Electing Senators

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Back at ya.

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

Many and I mean many politicians vote to what their constituants want. More so with the Conservatives in power than the Liberals.

Not to mention, 1 independant senator elect was elected in Alberta last provincial election, many others that were running were associated with the Alberta Aliance party. I think an elected senate would allow for more independant people and smaller political parties to have members running and winning seats.

[MarchHare]

Many and I mean many politicians vote to what their constituants want. More so with the Conservatives in power than the Liberals.

Oh yes, that's right. When the Liberals vote for what their constituents want, it's because they refuse to take a stand and are just governing according to opinion polls. When the Conservatives vote for what their constituents want, they're following the will of the people.

Please.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Oh yes, that's right. When the Liberals vote for what their constituents want, it's because they refuse to take a stand and are just governing according to opinion polls. When the Conservatives vote for what their constituents want, they're following the will of the people.

Please.

Yup..

[RedHot25]

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?

Looks like Charest agrees with the former....

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/st...e20061215.html

[calculoso]

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.

IMO, the Senate should look out for what is best for the country as a whole, not just which area of the country has the biggest population. In the current system, rarely are the Atlantic regions or prairie regions ever considered. They are just along for the ride.

People move to areas where lots of people are already because the problems in those areas are more taken care of. Treat the whole country as a whole, with policies that make just as much sense for PEI as they do for Toronto, or Moose Jaw as they do for Calgary, and people may just stay in their area of the country instead of migrating to the promise areas.

While an equal Senate (by province) won't totally address or alleviate this, it will help address it.... or at least make them feel as though they have a say instead of being totally ignored.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by calculoso

People move to areas where lots of people are already because the problems in those areas are more taken care of.

They do?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

They do?

You bet.

Problem: No jobs... solution? Move to where there are jobs.

Problem: No schools... solution? Move to where there are already schools.

Problem: High crime... solution? Move to where there is less crime.

Problem: Poor health care... solution? Move to where there is better health care.

Problem: Poor social problems... solution? Move to where there is more support.

There are examples all over the place. If there is a problem that exists and really bothers someone, they're going to look for a place where the problem has already been fixed. Lots of times, the person is going to want to move anyway due to one reason or another, but they're always going to pick an area where a lot of the problems have already been solved.

The more focus there is on high population areas, the more people will move to these areas (and out of the low population areas).

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You bet.

Problem: No jobs... solution? Move to where there are jobs.

Problem: No schools... solution? Move to where there are already schools.

Problem: High crime... solution? Move to where there is less crime.

Problem: Poor health care... solution? Move to where there is better health care.

Problem: Poor social problems... solution? Move to where there is more support.

There are examples all over the place. If there is a problem that exists and really bothers someone, they're going to look for a place where the problem has already been fixed. Lots of times, the person is going to want to move anyway due to one reason or another, but they're always going to pick an area where a lot of the problems have already been solved.

The more focus there is on high population areas, the more people will move to these areas (and out of the low population areas).

Why all the people from the east moving to the west? Wouldn't that be the exact opposite?