JamesHackerMP

Is there any kind of political or tangible benefit (to the system itself, or to the people of Canada) of doing it like that in your opinions?

Have any of you had the distinct "privilege" (call it what you will!) of having to read some of The Federalist? (AKA The Federalist Papers)? Know of it?

gotcha. I had another friend who went to university in Toronto (I forget which one) and he said they did teach American civics classes. But they were taught by Canadian professors with very different perspectives on US politics. (Which I guess is only natural.)

It sounds like America's not the only place where there's corporate/government-connected corruption. I don't know whether that is a good thing we're not alone, or a bad thing.

another question: I read senators are appointed for life (life until 75, that is) and it's really the Prime Minister who's doing the appointing not the Governor-General on his own "personal decision" right?

Addendum: The idea of a "privilege" to vote comes most recently from Robert Heinlein, the author of Starship Troopers and other sci-fi novels. In his fictitious "Terran Federation" you had to earn your right--or rather, your actual privilege--to vote by jumping through the hoops required by the federal constitution, in this case, two years minimum "federal service" in the military or one of its associated organizations. That would be a "privilege" to vote. Universal suffrage--even if you have laws that say it can be taken away for committing some sort of crime--is a "right" to vote. The US is little different from Canada in that respect.

We don't consider it a privilege, we consider it a right. It's just that various states haven't got their **** together and closed some loopholes in voting rights. A right can, under certain circumstances, be taken away for criminal behavior of some sort, via due process. That's pretty standard in most democracies, that something that is still a constitutionally-guaranteed right is also constitutionally-guaranteed to be taken away via criminal conviction via due process. Thus, that doesn't make voting in the US a "privilege".

Reminds me of Blackadder with Rowan Atkinson. He needs to vote down passage of a bill that would strip his boss of all his money, so he decides to run Baldrick for Parliament. "All right...any history of insanity in the family? OK we'll change that to any history of sanity in the family.....NO. Minimum bribe level?" "1 Turnip. Well, I don't want to price myself out of the market!" Is it true that there's still a property qualification to serve as senator??? or is that BS someone fed me.

Indeed, msj....indeed.

An Australian told me that it's common in his country that American Government and history is a distinct class, and that you have to take it in high school. He knows people who live in Canada who, he said, told him the situation is the same. So I don't know if that's apocryphal or not but I was just wondering: Is it required to take classes in US history and/or government at universities in Canada? (Not trying to sound like an arrogant Yank: I'm just curious, because I figure that your teachers'/professors' views on US political science would be....quite different, to say the least. Not inferior or superior, just different. So Mostly, I was wondering exactly what--in very general terms---they teach you, or rather, force you to sit through....I guess what i am getting at is its perspective with which it is taught which again, I imagine, would be unique.)

Actually, according to this website I'm merely a "junior member" which probably equates, in your political system, to a lowly P.P.S.! [Hacker]: So, who else is in this department? [Humphrey]: Well, briefly, sir, I am the Permanent Undersecretary of State, known as the Permanent Secretary. Wooley, here is your Principal Private Secretary. I, too have a Principal Private Secretary; and he is the Principal Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are 10 Deputy Secretaries, 87 Under Secretaries and 219 Assistant Secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principal Private Secretaries are Plain Private Secretaries; and the Prime Minister will be appointing two Parliamentary Undersecretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary. [Hacker]: Do they all type? [Humphrey]: None of can type, Minister; Mrs. McKye types: she's the Secretary. God, I'm not even that.....

And--please understand I mean no offense and don't wish to tread on anyone's beliefs---but did someone seriously just bring up the end of times? I didn't expect that on a Canadian discussion site. That surprised me. (A discussion site based in the American "Bible Belt" perhaps, but a Canadian one? come on guys...)

Betsy, you stated (sorry I didn't use the quote thingy correctly): I could also point to the fact that the USA isn't exactly like the very same USA we knew 50 years ago. Obviously. No. It's not the same USA we knew 50 years ago. And, being homosexual, I must say, thank God for that.

If you don't mind me interjecting yet again, are some Canadians afraid that, if the Senate were elected, as is the US Senate, you'd get the same problem of "obstruction" we do?

Well, here is the thing about proportional representation. I was told that nowhere in Canada is anything but "first past the post" (single member plurality) used, maybe with some minor exceptions. Like it or not, you're similar to your American cousins in that you like to "keep it simple" when it comes to voting (no PR, no numbering preferences, none of that complicated crap). You'd be introducing something into Canadian politics that hadn't been before. If that's what you all want, go for it: it's not for an American to tell you what to do. But I will tell you that Australia uses something similar in voting for both its houses of federal Parliament. A friend from the Commonwealth of Down Under told me that, in federal elections, the ballot for the House is like a postcard; the Senate is more like a small tablecloth. Take into account that they have COMPULSORY voting in Australia. Maybe there's a reason for that? Like--and I'm just spitballing, here--it's so complicated that, if they were not forced to do so, then nobody would bother to turn out to vote?

If you mean proportional representation ballots, rather than first past the post?

How long have the voters of Ontario re-elected the same party to power? Also, the provincial legislative assemblies are unicameral, no?

Exactly. Wishful thinking, sharkman.

Pity the coup was a bigger fiasco than the one in Moscow in 1991, in that case.

If I understand correctly, being based on the Westminster model of government, there's been (officially) prime ministers in Westminster since the 19th century, and unofficially since the mid 18th. If you get rid of a prime minister in a parliamentary system, you get rid of the representative of the elected politicians. Justin Trudeau is not elected by the people-at-large, but he's elected by people who are. If I understand your debate correctly, you're worried that turning the Senate into an elected chamber would cause "obstruction" a la the US Senate. Am I correct?

LOL! Thank you, Sir Humphrey! Obviously another Yes [Prime] Minister fan! Always great to run into others.

I agree with your last sentence, msj! And I live close to Baltimore, if that tells you anything!

I've talked to a couple of Canadians on this subject a long time ago, and this is another thing I'm trying to figure out, so if I someone would be nice and patient and explain it to me, this Yank would be most appreciative. I've got 3 questions regarding the Canadian Senate. Question #1: As far as an abolition of your upper house, if the Senate does (as a Canadian I'm friendly with alleges) have so little power, then why not abolish it and have a unicameral federal parliament like one of you suggested? Leading to Question #2: could Canada actually maintain its principle of federalism, without an upper house? In the United States, such an abolition would destroy the principle of federalism in the United States. But I'll seriously go out on a limb here and make the bold assumption that most American political principles do not apply to Canada. The respondent who mentioned New Zealand is correct: the Legislative Council was abolished in 1950. However, New Zealand is not a federal state, as yet another one of you pointed out. On the other hand: the Republic of Austria IS a federal state, and they've been talking about abolishing the Bundesrat (National Council) for some time, because it has next to no power at all; it's kind of an...appendage, really, in many people's opinions. (But my information on Austria comes from Wikipedia so you never know.) And to sum things up with Question #3: what sort of/how much power does the Senate of Canada really have? Especially considering that the Government of Canada is responsible to the Commons alone, not to both chambers, if I have understood correctly?

Nice. Let's hope the citizens of Rio feel the same way!