[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

Why would it be good to give PEI with the population of a small town the same representation as Quebec.  The only possible reason would be to prevent the democratic will of the people.

We don't have direct representation. We need a check on the frivolous mind, crazy ideas & greed of the elected MPs.

[crazy canuck]

You of course are assuming this second chamber will make better decisions.

[viper37]

You of course are assuming this second chamber will make better decisions.

certainly not 100% of the time, but it never hurts to get a second set of eyes on some bills, with provincial interests in mind.

[Grey Fox]

You of course are assuming this second chamber will make better decisions.

The important part is in the asking of questions.

[crazy canuck]

You of course are assuming this second chamber will make better decisions.

certainly not 100% of the time, but it never hurts to get a second set of eyes on some bills, with provincial interests in mind.

I see.  You want to give the provinces veto power over Parliament.  Parliament should have the federal interest in mind.

[viper37]

You of course are assuming this second chamber will make better decisions.

certainly not 100% of the time, but it never hurts to get a second set of eyes on some bills, with provincial interests in mind.

I see.  You want to give the provinces veto power over Parliament.  Parliament should have the federal interest in mind.

Ideally, there would be a formal veto power, but a Senate is just to re-read the text, find stuff missed from the previous chamber.  It did happen in the past that the Senate modified a bill to send it back to the lower chamber.  Not that often, but it did happen, hence proving the utility of such mechanism.

Something like the American Senate, where Senators aren't elected all at the same time would be nice.

[Grey Fox]

Woha viper, let's not argue for a American style Senate, that is worse than outright abolition.

[Barrister]

Woha viper, let's not argue for a American style Senate, that is worse than outright abolition.

Umm, when people ask for a "EEE" senate that's what they mean.

[crazy canuck]

You of course are assuming this second chamber will make better decisions.

certainly not 100% of the time, but it never hurts to get a second set of eyes on some bills, with provincial interests in mind.

I see.  You want to give the provinces veto power over Parliament.  Parliament should have the federal interest in mind.

Ideally, there would be a formal veto power, but a Senate is just to re-read the text, find stuff missed from the previous chamber.  It did happen in the past that the Senate modified a bill to send it back to the lower chamber.  Not that often, but it did happen, hence proving the utility of such mechanism.

Something like the American Senate, where Senators aren't elected all at the same time would be nice.

My view is that the worst possible alternative is the dysfunctional US model.  Provincial governments do well enough without a provincial senate.  No reason to think Parliament cannot function well without having the crutch senate review.  But then your real goal here is to provide Provincial oversight.   

[crazy canuck]

Woha viper, let's not argue for a American style Senate, that is worse than outright abolition.

Umm, when people ask for a "EEE" senate that's what they mean.

Exactly.  That is why it is such a bad idea.

[Grey Fox]

Woha viper, let's not argue for a American style Senate, that is worse than outright abolition.

Umm, when people ask for a "EEE" senate that's what they mean.

Yes and I am against it!

[viper37]

Woha viper, let's not argue for a American style Senate, that is worse than outright abolition.

Is the US Senate really out of touch with the US public?  I kinda feel they're doing exactly what the people who voted them in office want them to do. 

Besides, the problem in US politics is mostly cause by unlimited campaign funding and gerrymandering.  One of these has been adressed here, the other is a work in progress.

[crazy canuck]

Woha viper, let's not argue for a American style Senate, that is worse than outright abolition.

Is the US Senate really out of touch with the US public?  I kinda feel they're doing exactly what the people who voted them in office want them to do. 

Besides, the problem in US politics is mostly cause by unlimited campaign funding and gerrymandering.  One of these has been adressed here, the other is a work in progress.

I can't answer whether the US Senate, or any part of the US government is out of touch with the US public.  But what I do know is that their bi-cameral system has created a great deal of dysfunction.  I think it was JR who made the point that the Founding Fathers of the US system assumed reasonable people of good will would be elected into those positions.  I don't think we should make the same mistaken assumption when reforming our system.  I much prefer the Parliamentary system to the US system.  If a government loses the confidence of Parliament we go to the polls to elect a new Parliament.  In the US they just get seemingly unending deadlock.

[Barrister]

Woha viper, let's not argue for a American style Senate, that is worse than outright abolition.

Is the US Senate really out of touch with the US public?  I kinda feel they're doing exactly what the people who voted them in office want them to do. 

Besides, the problem in US politics is mostly cause by unlimited campaign funding and gerrymandering.  One of these has been adressed here, the other is a work in progress.

I can't answer whether the US Senate, or any part of the US government is out of touch with the US public.  But what I do know is that their bi-cameral system has created a great deal of dysfunction.  I think it was JR who made the point that the Founding Fathers of the US system assumed reasonable people of good will would be elected into those positions.  I don't think we should make the same mistaken assumption when reforming our system.  I much prefer the Parliamentary system to the US system.  If a government loses the confidence of Parliament we go to the polls to elect a new Parliament.  In the US they just get seemingly unending deadlock.

Having a bicameral system does not mean having a US-style system.

Australia, for example, has a functioning elected senate yet still retains a Westminster-style democracy.

[viper37]

Woha viper, let's not argue for a American style Senate, that is worse than outright abolition.

Is the US Senate really out of touch with the US public?  I kinda feel they're doing exactly what the people who voted them in office want them to do. 

Besides, the problem in US politics is mostly cause by unlimited campaign funding and gerrymandering.  One of these has been adressed here, the other is a work in progress.

I can't answer whether the US Senate, or any part of the US government is out of touch with the US public.  But what I do know is that their bi-cameral system has created a great deal of dysfunction.  I think it was JR who made the point that the Founding Fathers of the US system assumed reasonable people of good will would be elected into those positions.  I don't think we should make the same mistaken assumption when reforming our system.  I much prefer the Parliamentary system to the US system.  If a government loses the confidence of Parliament we go to the polls to elect a new Parliament.  In the US they just get seemingly unending deadlock.

I am not too found of British style parliament.  The German system, from what I remember, was pretty good and managed to work well where the US system had flaws.