 |
| |
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cinch
Wow.
The blind support of Tyrrany of the Majority espoused by some in this thread is nigh-on sickening.
|
I can't believe how many people spout this anti-democracy crap.
Name one case of tyranny of the majority and I can name hundreds of worse tyranny of the minority.
Is pure democracy perfect, no. But like Churchill said it's better than the alternatives.
quote:
Originally posted by cinch
An elected, veto-only, regionally-divided Senate would simply AUGMENT the Rep by Pop system. It would act as a check on Parliamentary bills, to ensure that no region, no matter how small, would be damaged due to the will of a more populous area.
|
The flaw in your logic is how do you ensure that the regions with small populations do not screw regions with the majority of the people?
quote:
Originally posted by cinch
The pro-Senate people are not saying we should do away with Rep by Pop altogether... The HoC will remain the more powerful house, in that it contains the executive and can draw up laws of its own. We simply ask that we tweak the current system by giving it some more regional perspective.
|
Ya right, meaning the Senate could veto (read neutralise) the power of the HoC. So then who has the real power? The Senate.
quote:
Originally posted by cinch
It has nothing to do with "hating democracy", and everything to do with wishing to uphold the tenets of a true commonwealth: representation for all, INCLUDING the less populated regions. |
The solution is not to rig the system in favour of the minority. The solution is a charter of rights that protects everyone.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Bullshit. Until you can explain why the 140 000 people of PEI deserve Senate representation equal to that of Alberta or Quebec, yet the 140 000 people living along Ontario's western border don't, your scheme is unfair and deliberately stilted to favour a certain minority at the expense of other minorities. |
Exactly. That's the major flaw in the "equal" senate theory. Where do you draw the line.
Do you do it by province? Do the three northern provinces/territories individually get the same senate seats as British Columbia? What happens if Northern Ontario decides to become a separate province? How can you justify denying them senate seats?
If you do it by region, how do you define a region. What does Alberta have in common with Manitoba?
How do you do it so that it is not artificially rigged in favour of certain areas.
The one person, one vote system is a largely naturally defined system. If there are X number of people in an area then they get a place in the house of commons.
Of course, the Canadian system is already rigged in favour of the less populated regions. Based on population, Ontario should have more seats and other smaller provinces should actually have fewer seats.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Do you do it by province? Do the three northern provinces/territories individually get the same senate seats as British Columbia? What happens if Northern Ontario decides to become a separate province? How can you justify denying them senate seats?
If you do it by region, how do you define a region. What does Alberta have in common with Manitoba?
|
1. What?
2. What?
3. What?
4. What?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Exactly. That's the major flaw in the "equal" senate theory. Where do you draw the line. |
Well short of the interesting points you are placing before us.
quote:
Do you do it by province? |
Of course. The provinces are the building blocks of Confederation. They are, in fact, already represented in the senate on a regional scheme.
Electing them would be nice, but don't pretend as if your opponents in this discussion are making things up out of the blue.
quote:
Do the three northern provinces/territories individually get the same senate seats as British Columbia? |
Which northern PROVINCES were those? Do try to keep them straight. There are 10 of them.
quote:
What happens if Northern Ontario decides to become a separate province? |
The Constitution would have to be amended. That would require the legislatures of at least 7 provinces agreeing to it. Damn, that regional influence is already afoot!
quote:
How can you justify denying them senate seats? |
If we collectively decided to do this, why would they not get seats in the Senate?
quote:
If you do it by region, how do you define a region. What does Alberta have in common with Manitoba? |
A province is a region in so far as the Constituion of Canada is concerned. I **** you not, go look it up.
Alberta and Manitoba are both... turnips? No, no... British royalty? No, no... Provinces! Yes, that's it, they are both provinces.
quote:
How do you do it so that it is not artificially rigged in favour of certain areas. |
That's the whole point. The upper house is rigged to give more effective representation to people who inhabit smaller regions. Do try to keep up, b'y.
quote:
The one person, one vote system is a largely naturally defined system. If there are X number of people in an area then they get a place in the house of commons.
Of course, the Canadian system is already rigged in favour of the less populated regions. Based on population, Ontario should have more seats and other smaller provinces should actually have fewer seats. |
Rep by pop is fine, and it is recognised the way we are constituted. However, we also have a recognition for regions build in. Perhaps electing them to begin with would be a good step. Maybe then they would decide to exercise the power they already have.
Last edited by notyoueither on 03-06-2004 at 06:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
Wow, those are intersting numbers. 15% feel underrepresented? Could you back up a moment and plunk Alberta and BC into that camp? No matter how you try to stack the numbers, no way, no how is the average Albertan going to park himself in the camp that Ontario and Quebec inhabit on this topic.
Secondly, we don't want to create a system of reginal representation. One already exists. We want it to be effective.
