Electing Senators

[jolinar of malkshor]

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?

[Edit]
In other words, Rhode Island gets about five times the representation in the senate that they would have gotten if senate seats were divided based on population rather than by state. They're certainly over-represented, but it's not that bad considering that each state only controls 2% of the senate. If PEI were to be given 10% of the senate seats, though, they would have twenty-five times as much representation as their population would dictate. That doesn't sit right with me.

It's not based on population....it's based on region as he stated.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It's not based on population....it's based on region as he stated.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Quoting myself:

In other words, Rhode Island gets about five times the representation in the senate that they would have gotten if senate seats were divided based on population rather than by state.

Added emphasis.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The real problem is that you can't compare the US and Canada directly when trying to devise a system for allocating senate seats. While there are states that are over- and under-represented in the senate (Rhode Island and California being the two greatest examples at either end of the spectrum), each state is only limited to 2% control, so individual states still don't have that much of a say, even if they might have more seats than their population would dictate.

On the other hand, you get situations like Canada where PEI would have 10% control of the senate despite only having 0.4% of the population, and the situation becomes that much more extreme.

I think the senate allocation could use some reform, but equal representation by province is not the way to do it. Equal representation by region (tweaking the formula we currently use) would work much better. Assuming a 100 seat senate, I could see something like this working, where each region (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, West) gets 20 seats:

Atlantic Provinces: 5 seats each
Quebec: 20 seats
Ontario: 20 seats
Manitoba: 5 seats
Saskatchewan: 5 seats
Alberta: 10 seats
BC: 10 seats

That defeats the purpose of an equal Senate. Maybe the best compromise would be to only keep the representation by region with the smallest pronvices, and merge Atlantic Canada and merge Sask/Man, and split Toronto and Ontario... so you end up with 7 blocs with a minimum of 2 million people each:
BC 10
AB 10
Prairie 10 (SK 5, MB 5)
ON 10
GTA 10
QC 10
Atl 10 (NS 4, PEI 1, NB 3, NL 2)

This would alleviate the PEI effect, have equality amongst regions, yet acknowledge Ontario being bigger than any two provinces combined, and set a minimum standard of 5 seats per million (approx) to a maximum of 10 seats per province/region.

[MarchHare]

This would alleviate the PEI effect, and still have equality amongst regions, yet acknowledge Ontario being bigger than any two provinces combined.

That one works for me.

I think people in Alberta get all starry-eyed at the prospect of having as much say in the senate as Ontario, but then they forget that it also means that PEI would get the same voice as Alberta. Dividing it by region as in my last post and your counter-proposal is a much more equitable system, IMO.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That one works for me.

I think people in Alberta get all starry-eyed at the prospect of having as much say in the senate as Ontario, but then they forget that it also means that PEI would get the same voice as Alberta. Dividing it by region as in my last post and your counter-proposal is a much more equitable system, IMO.

Now, who has the guts to rip open the constitution and try for that? If Canada had more provinces, a totally equal senate would work, but due to the PEI effect, I think we have to compromise with a "graduated" equal senate.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Quoting myself:



Added emphasis.

You are basically arguing that it shouldn't be done like that because it would be disproportionate as far as population goes.

Thats what I got out of your post.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Looger

my point is, Snakeeye, that 'the right' would be doing exactly as 'the left' does in the same position.

the very idea that people think one or the other party is so much better, IS THE PROBLEM.

i guess people have short memories. good for them i guess.

I dont disagree. However, it was you yourself who added the "...is so much better" argument. I simply stated that a shift in opnion on the left will be required. Nothing more.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Looger

what i'm saying is that whoever happens to be in opposition is against the selling of canada's soveriegnty and resources until they're in.

senate reform i see as a perimeter, ridiculous joke of an issue.

if canadians truly think that the future of the country hinges on a senate that's blocked - what, like one bill in my lifetime - then i guess we'll keep getting tossed stupid little bones like this, that the papers tell us are important.

this isn't even close to being an issue. not even close in my world.

the amero, the SPP, the nasco corridor, the destruction of our nation's sovereignty so trump this crap.

but whatever.

Well I think we have already been bought and sold but fight the good fight Looger, I could be mistaken.

oh yeah, what's the SPP?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That one works for me.

I think people in Alberta get all starry-eyed at the prospect of having as much say in the senate as Ontario, but then they forget that it also means that PEI would get the same voice as Alberta. Dividing it by region as in my last post and your counter-proposal is a much more equitable system, IMO.

No, we dont forget that. We are, however, smart enough to recognize that a EEE Senate forms only half the government.

While PEI would have equal representation to Alberta and Ontario in the Senate, they still have only 4 MPs to our 28 and Ontario's 106.

PEI could not possibly dominate government agenda because of the HoC, but Ontario could not dominate government agenda because the Senate. A national agenda becomes far more important than the regional agendas that exist now.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well I think we have already been bought and sold but fight the good fight Looger, I could be mistaken.

oh yeah, what's the SPP?

http://www.spp.gov

security and prosperity partnership

if we were totally in the sack then there wouldn't be any new globalist organizations or police state legislation. they seem to be in a big hurry...

