Electing Senators

[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!

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!

[Looger]

i've always thought the idea of protecting minority rights with an elected body was the stupidest idea i have almost ever heard.

just more of the dog-and-pony show, the idea that people think this is an issue at all is stunning.

[Agamemnon]

Wouldn't it take some sort of constitutional amendment to change the structure and government functions of the Senate? Or can they just amend it however they want through legislation?

[Resolute 14]

Real change would require a radical change in thought on the left - specifically the Liberals. Baby steps is all Harper can do, atm.

Get people used to the idea of having a say in who represents them (Democracy, what a concept!), then hopefully a little more can be added (true elected senators), then hopefully the other two E's fall into place.

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

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.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Wouldn't it take some sort of constitutional amendment to change the structure and government functions of the Senate? Or can they just amend it however they want through legislation?

From what I understand they would need to re-open the constitution for a radical change to the government structure, I don't think it can be amended through the house.

Besides if it could be amended the Senate would have final oversight and would probably vote it down.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Real change would require a radical change in thought on the left - specifically the Liberals. Baby steps is all Harper can do, atm.

Get people used to the idea of having a say in who represents them (Democracy, what a concept!), then hopefully a little more can be added (true elected senators), then hopefully the other two E's fall into place.

That would be awesome in theory, but people can't even be bothered to get off their asses and vote in the current federal, provincial, or municipal elections. Will having another decision to make people more willing to participate? And as the initial poster said, is a representative senate going to decrease the effieciency of an already slow moving process?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Wouldn't it take some sort of constitutional amendment to change the structure and government functions of the Senate? Or can they just amend it however they want through legislation?

Actually it won't, at least along the current proposal. The idea is to have provinces elect senators in waiting, who are then appointed by the PM. So even though it is for all intents an elected senate, it is still technically appointed by the PM. Assuming it withstands any legal challenges, it's a pretty clever solution.

I'd be very curious to see the national response to this. I seem to recall that when Alberta first elected senators in waiting, there was a huge number of spoiled or blank ballots--something like 40% as a protest of the idea of an elected senate. And even during the most recent election, the spoil rate was 20%. And this is in the province where the notion is supposedly universally endorsed. If senates were elected nationally, we might see a spoiled-ballot rate above 50% nationally.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Slava

The whole point of the senate is sober second thought,

... And right now it isn't that. It is just a place which is a blatent waste of tax payer's money.

Either make it something useful or remove it altogether.

Right now our sober 2nd thought is the attorney General/Queen (if it ever came to that), the senate is a rubber stamp.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

... And right now it isn't that. It is just a place which is a blatent waste of tax payer's money.

Either make it something useful or remove it altogether.

Right now our sober 2nd thought is the attorney General/Queen (if it ever came to that), the senate is a rubber stamp.

Our sober 2nd thought is sheila frasier, oh wait she's the pucker factor.

[Vulcan]

Pretty much agree with Snakeeye on this. I would like elected senators. Their will be a little less pork barreling and little more accountabilty.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Igottago

That would be awesome in theory, but people can't even be bothered to get off their asses and vote in the current federal, provincial, or municipal elections. Will having another decision to make people more willing to participate? And as the initial poster said, is a representative senate going to decrease the effieciency of an already slow moving process?

Depends. I suspect that most people who dont vote now would not with elected Senators either. For some, probably a small minority, it might encourage them as they might begin to believe their vote may count for something. Especially people in those provinces not named Ontario and Quebec.

However, for those of us who do care, and want the right to determine who represents us in government, it is a good thing.

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'd be very curious to see the national response to this. I seem to recall that when Alberta first elected senators in waiting, there was a huge number of spoiled or blank ballots--something like 40% as a protest of the idea of an elected senate. And even during the most recent election, the spoil rate was 20%. And this is in the province where the notion is supposedly universally endorsed. If senates were elected nationally, we might see a spoiled-ballot rate above 50% nationally.

I very, very, very strongly doubt that 40% of voters deliberately spoiled their ballots as a protest. 40% of ballots may have been spoiled, but I suspect someone is revising history as to why.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

I very, very, very strongly doubt that 40% of voters deliberately spoiled their ballots as a protest. 40% of ballots may have been spoiled, but I suspect someone is revising history as to why.

