NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people, mostly from the west, want the Senate reformed to be an elected body, as opposed to the current setup wherein political appointees are awarded seats by the ruling PM. (that's also a heads-up for non-Canadians, our system is based on the British Houses of Parliament, but lacking 'Lords' we have instead 'Lackies' lording it over us, ha ha)

I am in favour of abolishing the Senate outright,

or

of re-purposing it. A lot of people feel there should be some form of proportional representation, and the mouldy old Senate might just be the place to do it. Try this: Leave the Commons as it is, but turf out the old Senate and scale it to a round number of seats (one hundred, say). Let the popular vote dictate the makeup of the Senate. Say then the Greens, who picked up over one percent of the overall popular vote in the last election, yet won no seat in the Commons, could have representation on the Senate level instead. One percent = one seat in this instance. Senate seats would be appointed by the leaders of the respective political parties.

Thoughts, Canadians?

Some people, mostly from the west, want the Senate reformed to be an elected body, as opposed to the current setup wherein political appointees are awarded seats by the ruling PM. (that's also a heads-up for non-Canadians, our system is based on the British Houses of Parliament, but lacking 'Lords' we have instead 'Lackies' lording it over us, ha ha)

I am in favour of abolishing the Senate outright,

or

of re-purposing it. A lot of people feel there should be some form of proportional representation, and the mouldy old Senate might just be the place to do it. Try this: Leave the Commons as it is, but turf out the old Senate and scale it to a round number of seats (one hundred, say). Let the popular vote dictate the makeup of the Senate. Say then the Greens, who picked up over one percent of the overall popular vote in the last election, yet won no seat in the Commons, could have representation on the Senate level instead. One percent = one seat in this instance. Senate seats would be appointed by the leaders of the respective political parties.

Thoughts, Canadians?

Snozzages

Yours,
Mr. Luxury Yacht (It is spelt Luxury Yacht but is actually pronounced Throatwobbler Mangrove)

My problem with this is that it provides an extra legislative hurdle, when things are already hard enough to get through the House of Commons in times like these. Our current Senate realizes that they have no responsibility to the Canadian people, and thus they stay out of the way of any major issue. If you make them useful again, we approach the American system, regardless of how they are elected.

My hovercraft may be full of eels, but that's what I get for buying British naval surplus...

LOL

Get with the RN! It really IS something other than else!!

My problem with this is that it provides an extra legislative hurdle, when things are already hard enough to get through the House of Commons in times like these. Our current Senate realizes that they have no responsibility to the Canadian people, and thus they stay out of the way of any major issue. If you make them useful again, we approach the American system, regardless of how they are elected.

The legislative hurdle is already there, it's just for the most part, the Senate rubberstamps whatever legislation is passed their way, so for the most part, we're unaware of it.

I just thought we could kill two birds neatly with one stone.

And Mr. Throatwobbler Mangrove, those birds would not be swallows, laden, unladen or bin laden for that matter, European or otherwise. They would be big juicy Canada Geese.

My hovercraft may be full of eels, but that's what I get for buying British naval surplus...

LOL

Get with the RN! It really IS something other than else!!

Coke can!

Yours,
Mr. Luxury Yacht (It is spelt Luxury Yacht but is actually pronounced Throatwobbler Mangrove)

i say we abolish the senate too, and outlaw panties... hmmmmm

A lot of people feel there should be some form of proportional representation, and the mouldy old Senate might just be the place to do it. Try this: Leave the Commons as it is, but turf out the old Senate and scale it to a round number of seats (one hundred, say). Let the popular vote dictate the makeup of the Senate. Say then the Greens, who picked up over one percent of the overall popular vote in the last election, yet won no seat in the Commons, could have representation on the Senate level instead. One percent = one seat in this instance. Senate seats would be appointed by the leaders of the respective political parties.

Thoughts, Canadians?

Considering sentors are appointed on the advice of the prime minister, there will always be pressure for the PM to recommend senators from their own party. And a rule for the sente is that senators come from different provinces, so that 1% = 1 senator...what province would he represent ?
The job of the senate is to look over the legalities and wording a second time, and send bills back to the house that need to have wording changes.
It seems what you want is for senators to have more ability to reject house actions. Like the guy in the post before mine, haveing another house dedicated to defeating acts would make passing legislation even harder.

Since the popular vote always goes to the left, a conservative government in the house would always have their motions defeated in the senat.

It would be far better if we just abolished the darn thing, and save a few hundred million bucks in the process. And then we use that money to reform the commons so they're more representative of popular vote. If I believed there was a god, I'd pray him to make sure Jack Layton's proposed reform of the electoral system come to pass.

Considering sentors are appointed on the advice of the prime minister, there will always be pressure for the PM to recommend senators from their own party. And a rule for the sente is that senators come from different provinces, so that 1% = 1 senator...what province would he represent ?
The job of the senate is to look over the legalities and wording a second time, and send bills back to the house that need to have wording changes.
It seems what you want is for senators to have more ability to reject house actions. Like the guy in the post before mine, haveing another house dedicated to defeating acts would make passing legislation even harder.

Since the popular vote always goes to the left, a conservative government in the house would always have their motions defeated in the senat.

