Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
Wouldn't it just be easier to abolish the Senate than to try to effectively incorporate it into a bicameral system? How much power does the Senate currently have, and would electing its members actually increase its power/influence to the point where it could stop legislation by itself? Seems easier just to let the House run everything (just like it does now) and eliminate the layer of red tape/bureaucracy. I suppose the other choice is to reform the whole system to include a more powerful Senate... sounds like a lot of work to me I guess.
|
Easier? Maybe. Better? Definitely not. If you ever had a majority government they could then do whatever they wanted with no checks. (Very similar to what we have now.)
THE reason the upper house is ineffective now is because they are not elected. How can people who are not elected represent a democracy? They can't. So you make them elected and you allow them to utilize their rights to stop legislation. They have the legal right to now, just not the moral right. Electing them gives them not only a moral right, but a moral obligation to use their powers.