Furthermore, PEI, NS, and Newbrunswick did not sign on to strict rep by pop. They signed on with a Senate as part of the picture (as an aside, they also signed on when the GG was a real power). What has happened since they signed on is that the GG has been completely neutered, the Senate has been effectively emasculated by virtue of it being an unelected body, and the power of the PM has reached a point unprecedented in democratic nations.
Devolved more powers recently you say? That's very interesting, given the hostory of federal programs and taxation.
Finally, I am not proposing any new powers for any jurisdictions. I am suggesting this country would be better governed if the existing jurisdictions used the powers they already have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Wow, those are intersting numbers. 15% feel underrepresented? Could you back up a moment and plunk Alberta and BC into that camp? No matter how you try to stack the numbers, no way, no how is the average Albertan going to park himself in the camp that Ontario and Quebec inhabit on this topic. |
Would you like me to rephrase?
"Because some people think 15% of the population is underrepresented"
quote:
Secondly, we don't want to create a system of reginal representation. One already exists. We want it to be effective. |
You want to tilt it deliberately in favour of a certain region.
quote:
Furthermore, PEI, NS, and Newbrunswick did not sign on to strict rep by pop. They signed on with a Senate as part of the picture (as an aside, they also signed on when the GG was a real power). What has happened since they signed on is that the GG has been completely neutered, the Senate has been effectively emasculated by virtue of it being an unelected body, and the power of the PM has reached a point unprecedented in democratic nations. |
It was always an unelected body. They signed on to it back then. They also signed the Constitution of 1982, something Quebec never got a chance to do.
quote:
Devolved more powers recently you say? That's very interesting, given the hostory of federal programs and taxation. |
The central government was stronger in 1867 than it is today, notwithstanding the back door methods practiced by governments the world over (and perfected by the US, btw).
quote:
Finally, I am not proposing any new powers for any jurisdictions. I am suggesting this country would be better governed if the existing jurisdictions used the powers they already have. |
Yes, you are. You are creating a basis for political power which has never existed in the history of this country. Do you honestly think that Ontario or Quebec would have signed off on creating small provinces if they knew that they were to be granted such extraordinary powers in the Senate?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Would you like me to rephrase?
"Because some people think 15% of the population is underrepresented" |
No. I would like you to recalculate. That 15% is derived on a laughable premise. Sorry, but including the home of the movement for better representation in the camp of the status quo is a bit rediculous, no?
quote:
You want to tilt it deliberately in favour of a certain region. |
No. We want it to function the way it was intended. Don't tell me the BNA was fashioned to leave the PM as an unchecked power. The GG is gone, effectively, and the Senate is silent by choice.
quote:
It was always an unelected body. They signed on to it back then. They also signed the Constitution of 1982, something Quebec never got a chance to do. |
OK. There is nothing wrong with a unicameral government where there are virtually zero checks on the power of the governing party and the PM. I gotcha, however, I do not agree.
quote:
The central government was stronger in 1867 than it is today, notwithstanding the back door methods practiced by governments the world over (and perfected by the US, btw). |
Bull. Power comes from the purse. The federal government had virtually no purse in 1867. It evolved more that way as time went on, but especially after the introduction of income tax.
quote:
Yes, you are. You are creating a basis for political power which has never existed in the history of this country. Do you honestly think that Ontario or Quebec would have signed off on creating small provinces if they knew that they were to be granted such extraordinary powers in the Senate? |
No, I'm not. The basis for power is there. It is in our constitution. That the old tards who retire there choose not to use the power they have, on the excuse that they are unelected is besides the point. Canada had 2 houses by design. The second one was not there for window dressing.
Ontario and Quebec did sign on with a Senate that had power, and a GG too. Then events served to bastardize the process of how we are governed, and we are left with very little check on the ruling party in the commons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:36
|
|
I'm feeling sorry for my dad. He's die-hard Tory for as long as anyone can remember. Mulroney - great guy. Mike Harris - fantastic. Kim Campbell - never got a chance to show how great she is. blah, blah blah.
The problem is, in this election a long-time family friend is a candidate in his riding, and she's running for the NDP.
He still hasn't decided what to do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
|
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
No. I would like you to recalculate. That 15% is derived on a laughable premise. Sorry, but including the home of the movement for better representation in the camp of the status quo is a bit rediculous, no? |
I think you should recalculate. It doesn't matter how many people think it's a good idea; Alberta would not receive any additional representation under the schemes proposed so far, as they have more than 1/10 of Canada's population. If you thought Alberta was underrepresented then you'd be proposing some other scheme. QED you think 15% of Canada's population is underrepresented.
quote:
No. We want it to function the way it was intended. Don't tell me the BNA was fashioned to leave the PM as an unchecked power. The GG is gone, effectively, and the Senate is silent by choice. |
And that's why I've proposed an elected Senate with a power of veto. Also, the GG has never withheld royal assent since Confederation. The GG has only once made his presence felt (during the King Byng affair), and was sent a strong message from Canadians on that occaion.