Oh, 'he' wouldn't represent any province, he'd represent the one percent who voted in his party's favour. There wouldn't necessarily be a campaign for Senators - the appointments would be made by party leaders post-election.

And if you think about it, it could be a great way to get certain 'popular' politicians who lost in their ridings in the race for the Commons to still be able to be in the political mix (assuming they stayed on their leaders good sides, unlike, say, Shiela Copps, who probably wouldn't get picked up by Paul Martin to be in a proportional Senate).

Am I confusing the issue, or what?

It would be far better if we just abolished the darn thing, and save a few hundred million bucks in the process. And then we use that money to reform the commons so they're more representative of popular vote. If I believed there was a god, I'd pray him to make sure Jack Layton's proposed reform of the electoral system come to pass.

No argument Skalador. But we are in need of some form of proportional representation, Jack thinks so strongly. I agree. But I have to admit, I liked Ed Broadbents' take on Senate reform - clear the chamber and turn it into a gymnasium instead.

Trampoline, anybody?

LOL

... clear the chamber and turn it into a gymnasium instead.

Trampoline, anybody?

LOL

Who could ever resist a trampoline?


WHEEEE!!!

And Mr. Throatwobbler Mangrove, those birds would not be swallows, laden, unladen or bin laden for that matter, European or otherwise. They would be big juicy Canada Geese.

:D

I like the idea of proportional representation...but I also support assassination of annoyingly entrenched politicians (Ralph Klein). Am I extreme?

i say we abolish the senate too, and outlaw panties... hmmmmm

Encourage women to exercise their rights to go about topless in Ontario! (not me though...nope, too cold.)

Since the popular vote always goes to the left, a conservative government in the house would always have their motions defeated in the senat.

I WISH! Save us from Ralph Klein!

:D

I like the idea of proportional representation...but I also support assassination of annoyingly entrenched politicians (Ralph Klein). Am I extreme?

Could be. But why kill him with a bullet when he's more likely to kill himself with drink? Send the man a case of Chivas, we'll see how long he lasts...

Some people, mostly from the west, want the Senate reformed to be an elected body, as opposed to the current setup wherein political appointees are awarded seats by the ruling PM. (that's also a heads-up for non-Canadians, our system is based on the British Houses of Parliament, but lacking 'Lords' we have instead 'Lackies' lording it over us, ha ha)

I am in favour of abolishing the Senate outright,

or

of re-purposing it. A lot of people feel there should be some form of proportional representation, and the mouldy old Senate might just be the place to do it. Try this: Leave the Commons as it is, but turf out the old Senate and scale it to a round number of seats (one hundred, say). Let the popular vote dictate the makeup of the Senate. Say then the Greens, who picked up over one percent of the overall popular vote in the last election, yet won no seat in the Commons, could have representation on the Senate level instead. One percent = one seat in this instance. Senate seats would be appointed by the leaders of the respective political parties.

Thoughts, Canadians?

i believe that perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the senate. But i also think that the house of commons should be evenly divided among diffrent parties. this way we dont need to worry about the liberals always getting there way or anything like that. Although it may be hard to make a disision on anything "like it wasent bad enough already" at least we can all get something we might want. we could bring the west closer, pipe down Quebec and the evil sepretists that constently try to escape, and anyone else who seems to have something to say but have always been over spoken.

Well, the stupidity of the Senate isn't so much that it is an appointed body. After all, so is the Supreme Court so the likelyhood of certain legislations passing the Constitutional "sniff test" CAN be influenced through appointments.

The real stupidity is the fact that recent governments have utilized the legislative loophole to allow them to increase the size of the Senate in order to get their legislation rubberstamped.

The last PM had it at 100 of his closest friends? Make it 250 and put 150 of your own!Next guy comes along? Adds back another 100 seats of his best contributers.

With that little dodge it has become nothing more than a useless venue to rubber-stamp each and every bill that comes along, and also to pay off political favours with appointments and their associated gold-plated pensions.

So, for that reason it should be done away with, OR become a seperately elected body. However with the curret districting and East/west/quebec divisions, I'm not sure that this would do anything other than lead to either identical representation that still just rubberstamps items, or worse yet, a venue to handcuff the government.

I vote for doing away with it entirely.





But not before we take ALL of the appointed a-holes, stuffing them in the room, and welding the doors shut!


Oh yeah, and toss in the GG for good measure.

;)

i believe that perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the senate. But i also think that the house of commons should be evenly divided among diffrent parties. this way we dont need to worry about the liberals always getting there way or anything like that. Although it may be hard to make a disision on anything "like it wasent bad enough already" at least we can all get something we might want. we could bring the west closer, pipe down Quebec and the evil sepretists that constently try to escape, and anyone else who seems to have something to say but have always been over spoken.


err.... divide the only remaining elected legislative bodies based simply on party affiliation?

What's the point in having a democracy then?

And what happens when you want to create a new party? Automatic equal representation for Mike's PArty to Eliminate Even Numbers?


Parties must live or die on their own merits. Sure, it can lead to pains in the ass (like the BQ), but the current setup is still pretty robust. Look at how quickly the Reform party grew from obscurity to official opposition. That could never happen in the States.