in the US senate, California has only 2% of the total seats. How do they justify that? Simple. Each State is a member of the Union. As a member of the union, you are entitled to 2 senators, and 1 representative, plus additional representatives proportional to population relative to the rest of the country.
Canada has 10 full members of its union. That means there's 20 senators. If Canada had 50 full members, then it would be 100.
Its called equal suffage. Its the same principle behind why rich people don't have more votes than poor people, since they do technically put a lot more into the country's coffers. Just because PEI is population poor relative to Ontario, doesn't mean it shouldn't get the same basic Senatorial vote.
PEI is already 4 times more represented than they should be in Parliament, if the country switched to the US method, they would have one MP, and 2 senators... much more egalitarian to the rest of the country, and their trade off would be in the senate. Ontario's tradeoff would be greater sway in Parliament, despite being a bit player in Senate. They would have 126 out of 326 seats, and 2 senators. Alberta's tradeoff would be to have an average and equal factor in both houses... 34/326, and 2/20 senators... effectively 10% of each.