Is Triple E Senate a good idea?

[Big Blue Machine]

I think that Triple E Senate is a bad idea. It born from the wining Western premiers. There would be a deadlock between the House of Commons and Senate.

Personally I think we should abolish the Senate.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree. Let's drop the Senate, and for God's sake let's not implement PR.

Jeffrey Simpson Op Ed Piece

Minority governments, as we are about to observe, are lowest-common-denominator governments, in which the partners keep the government going for a day, a month or a year by haggling among themselves. They compare wish lists and swap. They certainly don't make hard decisions, if by hard we mean decisions that entail sacrifice, cutting back, saving today for spending tomorrow, taking on sacred cows or powerful interest groups.

Our system has produced a very workable compromise between the forces of capitalism and socialism, an almost 50-50 split in my opinion. And all of this without PR, or significant help from the Senate.

Let's not blow the whole system up with major reforms over the complains of a few...

[Black Dog]

Our system has produced a very workable compromise between the forces of capitalism and socialism, an almost 50-50 split in my opinion. And all of this without PR, or significant help from the Senate.

First: your link be broken.

Second:piffle. This recent election was a glitch, an anomoly, a blip on the radar of a system that is inherently unfair, unrepresentative and undemocratic. It's a glitch that will probably be corrected once the minority government falls, at which point we'll be back to "majority" governments that represent a small portion iof the population, yet weild 100 per cent of the power.

Fixing the Senate is pointless tinkering: like putting washer fluid in a car that dropped its transmission ten miles down the road. The whole system needs to be put up on blocks and given an overhaul.

EDITED TO ADD: I just checked out the Simpson article. It is, as I expected, hogwash. He admits PR is a better system for representing voters than FPTP, yet balks at the prospect of minority governments withouty citing a single, solitary example of the "European governments that try to reduce bloated bureaucracies or excessively rich programs" but can't. That sentence alone, of course, betrays Simpson's bias (as if the earlier line about "sacrifice, cutting back, saving today for spending tomorrow, taking on sacred cows or powerful interest groups" weren't a big enough clue.) Simpson knows FPTP is undemocratic. But its useful for pushing agendas through (especially those of the rich and powerful he favours) so that's okay in his book. Democracy is too messy for Simpson. Under it, too much is left to the Great Unwashed Masses. Better to have a "strong" (read: Liberal) government than risk a sudden outbreak of democracy.

[August1991]

yet balks at the prospect of minority governments withouty citing a single, solitary example of the "European governments that try to reduce bloated bureaucracies or excessively rich programs" but can't.

That phrase struck me as well but in a different way.

The right wing approach to PR is that it leads to minority government and less activist governments since politicians spend their time arguing instead of doing.

A majority government (at least in Canada) makes the PM a dictator. If the PM wakes up one morning and wants it, he gets it.

Simpson makes the argument that minority governments in Europe can't reduce government size but that begs the question of how European governments got so big in the first place.

I don't know what to make of these arguments but I am reasonably certain they are irrelevant in Canada.

There are have always been serious regional stresses in Canada. Political parties reflect regional rather than ideological viewpoints.

If anyone thinks PR will somehow magically make everyone happily Canadian, they are seriously deluded.

[Cartman]

The Senate should go. Why are Canadians so angry about the sponsorship scandal but not the existence of the Senate? It is "legitimate corruption" as far as I can tell. Just a place for the PM to reward his friends. There are a few good senators, but many hardly ever show. Triple E might cause more trouble than it is worth.

[Big Blue Machine]

Western premiers love the idea so they can comfort their egos into thinking they can have a voice in the senate.

Abolish the senate and save the taxpayers money!

[DAC]

A majority government (at least in Canada) makes the PM a dictator. If the PM wakes up one morning and wants it, he gets it.

That hits the problem we face dead centre. There are no meaningful checks and balances in our present government, unless we have minority government.

The design of our system put two serious checks on the PM’s power. The first was that he had to maintain the confidence of parliament. If a government measure was defeated, the government fell. That protection for the people was destroyed by the practice of compulsory voting the party line. It works only if there are free votes on all issues.

The second check was the Senate. When it was established an appointed body of normally older, experienced people carried a lot of moral authority. The Senate was balanced by region rather than by population, to give it a different slant on issues. With the growth of the idea that the will of the people is absolute, an unelected Senate lost its moral authority, and became more and more unable to check the Commons. If it rejected legislation, the government would scream about it thwarting the will of the people - & everybody bought into that nonsense.

The easy check to restore today is likely the Senate. There is a growing frustration with an ineffective, but costly upper house, which is mainly a place to reward the party faithful. So there may be a willingness to do something.

Appointment of Senators for a fixed term by provincial governments would be an inexpensive way to change the Senate. It would also break the pattern of Senators being loyal to the PM or party that appointed them. Their loyalty would be to their provincial government. As representatives of the provinces, they would carry a lot more moral authority to challenge the government of the day.

The alternative, of course, is election of Senators. But if that is combined with federal elections, the Senate is very likely to match the Commons in its makeup, and the federal party considerations would be too important.

I think we should reform the Senate, not can it. The biggest weakness in our government today is the absolute authority of the PM. A strong Senate would cut that back. Of course, requiring all votes to be free votes would cut it even more.

[takeanumber]

My proposal for a truly EEE senate has been rejected by the people who support a fake EEE senate.

