Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Elected Senate is a Horrible idea |
| 09.07.06 (10:39 pm) [edit] |
|
It is hard to image a dumber idea than an elected senate, but Harper has found it, viz., a piece meal elected senate. The name of the Britain’s upper house pretty much explains why the Senate came into being. It was designed to check the will of the people, i.e., the House of COMMONS. This is true of the US Senate; it is true of British “House of Lords” and it is true of Canadian Senate. (With regard to the US, a desire to keep the federal government weak tipped the balance in plutocrats such as Adams over democrats such as Benjamin Franklin. As Franklin put it having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end to buggy and having them both pull.) Now granted, the stated purpose of those said bodies is no longer to stifle democracy, but invariably that is what a second house does in practice for those countries unfortunate enough to still have an “effective” second house. Progressive legislation in the States does not stand a chance against the legions of small red states with far more clout than population and against armies of lobbyists taking advantage of lack of party discipline (yet another stupid Conservative idea) to play divide and conquer. (Alaska, for example, has 1000 times the political clout of, say, PEI, even though Alaska makes up a smaller portion of the US population than PEI Canada’s.) If legislation passes at all it so watered down it hardly bares resemblance to what was first proposed. It is no wonder that the courts were rightly seen as the biggest source of social change up until recently and why the Republicans sought to sure up the leak by attacking “activist” judges. As for Harper’s intellectual abortion, the problem is that baring a constitutional amendment, something that is not going to happen, slowly transforming an ineffective Senate into an effective senate via elections would leave us with either a good number of unelected but effective senators or bunch elected but “ineffective” senators. There is nothing like spending millions only to elect someone with no real power; that will solve the “democratic deficit.” |
posted by: Eugene Parks (reply)
post date: 09.08.06 (6:00 am)
I would like everyone to take a deep breath on this one.
A second chamber that works on a different pace/frequency than the rest of the cournty's partisan politics has been good for Canadian. On the other hand, a partisan unaccountable appointed chamber with real power rightly offends most of us.
What we need is some original thought on this topic that is not just radical reaction that adds nothing to the current divisive nature of politics in Canada.
Simply electing a senate may serve only to reinforce partisan lines in the country - intensifying short-term divides of partisan politics. Likewise, abolishing the senate outright completely reinforces partisan lines.
Here are some *brainstorming* suggestions:
A.) 1/3 of the senate is replaced every 4 years.
B.) no one is sent to the senate unless they are over 45
C.) 1/2 of the new senators are elected directly from their province and the other half elected via parliment and sent via the PM.
posted by: Jo (reply)
post date: 09.08.06 (8:33 am)
Actually, the name "House of Commons" doesn't stem from "commoners". It is often misunderstood that "Commons" is a shortening of the word "commoners"; in reality, the term "Commons" derives from the Norman French word communes, meaning "localities."
FYI
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 09.08.06 (8:39 pm)
You are splitting hairs; sure the word “commons” is not a shortening of the word “commoners” However, the word “commoners” derives from the word “commons”. People from the commons are commoners. Furthermore a “commoner”, in British Common Law, is someone who is neither the Sovereign nor a noble. The House of Commons was reserved for “commoners” and the House of Lords for peers.
posted by: Allen Graham (reply)
post date: 09.21.06 (6:43 am)
Koby: your comment on "an elected Senate", reads well. Is the Senate aka the Upper House, really ineffective? Does the principle of a "sober second thought" no longer apply ? We have witnessed repeated, although minor, scandals amoung our Senators. Senators who are a "no-show" etc. But why would an elected senate be less responsible?
Is the real question : Do Canadians want an elected Senate ? Can the will of the people prevail ? Or, if we don't like 'em, we can throw the 'bastards' out !
Realistically the time for change has arrived. Canadians want an elected Senate.
posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 09.22.06 (9:33 pm)
The problem with the House of Commons is that rural areas and small provinces have far more clout than their population warrants. Canadian urbanites are vastly underrepresented. Naturally, the Conservatives aim to make this even worse. Harper sees nothing wrong with PEI having ten seats and BC 6. Of course, the distribution of Senate seats in any given Province does not accurately reflect population distributions either; so, urbanites loose again and rural Canada wins again.
“Canadians want an elected Senate.”
No actually, the most popular option is abolition.