quote:
OK. There is nothing wrong with a unicameral government where there are virtually zero checks on the power of the governing party and the PM. I gotcha, however, I do not agree. |
Because I understand that you feel that there is I am willing to live with a powerful, elected Senate. I'm simply not willing to live with one which enshrines the granting of political power preferentially depending on where a Canadian decides to make his home.
quote:
Bull. Power comes from the purse. The federal government had virtually no purse in 1867. It evolved more that way as time went on, but especially after the introduction of income tax. |
This is true for all governments at every level (local, provincial and federal). I was speaking of relative power between the provinces and the federal government.
quote:
No, I'm not. The basis for power is there. It is in our constitution. That the old tards who retire there choose not to use the power they have, on the excuse that they are unelected is besides the point. Canada had 2 houses by design. The second one was not there for window dressing. |
See above. Anyway, even if they did exercise their power they wouldn't do so except in favour of the Liberals. The design gives power to the PM to appoint Senators. It's a guarantee of a weak Senate. If such a Senate was not desired then why was it created?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RedFred
Nope. PEI gets 2 or 3 times the seats in the Commons than is justified by rep by pop. |
That's exactly what I was implying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I think you should recalculate. It doesn't matter how many people think it's a good idea; Alberta would not receive any additional representation under the schemes proposed so far, as they have more than 1/10 of Canada's population. If you thought Alberta was underrepresented then you'd be proposing some other scheme. QED you think 15% of Canada's population is underrepresented. |
Incorrect. Albertans are not agitating for more seats by and large. They are agitating for better checks on the power of the PM and the Commons. That is the crux of the issue. It boils down to we feel we would have a better chance of receiving better government if there were another power in the land. That is why electing the Senate is the biggest issue.
quote:
And that's why I've proposed an elected Senate with a power of veto. Also, the GG has never withheld royal assent since Confederation. The GG has only once made his presence felt (during the King Byng affair), and was sent a strong message from Canadians on that occaion. |
The point about the GG is not what they did, it is the power that at one time they did have. As you note, one did get involved and although he may well have been right in fact he was banished from practice on principle. When one considers that it was under royal prodding that Confederation itself happened, the GGs certainly did have power to the people who signed onto Confederation.
I am not, btw, advocating for an elected President. I am advocating for an effective Senate. Can you argue that a powerless Senate was the intent of the founders?
quote:
Because I understand that you feel that there is I am willing to live with a powerful, elected Senate. I'm simply not willing to live with one which enshrines the granting of political power preferentially depending on where a Canadian decides to make his home. |
It already is enshrined. The Senate could truely balk on a government and then we would have a merry situation.
Why have a Senate if it can be expected to be a mirror of the Commons? Why not go as some tiny countries have and simply have a single house?
As things stand, Ontario and Quebec are very near a majority in the Senate. If the people of Ontario and Quebec feel strongly enough that all of their Senators would vote the same way on an issue, where is the harm that they might need to convince 5 senators from elsewhere to go with them?
quote:
This is true for all governments at every level (local, provincial and federal). I was speaking of relative power between the provinces and the federal government. |
And relatively, the feds did squat. They were seriously challenged to build a railway for the longest time.
Defence (an actual Army) transfer payments, health care, education funding... all these things and the power that came with them came later.
quote:
See above. Anyway, even if they did exercise their power they wouldn't do so except in favour of the Liberals. The design gives power to the PM to appoint Senators. It's a guarantee of a weak Senate. If such a Senate was not desired then why was it created? |
Completely ineffective was not by design. I think the model was the House of Lords. Of course, it went wrong fairly quick. A powerless Senate was certainly not intended, but is what we have arrived at.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
|
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
No, it's not. At least not in the US, because we're a federal government. The States are sovereigns. Are you opposed to each member nation having one vote in the UN? |
The provinces here were never sovereign. And if you'd read further on then you would have noticed that I already pointed this out a number of times. States joined and were admitted with the understanding that they'd be granted 2 senate seats just like everybody else. That was not the case here. In the case of the US, however, the fiction of states as sovereign entities was demonstrated in 1865.
quote:
Anyway, it acts as what appears (from the viewpoint of an American) to be a much-needed check on the powers of a representative house - it doesn't help that that same body appoints your executive. Essentially all power rests in your legislature. |
And how it appears to this Canadian is that the US system is needlessly complex, undemocratic in the extreme and is barely functioning due to excessive checks on a popularly elected government. It fosters, in my opinion, a virtually unopposed two-party system where nobody with a viewpoint at all distinct from the norm ever gets real representation. As well, the powers that were fully intended to be the province of the legislature (such as declarations of war) have been completely annexed by the executive in fact. Representation in both the Senate and the executive are tilted completely in favour of small, rural states as evinced by Gore's handy win of the popular vote being annulled by the electoral college system. The two party system and overdivision of powers mentioned earlier has led to rates of voter nonparticipation and apathy unrivalled in the Western world. Part of the US' massive agricultural subsidy industry can also be explained by the aforementioned rural overrepresentation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-06-2004 01:24
|