[FireFly]

An elected senate not only takes care of that "E" in the triple "E", it also takes care of effective. The reason the current senate is not effective is because it is not elected. How would Canadians feel if people they did not elect started making and changing the laws in Canada? That's the reason they are a rubber stamp. If they become elected, they also become effective. Then the only thing missing is equal.

[Bobblehead]

I just don't like the idea of electing the senate. I understand the desire for accountability. However I would like the best people as Senators, NOT the people voting for the party. I would hate seeing a "Rob Anders" type of candidate in the senate because people vote for the party instead of the candidate.

I would want some type of a system where the senator is beholden to the country instead of a political party. A person who can vote the way they believe vs what they think the party leadership wants.

I guess I wound need to see a mechanism where the Senator is accountable to Canada and not a political apparatus, but I don't know how you achieve that result.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I just don't like the idea of electing the senate. I understand the desire for accountability. However I would like the best people as Senators, NOT the people voting for the party. I would hate seeing a "Rob Anders" type of candidate in the senate because people vote for the party instead of the candidate.

I would want some type of a system where the senator is beholden to the country instead of a political party. A person who can vote the way they believe vs what they think the party leadership wants.

I guess I wound need to see a mechanism where the Senator is accountable to Canada and not a political apparatus, but I don't know how you achieve that result.

And how do you know the BEST person is being appointed to the position now? I think it is the exact opposite, ANY bimbo can be appoint to the senate....the only prerequisite now is that the want to be senator has spend years serving the party. Atleast with an elected senate, there is a bit of an election type process where ones qualities can be brought to the table. Do we always get the best people when they are elected? By no means.....but it is much better than 1 person making that decision.

Also...an elected senator would be more willing to make decisions on behalf of the electorate rather than the party.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Also...an elected senator would be more willing to make decisions on behalf of the electorate rather than the party.

And how do you know that? Who is paying for those signs, commercials, that campaign. The candidate is beholden to the party who supplies the election infrastucture. The infrastructure who they hope will get them elected next time.

[MatsNaslund]

An elected Senate is fine but why in the world should it be equal in the number of seats? Why would Quebec and Ontario have the same # of senators as a much smaller area wise and population wise Alberta? Is PEI really Equal to Ontario or Quebec? In my books PEI isn't even equal to Calgary let alone the largest provinces in the country.

Electing Senators would only would make a mockery of the Senate. The better solution then electing them is to abolish the Senate altogether. It is useless most of the time. Political Patronage appointments is all it has been good for. When Mulroney wanted to pass the GST tax as legislation and the Liberals had the majority what did he do? He called an emergency meeting and appointed 10 of his favourite Tories as Senators over night just so he could get that majority and pass the law for the GST. The Liberals continued the trend. It was more or less a 'stamp of approval' then a 'sober second thought' which it is supposed to be. Making it elected will cost too much since all current sitting Senators will have to be paid out until their projected salaries up the age of 75 for each of them and their pensions. That will be a lot of money that could be spent on something else more worthwhile.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

An elected Senate is fine but why in the world should it be equal in the number of seats? Why would Quebec and Ontario have the same # of senators as a much smaller area wise and population wise Alberta? Is PEI really Equal to Ontario or Quebec? In my books PEI isn't even equal to Calgary let alone the largest provinces in the country.

To make up for the fact that they are over/underrepresented in the House of Commons.

PEI is an equal member of Canada. They have the same rights and priviledges as other provinces. Therefore, they should have the same representation.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

An elected Senate is fine but why in the world should it be equal in the number of seats? Why would Quebec and Ontario have the same # of senators as a much smaller area wise and population wise Alberta? Is PEI really Equal to Ontario or Quebec? In my books PEI isn't even equal to Calgary let alone the largest provinces in the country.

The House of Commons is already designed to represent the nation based on poplulation. The Senate would be used to balance Ontario and Quebec's dominance against that of the rest of Canada's regions.

Remember, while PEI would have an equal number of seats in the Senate, it most certantly would not have an equal representation in government.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

And how do you know that? Who is paying for those signs, commercials, that campaign. The candidate is beholden to the party who supplies the election infrastucture. The infrastructure who they hope will get them elected next time.

Weak....

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MatsNaslund

An elected Senate is fine but why in the world should it be equal in the number of seats? Why would Quebec and Ontario have the same # of senators as a much smaller area wise and population wise Alberta? Is PEI really Equal to Ontario or Quebec? In my books PEI isn't even equal to Calgary let alone the largest provinces in the country.

Electing Senators would only would make a mockery of the Senate. The better solution then electing them is to abolish the Senate altogether. It is useless most of the time. Political Patronage appointments is all it has been good for. When Mulroney wanted to pass the GST tax as legislation and the Liberals had the majority what did he do? He called an emergency meeting and appointed 10 of his favourite Tories as Senators over night just so he could get that majority and pass the law for the GST. The Liberals continued the trend. It was more or less a 'stamp of approval' then a 'sober second thought' which it is supposed to be. Making it elected will cost too much since all current sitting Senators will have to be paid out until their projected salaries up the age of 75 for each of them and their pensions. That will be a lot of money that could be spent on something else more worthwhile.

And having a triple E senate would solve many of these problems.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Weak....

Back at ya.

How often do unknown, independant politicians get elected for anything beyond municiple politics? Why do you think that is?