Nope, not revisionist history; you might remember that there was a very vocal 'spoil your ballot' campaign that received considerable play in the media, especially in Edmonton where it was endorsed by the Edmonton Journal. I can't find the percentage of ballots spoiled (I'm doing my best to track it down); I may be way off the mark with 40%, but I do remember that it was much higher than anyone anticipated, prompting Preston Manning to complain that the media and the opposition had 'confused' voters on the issues.

[Slava]

I don't know about the figures regarding spoiled ballots. I know that there was a campaign to have people do this. I personally always vote (even for civic elections!) but not many others do. I took that opportunity to refuse my senatorial ballot. I agree with a lot of whats been said here; I think that the senate is ineffective as it is now.

But my train of thought is this:

A) The senate is supposed to provide sober second thought.
B) To get this, you cannot choose senators in the same way, or you'll likely get the same results.
C) We already have disproportionate representation, based on population.
D) If we elect senators we will have more representation based on population, and basically end up with twice the problem.

Lastly, if Harper is such an idealist on democracy then why did he appoint Fortier to the senate right after the election?

[Cube Inmate]

Certain people throw around the term "sober second thought" as if it's entirely clear what McDonald meant. How about a definition of this, rather than rhetoric?

Sir John's idea of "sober second thought" was more along the lines that he believed there should be a group of educated, wealthy people overseeing the commoners (who were susceptible to wild flights of populist hysteria). It reeks of "nobility" as it stands now. In practice, though, it's all about patronage. In either case, it's not right...I'm not prepared to be governed by the "nobility," nor do I think I should be governed by someone whose appointment is based on favours, rather than qualifications.

The intent of politicians 140 years ago is irrelevant at this point. Defend the senate for its merits if you can, but not based on what someone like McDonald may have said (or meant).

Re: the Harper proposal...it's a first step. Nothing more or less.

We can continue to curb the "wild" tendencies of populism even if the senate is elected--terms of 12 years (e.g.) would be long enough to insulate the senate from the whims of the electorate. Electing 1/3 of the house every 4 years in conjunction with a general election would also even out some of the ups and downs of politics.

A single-term limit would also insulate senators from partisan influences. Now, you might argue that this will also keep them unaccountable since they won't have to answer to the electorate twice...that is true, but it's certainly not any worse than the current system. A step in the right direction.

[Looger]

the senate is an undemocratic function of our system.

if that rubs you the wrong way then maybe it's time for it to go.

but replacing it with a body that's in any way elected is totally pointless, instead of having one wasteful and ponderous elected body we would have two???

who thinks of this stuff? deal with the fact that we have a house of lords, or abolish it altogether.

this is a ridiculous debate.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Nope, not revisionist history; you might remember that there was a very vocal 'spoil your ballot' campaign that received considerable play in the media, especially in Edmonton where it was endorsed by the Edmonton Journal. I can't find the percentage of ballots spoiled (I'm doing my best to track it down); I may be way off the mark with 40%, but I do remember that it was much higher than anyone anticipated, prompting Preston Manning to complain that the media and the opposition had 'confused' voters on the issues.

No, I remember the "spoil your ballot" campaign. I just don't buy that every single spoiled ballot was the result of that. I suspect that many simply spoiled their ballots by voting for 1, 2, 3, or 5 candidates instead of four.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Looger

the senate is an undemocratic function of our system.

if that rubs you the wrong way then maybe it's time for it to go.

but replacing it with a body that's in any way elected is totally pointless, instead of having one wasteful and ponderous elected body we would have two???

who thinks of this stuff? deal with the fact that we have a house of lords, or abolish it altogether.

this is a ridiculous debate.

Brilliant logic. "If you dont like it, dont try to fix it, just get rid of it."

We need a second house, and we need an EEE Senate because without one, democracy dies outside of Ontario and Quebec.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Brilliant logic. "If you dont like it, dont try to fix it, just get rid of it."

We need a second house, and we need an EEE Senate because without one, democracy dies outside of Ontario and Quebec.

fine, a senate like the states.

been an advocate of that for awhile now.

but what does that have to do with the pm appointing people from an elected list?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Looger

fine, a senate like the states.

been an advocate of that for awhile now.

but what does that have to do with the pm appointing people from an elected list?

It's a start.