Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lurch
You might want to stop and think JUST A TOUCH. The party that gets screwed by the broken system most badly is generally the NDP - the left wing fringe. My 'collosal arrogance' is very much in favour of a new system, i.e. proportional rep. My preference, the Greens, will likely get about 5% of the votes with 0 seats. The Manning solution of the EEE Senate is the very non-democratic solution where dirt and lines on a map get representation and gives very excessive power to places like SK, PEI, Nfld (and AB for that matter), etc with low populations.
|
It does that only if you look at it in isolation rather than what it would be in reality: half of the Legislative branch of government.
Look at Alberta specifically. With 10% of the population, Alberta would have 10% of the seats in the HoC. Under a EEE Senate, it would have slightly less than 10% of the Senate seats. Net result is that 10% of the population has 10% of the power.
Saskatchewan, PEI, etc would still get 10% of the Senate, but far, far less of the HoC. On the flip side, while Ontario and Quebec would have just under 20% of the power in the Senate combined, they would still have ~60% of the HoC.
Ontario and Quebec could dominate one half of government, but not it's entirety. The west (which is hardly united under one banner) or the Maritimes could have a significant influence in the Senate, but that power is balanced by the HoC.
A PR based House of Commons coupled with a EEE Senate is the most democratic format, as it gives power to the most people and the most regions of Canada. Lacking the Senate, Ontario and Quebec will dominate the other eight provinces regardless of how MPs are elected.