Sandy MacNab Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) If you are referring to my proposal, the opposition from the other provinces and territories would have to be almost unanimous to "overrule" them. ON/BC/QC/AB would have 24/51 seats. Anyway, they wouldn't really be overruled, since they still have much more than 50% of the seats in the house of commons. That's kind of the point of a bicameral parliament. Is it fair that the top 10 most populated US states, which together comprise a majority of the population, together only have 20% of the vote in their senate? The senate isn't intended to be rep-by-pop. Y'know, I can't believe it's so mysterious or hard to understand that the senate is NOT intended to be rep-by-pop. Yet, there are so many that can't seem to get it. I suspect that most are from Ont/Que and are being deliberately obtuse; those who don't give a shit for TROC and want to keep all the power in Central Canada. by "those" I mean politicians. Edited June 8, 2011 by Sandy MacNab Quote
punked Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Y'know, I can't believe it's so mysterious or hard to understand that the senate is NOT intended to be rep-by-pop. Yet, there are so many that can't seem to get it. I suspect that most are from Ont/Que and are being deliberately obtuse; those who don't give a shit for TROC and want to keep all the power in Central Canada. by "those" I mean politicians. Again the Senate isn't Rep by anything right now. It is rep by appointment and only one person gets Represented and that is the PM who put the Senator there. Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 only one person gets Represented and that is the PM who put the Senator there. That is such utter tripe. Senators have no reason to support the positions of the PM that appointed them. Quote
punked Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 That is such utter tripe. Senators have no reason to support the positions of the PM that appointed them. Accept that they got a cushy job that pays 120,000 a year plus expenses and they don't even have to do the job. It is really the least that PM could ask that they owe him or her their vote for the rest of their lives. Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Accept that they got a cushy job that pays 120,000 a year plus expenses and they don't even have to do the job. It is really the least that PM could ask that they owe him or her their vote for the rest of their lives. Except that they don't owe him their vote, so that theory is shot to hell. Quote
punked Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Except that they don't owe him their vote, so that theory is shot to hell. That is something we will have to disagree on. Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 That is something we will have to disagree on. It isn't something to disagree on, it's a fact. Senators don't have to vote any certain way, because they're beholden to no one but their fellow senators. Quote
punked Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) It isn't something to disagree on, it's a fact. Senators don't have to vote any certain way, because they're beholden to no one but their fellow senators. Again I live in real Canada where PMs appoint their closest friends or the most staunch party members to make sure they vote how they want. I don't live in pretend Canada the Fathers of Confederation envisioned. I am sure their Canada is awesome BTW it just isn't exactly what they envisioned. Edited June 8, 2011 by punked Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Again I live in real Canada where PMs appoint their closest friends or the most staunch party members to make sure they vote how they want. I'm sure that's where you think you live, but your world view doesn't always match up with reality. Quote
punked Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 I'm sure that's where you think you live, but your world view doesn't always match up with reality. I might say the same about you. Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 I might say the same about you. You might, and sometimes you might be right. Your view here though isn't matched by reality. I mean, come on, you already have Harper appointed Senators disagreeing with some of Harper's proposals for senate reform. Quote
punked Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 You might, and sometimes you might be right. Your view here though isn't matched by reality. I mean, come on, you already have Harper appointed Senators disagreeing with some of Harper's proposals for senate reform. I am shocked the people who vote for the PM because gave them a cushy job would turn against him when he says they will no longer be allowed to have that job unless they are voted in meaning most of them would lose their jobs. Shocked I say! Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 I am shocked the people who vote for the PM because gave them a cushy job would turn against him when he says they will no longer be allowed to have that job unless they are voted in meaning most of them would lose their jobs. So...they obviously don't owe him their vote then. Thank you for proving my point for me. Quote
punked Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 So...they obviously don't owe him their vote then. Thank you for proving my point for me. Not if he takes away the thing they were indebted to him for. Quote
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Not if he takes away the thing they were indebted to him for. No, actually. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 My first wife's father was a conservative senator...the senate is a place where very experienced big buisness types go to relax and retire -but these old guys are a wealth of experience...electing them would be stupid - you could elect a person strickly on charm and rhetoric and be even in a worst position when it comes to having a place of second sober thought. Quote
Sandy MacNab Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Again I live in real Canada where PMs appoint their closest friends or the most staunch party members to make sure they vote how they want. I don't live in pretend Canada the Fathers of Confederation envisioned. I am sure their Canada is awesome BTW it just isn't exactly what they envisioned. You must have a tortured soul to be so cynical and suspicious; say, a Liberal who just can't deal with the reality of May 2. Quote
