2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It's totally weighted to the east right now, and wouldn't change much with your proposal but it would be improved. The amount of senators attributed to the maritimes is really absurd.

I'd like to see a more balanced senate, either through true pop by rep or dividing the country into more appropriate regions (IE: Quebec, Ontario, East, Prairies, West, and North.)

That's actually not a bad idea at all. I don't like the idea of the Senate being based on proportional representation, but I think breaking it up into divisions like you have could be a great idea.

[Resolute 14]

I'm in favour of a triple E senate, with heavy emphasis on elected and equal. What we have now is a joke.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think if we were to go with an elected senate, then it kind of defeats the purpose of having one. I'd rather just abolish it completely.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think if we were to go with an elected senate, then it kind of defeats the purpose of having one. I'd rather just abolish it completely.

Huh? The purpose of the Senate is to be a sober second thought. Sure, in a minority government, the Senate may not be necessary, but that changes with a majority government. In a majority government, all members of the ruling party have to tow the party line on bills that include motions of confidence. In this situation, there is no debate, the opposition has no power and frankly, the entire democratic process is circumvented. Having an upper house that is actually effective would mean this majority government would have to cooperate with someone else and wouldn't get to run this country as a friendly dictatorship. That sounds like a pretty good thing to me. As it stands today, senators generally just stick with the status quo or honour their allegiances to the party that appointed them to the Senate in the first place. That doesn't sound like a very effective system to me.

Could you please explain your reasons for not wanting an elected senate?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Huh? The purpose of the Senate is to be a sober second thought. Sure, in a minority government, the Senate may not be necessary, but that changes with a majority government. In a majority government, all members of the ruling party have to tow the party line on bills that include motions of confidence. In this situation, there is no debate, the opposition has no power and frankly, the entire democratic process is circumvented. Having an upper house that is actually effective would mean this majority government would have to cooperate with someone else and wouldn't get to run this country as a friendly dictatorship. That sounds like a pretty good thing to me. As it stands today, senators generally just stick with the status quo or honour their allegiances to the party that appointed them to the Senate in the first place. That doesn't sound like a very effective system to me.

Could you please explain your reasons for not wanting an elected senate?

People who are elected will almost always fall into doing whatever they need to preserve their position. This does not always serve the best interests of democracy because you end up with politicians just doing whatever they need to to get re-elected... and as we all know, most politicians will lie their faces off to get there. Their positions are almost always for sale to whoever will get them back in office. For a senate to provide an honest "sober, second thought", they have to be free from that process. That can't fear backlash for making decisions/recommendations that may not be popular but that a seasoned politician would recognize as necessary.

Another purpose of the senate is also to include groups of people into the political process that would otherwise be marginalized. There are some groups that are overall large or have sway over large groups, but are relative minorities in most ridings and do not get represented in the demcratic process. The senate is supposed to even that out a little bit.

The only way an elected senate is worthwhile is if we change our whole system to a republican style government with better representation by population instead of the parliamentary democracy we currently use.

[3 Justin 3]

At the top of CP is an ad from the NDP. Now when I come here I have to look at Jack Layton?

[nik-]

Bingo, Jiri and photon are obviously pinko commie #######s!

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

You are 100% correct in this regard. Every medical student these days is shooting for a specialty. From people I know who've gone through the process, it's not that they're against family medicine. The problem is that the stress level is an entire level above specializing for less monetary gain.

Well that's good but the reality is not all will be specialists.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Well that's good but the reality is not all will be specialists.

But those that don't become specialists can find they can get into cosmetic procedures and be able to charge what the market will bear instead of a prescribed rate set by the government.

[Shazam]

Do you believe that no future doctors will be family doctors?

[Rubicant]

Most medical students start out thinking that they either will be specialists but that doesn't mean anything - there are limited residency spots that are open country wide for each specialty and not everyone gets in. Additionally, there are some who start their residency for specializing and realize they have no life and switch to family medicine - which is much more reasonable in terms of demands on time.

Also, the problem with simply opening up more spots for training doctors is that most programs are pretty well capped out as is. Toronto farms out their residents to all the community hospitals in the area already, allowing more spots simply means that you would have more residents overlapping. In order to get the surgical experience that is necessary to practice, you can't be mostly watching cases and doing every second or third one. It would be nice however in sharing the burden of being on call.

[getbak]

If we went to an elected senate, I would like to see it be a six-year, single term. No re-elections involved, so no worrying about whether or not you'll be re-elected. I'd also either have the elections be party-less, or allow multiple nominees per party, so you are voting for the person not just the party. Finally, I'd stagger the start dates, so there'd always be some fresh blood along with some veterans.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

And if you point out that guy as a moron, while defending his neighbors; one who wants to drive a tank and the other a time travelling DeLorean, what does that make you?

Sure, one of his neighbors says he wants to drive a tank, but the last time he had the chance, he made a mortgage payment instead.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by SebC

Sure, one of his neighbors says he wants to drive a tank, but the last time he had the chance, he made a mortgage payment instead.

Yup, after promising to buy the tank. But before that he promised and bought a helicopter. And the time before that he promised and bought a yacht. And the whole time the neighbor was buying the fancy car he told him he should really get a spaceship, and in fact threatened to burn down his house if he bought a bike like he really wanted.

Your points are circular and illogical.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yup, after promising to buy the tank. But before that he promised and bought a helicopter. And the time before that he promised and bought a yacht. And the whole time the neighbor was buying the fancy car he told him he should really get a spaceship, and in fact threatened to burn down his house if he bought a bike like he really wanted.

Your points are circular and illogical.

He seems to think that minority and majority governments govern the same way. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me...

[albertGQ]

I'm sure there are other posters that don't know either so I'll ask

what exactly is the role of the senate?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

I'm sure there are other posters that don't know either so I'll ask

what exactly is the role of the senate?

To ensure that there are people asleep in Canada during the afternoon.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

People who are elected will almost always fall into doing whatever they need to preserve their position. This does not always serve the best interests of democracy because you end up with politicians just doing whatever they need to to get re-elected... and as we all know, most politicians will lie their faces off to get there. Their positions are almost always for sale to whoever will get them back in office. For a senate to provide an honest "sober, second thought", they have to be free from that process. That can't fear backlash for making decisions/recommendations that may not be popular but that a seasoned politician would recognize as necessary.

I have to admit, that is the first time I've seen someone argue that giving the people the right to choose their representatives does not serve the best interests of democracy.

The problem is that current senators are given the position as patronage appointments, so they are in fact not serving democracy at all. They exist to support the person who appointed them. Also, with lifetime terms, there is no fear of losing their position if they fail to respect the wishes of the public. And then you have Prime Ministers playing power politics with Senate seats - Mulrooney added several senators to ensure he had the numbers to pass the GST, while Chretien routinely left Alberta Senate seats vacant for years rather than deal with the issue of Alberta's attempts at electing its senators.

Democracy in its current form may not be perfect, but an elected Senate is far superior to the patronage filled one that exists today. Also, with an elected Senate, voters could, for example, give the Conservatives a majority in the House of Commons, but the Liberals one in the Senate to check power.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I have to admit, that is the first time I've seen someone argue that giving the people the right to choose their representatives does not serve the best interests of democracy.

I think Hitler made the same argument once...

[Flamenspiel]

Ah! Hitler finally makes an appearance on page 122. Never fails!