I won't go into details, but my proposal is better.

In short: make the votes equal, make them direct, and make the feedback loop ultra-responsive.

[Michael Hardner]

Second:piffle. This recent election was a glitch, an anomoly, a blip on the radar of a system that is inherently unfair, unrepresentative and undemocratic. It's a glitch that will probably be corrected once the minority government falls, at which point we'll be back to "majority" governments that represent a small portion iof the population, yet weild 100 per cent of the power.

I was talking of the last 40 years or so and the country we have produced in that time.

This country has adopted many progressive social programs, while adapting to create a good environment for business, joining NAFTA and so forth.

And now, people are grumbling a little so we want to risk a complete overhaul ? You, BD, are completely certain that it will fix our problems but fortunately not everyone is so confident.

[Black Dog]

There are have always been serious regional stresses in Canada. Political parties reflect regional rather than ideological viewpoints.

Regionalization of political parties is grossly exaggerated by FPTP. For instance, based on the recent election results, one would assume that Western Canada completely embraced the Cons. However, more western Canadians voted for parties other than the Cons, yet receive no representation.

PR would more accurately reflect voters' choices.

This country has adopted many progressive social programs, while adapting to create a good environment for business, joining NAFTA and so forth.

The system has also created governments that are prone to corruption, thanks to the near-absolute power majority government's hold, as well as increasing voter cynicism and fueling conspets such as western alienation.

And now, people are grumbling a little so we want to risk a complete overhaul ? You, BD, are completely certain that it will fix our problems but fortunately not everyone is so confident.

I never said PR is a panacea: but it's a step in the right direction towards a more responsive, democratic and representive goovernment.

Are people so afraid of change (of any kind) that they'd stick with a broken system?

[Michael Hardner]

Regionalization of political parties is grossly exaggerated by FPTP. For instance, based on the recent election results, one would assume that Western Canada completely embraced the Cons. However, more western Canadians voted for parties other than the Cons, yet receive no representation.

True.

QUOTEThis country has adopted many progressive social programs, while adapting to create a good environment for business, joining NAFTA and so forth.

The system has also created governments that are prone to corruption, thanks to the near-absolute power majority government's hold, as well as increasing voter cynicism and fueling conspets such as western alienation.

More corruption than PR-governed countries such as Italy and Israel ?

And as I have said, there's no way of telling whether PR would foster renewed faith in democracy. We'd definitely see a far-right party start to rise, though, at some point.

I never said PR is a panacea: but it's a step in the right direction towards a more responsive, democratic and representive goovernment.

Then let's try it as a baby step. Say, 10 seats. With a seat guaranteed to anyone who gets at least 5% of the vote, at the expense of the party that gets the most votes.

Are people so afraid of change (of any kind) that they'd stick with a broken system?

Well, just because you have a solution, it doesn't mean that it's better than the status quo. I could offer a return to absolute Monarchy as a solution as well, with such a rationale.

[Black Dog]

More corruption than PR-governed countries such as Italy and Israel ?

And as I have said, there's no way of telling whether PR would foster renewed faith in democracy. We'd definitely see a far-right party start to rise, though, at some point.

Well,as I pointe dout elsewhere, PR does lead to increased voter participation.

As for the latter half of your statement: wasn't your earlier argyument that PR would be the death knell of conservativism as a force in electoral politics? Why change the tune now?

Then let's try it as a baby step. Say, 10 seats. With a seat guaranteed to anyone who gets at least 5% of the vote, at the expense of the party that gets the most votes.

Again, there's definitely room for gradual reform to a mixed system. However, that's not my preference.

Well, just because you have a solution, it doesn't mean that it's better than the status quo. I could offer a return to absolute Monarchy as a solution as well, with such a rationale.

To find a solution you must first identify the problems and then determine what course of action would be best sutited to recitfying the problems. So if we have a system that's unrepresentative, then naturally we should look at systems that are more representative. It just so happens that PR systems fit the bill.

[Michael Hardner]

Well,as I pointe dout elsewhere, PR does lead to increased voter participation.

That might happen, or it might not. And if it happens, it might be a short-term effect.

As for the latter half of your statement: wasn't your earlier argyument that PR would be the death knell of conservativism as a force in electoral politics? Why change the tune now?

It would result in the permanent caging-up of Conservatives within our democratic framework, yes.

But far-right parties would also pop up.

Again, there's definitely room for gradual reform to a mixed system. However, that's not my preference.

Well, I'll meet you 1/2 way on it. If 10 seats works, then 20 seats or more might be a next step.

To find a solution you must first identify the problems and then determine what course of action would be best sutited to recitfying the problems. So if we have a system that's unrepresentative, then naturally we should look at systems that are more representative. It just so happens that PR systems fit the bill.

The problem is that people feel out of touch with the process - it doesn't speak to them. Referrenda seem like a more natural approach to solving that problem, but we all know where that would lead.

[Black Dog]

It would result in the permanent caging-up of Conservatives within our democratic framework, yes.

As I said elsewhere, PR simply ensures that parties get seats based on their percentage of the vote. If the Conservatives are unable, under a fair and representative system, to garner enough support to be a factor, that's not the system's fault, but the party's.

[mimsy]

I think we should reform the Senate, not can it. The biggest weakness in our government today is the absolute authority of the PM. A strong Senate would cut that back.

I basically agree.

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