mimsy

I basically agree. I think that that Senate should be elected by PR, counted nationally.

Jeffery Simpson makes a good point, that PR, even if it's the partial PR "Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)" system used in New Zealand, would result in more minority governments and rule by coalition. This, like so many things, may be good or bad depending on your point of view. I agree that constant minority government would be destabilizing in a country like Canada. Who wanted a Conservative-Bloc coalition this time around? Prospects like this would continue popping up until Confederation fell apart. The Law Commission of Canada has produced a report on how MMP might work in Canada. I believe they suggest about a third of Commons seats be allocated proportionally. http://www.lcc.gc.ca/en/themes/gr/er/er_re..._report_toc.asp It may be a good report, but it doesn't mean you have to agree with implementing MMP. To have any electoral districts larger than provinces for the purposes of PR, constitutional amendments would be required. Provinces are entitled to fixed numbers of seats in the Commons and Senate. As an alternative, I suggest a majoritarian House of Commons and a nationally proportional Senate. This would be similar to mixing the two system-types as MMP attempts, but with important advantages gained by keeping a "winner takes all" system and a PR system separated in two legislative chambers. The Senate could provide an effective check on majority governments, and possible stability to minority governments. Fringe parties (the Canadian Greens would be one under the German system) would have an easier time getting into the Senate than the Commons. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.