 |
Should Canada adopt a US-style senate
This poll is closed. |
| Yes |
   |
20 |
51.28% |
| No |
   |
19 |
48.72% |
| Total: |
39 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
JohnIII
|
|
ARRGH! Why can no-one write a reasonably objective first post in a poll thread/poll rather than biasing the options towards them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnIII
|
|
Yes, but the first post is connected to the poll. You can post your thoughts in a separate post to the opening of the poll.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
*End Is Forever*
|
 |
Salford, UK
Jan 1970
time: 05:20
|
|
Whilst I'm no fan of proportional representation, I find the US Senate the most unproportional, unrepresentative chamber I know. Giving the senator from, say, South Dakota, equal power and influence to the one elected in California, New York or Texas seems incredibly perverse.
It's also one of the most inaccessible chambers in the world. I mean, I could (not necessarily do) hold a reasonably realistic aspiration of becoming a member of parliament - indeed, at least one of my friends is picking out a seat he hopes to stand in at the next election. However, the chances of entering the US Senate - hell, even the House of Representatives - are minimal to zero for the average citizen, depedent far more than in the UK or Canada on patronage, profile, and ultimately, money. The money wasted on US election campaigns is absolutely phenomenal. I swear that the most expensive Senate contest probably cost more in publicity than the entire UK general election.
And I've not even mentioned how well-connected and rich you have to be to become President...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
Yes, you can adopt ours, all 100 of them, and we'll start over.
Iain is right about the outmoded and undemocratic nature of the senate now. That is because the US is viewed as the nation-state, with individual states being subdivisions with a tiny little bit of local independence. When the senate was created, first with the Articles of Confederation, then with the Constitution, the US was more analogous to the EU - a collection of independent, sovereign states who agreed to form a limited standing association to handle common defense, trade, and "foreign" policy issues. (Foreign in this sense including dealings with other states in the US, as in the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution) Originally, it was even more undemocratic, because the Senate was elected by members of each state legislature, not by the people themselves.
The view was that larger states would use the Federal "supergovernment" to economically and politically dominate smaller, weaker, but still nominally independent and sovereign states.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Seeker
|
 |
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
The Canadian Senate does need reform.
Either reform it or dump it.
IMO, we need to make a national decision (LOL for Canada, the non-national country) about whether we want to give the future Jean Chretiens of the world even more unfettered power, or a more balanced PR like system (at least in the Senate).
Oh, and I assume a reformed Senate would have more powers, other than merely delaying a bill.
What is so bad about the old US system?
You get an experienced statesman, dedicated enough to have hung around the state legislature for years, not just some billionaire who decided to blow a bunch of money on an election.
The unproportionality of the US Senate is complex topic...on the one hand, it is not very democratic that if I vote for a senator in North Dakota my vote is worth several times what it would be in California...but on the other hand what's in it for small states in the union? it levels the playing field.
The most rational solution would be to periodically 'redistrict' the states to even out population, but that's not very realistic.
And the political reality too, is that small states tend to be much more conservative. If the United States was governed in a Westminster style parliament, it probably wouldn't be much different than most european countries politically. Which of course is a nightmare to many vested US interest groups.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth Edmunson
Asher, I'm glad to see you've gotten through you're pro-Canadian phase. Way to go!
And also, I used to hate all of Canada for its overwhelming leftism, but now that I've learned more about Alberta, I must say thats quite a province. Keep it up over there!
Oh yeah, and the Canadian federal system is inherently undemocratic... any change should be welcome. |
What is it now, they are appointed for life by the PM? I remember a few years ago there was one of them who only showed up to work something like 5 days out of the year. What a joke.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Iain is right about the outmoded and undemocratic nature of the senate now. |
Hmm. I'm not sure you understand the need for that "outmoded" style of Senate in Canada.
Right now, in Canada, all government power effectively comes down to the majority party. Everyone else becomes moot. The majority party appoints the PM. They now control the "executive branch" as well as the only really functionaly legislative branch. The PM then appoints Senators (although the current Senate has basically zero power). Every time. This gives them an effective dictatorship. King Jean can pass a law, say, stripping all resource revenues from a province in order to make the rest of the country richer, even though a 1930 agreement stated it was owned by that province.
Canada needs something to keep the majority government in line. Considering that essentially Ontario and Quebec elect the entire federal government each time, those two provinces end up gaining far too much control over the rest of the country. They make up most of the population of the country, but that still doesn't give them the right to "have their way" with the smaller provinces. Right now, they can. It's precisely for this reason that the current federal government (Liberals) doesn't even feel the need to campaign in Alberta, for example. We're expendable to them. We're crazy lunatics with outrageous ideas, and they're not going to waste our time since we represent so few votes. That's also that NEP was inacted from 1980-85 to steal our resource revenue, how Chretien appointed someone completely different than who we voted for, etc. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
Canada is a oligarchy, but its nowhere near as bad as the USA, you don't have to look much further then bush..
Western canada should band together and seperate!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-06-2002 15:38
) by biasing the poll.
|