g_bambino Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Again I live in real Canada where PMs appoint their closest friends or the most staunch party members to make sure they vote how they want. I'd be interested to know how Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien are telling the senators appointed on their advice how to vote. Especially Trudeau... You are, of course, wrong, however. There is nothing but personal choice forcing a senator to vote according to party diktat. They cannot be fired for doing otherwise. [+] Edited June 8, 2011 by g_bambino Quote
Molly Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Not if he takes away the thing they were indebted to him for. There are current senators appointed by 6 different prime ministers. A couple of senators are independents and a couple more affiliated with a party that no longer exists. Senators are in it for the long haul. Prime ministers are temporary. X-post there g_bambino.... but let's not forget Senator Murray. Edited June 8, 2011 by Molly Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Molly Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 ON: 8 QC: 8 BC: 4 AB: 4 MN: 4 Sask: 4 PEI: 4 Nflnd: 4 NS: 4 NB: 4 Yukon: 1 NWT: 1 Nunavut: 1 Total: 51 There seems to be an assumption of bare acknowledgement for the north,and to me, that doesn't seem appropriate. That's becoming action central/ is facing huge decisions that will have permanent (not just long-term) effects, yet we would eschew the enforceable advice of those who are intimately familiar with it? Did we learn nothing from the developement of the western provinces? Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Smallc Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 There seems to be an assumption of bare acknowledgement for the north,and to me, that doesn't seem appropriate. It actually does to me. If the Senate really is the house of the provinces, and the north doesn't have any provinces..... Quote
Dave_ON Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 There seems to be an assumption of bare acknowledgement for the north,and to me, that doesn't seem appropriate. That's becoming action central/ is facing huge decisions that will have permanent (not just long-term) effects, yet we would eschew the enforceable advice of those who are intimately familiar with it? Did we learn nothing from the developement of the western provinces? A fair point Molly, though the rules surrounding territories are indeed different then those of provinces. However, we should likely put in provisions should the territory reach provincial status and they become and equal, self sustained partner is confederation. To those who are suggesting ON and PQ should still have more senators than the rest of the province I can't agree. That may be the reality of it to get them on board, but honestly the senate is not intended to be rep-by-pop in the least, it is the balance to the tyranny of the majority. We have the lower house to handle the pop vote, the senate is suppose to temper that and realistically should be evenly distributed. Having said that Bonam's suggestion is certainly workable, as at most ON and PQ combines only have 16 seats, that's equal to the combined seats of the West and the Atlantic provinces and is certainly a far more fair and equal distribution then what we currently have. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Dave_ON Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Again I live in real Canada where PMs appoint their closest friends or the most staunch party members to make sure they vote how they want. I don't live in pretend Canada the Fathers of Confederation envisioned. I am sure their Canada is awesome BTW it just isn't exactly what they envisioned. Just keep on repeating the party line blindly punked, God forbid you think for yourself or even consider another line of thinking. Why are you so hell bent on destroying something that if corrected would benefit our country and solve many of the inequities? Ontario and Quebec seized the lions share of the power and has held onto it for far too long. This is why there is much resentment in the west and even the Atlantic towards central Canada. You are a prime example of a typically oblivious, I'm every Canadian Ontarian. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
Remiel Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 To those who are suggesting ON and PQ should still have more senators than the rest of the province I can't agree. That may be the reality of it to get them on board, but honestly the senate is not intended to be rep-by-pop in the least, it is the balance to the tyranny of the majority. Exactly. Exactly! But tyranny of the majority is not solved by creating a tyranny of the minority. That is why I am suggesting that there needs to be some kind of balance, just not one that conforms nicely to rep-by-pop, which is obviously the wrong way to go in the Senate. A number of Senate experts believe that an elected Senate especially would take for itself more power than the House of Commons has, and if that happened under a Senate in which a much smaller minority could over-rule the majority with ease, it would it a very poor outcome for our democracy. Quote
Dave_ON Posted June 8, 2011 Report Posted June 8, 2011 Exactly. Exactly! But tyranny of the majority is not solved by creating a tyranny of the minority. That is why I am suggesting that there needs to be some kind of balance, just not one that conforms nicely to rep-by-pop, which is obviously the wrong way to go in the Senate. A number of Senate experts believe that an elected Senate especially would take for itself more power than the House of Commons has, and if that happened under a Senate in which a much smaller minority could over-rule the majority with ease, it would it a very poor outcome for our democracy. Indeed, which is precisely why I don't buy into the Triple E garbage. In order for the senate to be effective it by definition must NOT be elected. Simply moving the power of appointment from the PM to the provinces/regions they represent would go a long way to fix the current problems. Equal would be better, but at the very least give the power to the povinces/regions to appoint their own senators, this would offer somewhat more accountability to the regions they hail from. Quote Follow the man who seeks the truth; run from the man who has found it. -Vaclav Haval-
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.