Canada's political system vs. US political system

[Guest Derek L]

Obviously it probably won't ever happen, I am aware of the methods that would have to be pursued to abolish it.

It doesn't change the fact that the Senate is a waste of tax dollars and space.

You wisely said federated country when stating there are no unicameral parliaments, but you choose to neglect the fact that some of the best functioning democracies in the world are unicameral. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Iceland, South Korea to name a few

Again, the Senate can take a hike

We’re not a functioning democracy? You feel a country with less checks and balances, less representation for smaller provinces etc, is better than ours?

As someone above pointed out, lets say we tell the Senate to take a hike………How does PEI or Manitoba ensure their interests are protected from Ontario and Quebec?

What do you propose?

[g_bambino]

You wisely said federated country when stating there are no unicameral parliaments, but you choose to neglect the fact that some of the best functioning democracies in the world are unicameral. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Iceland, South Korea to name a few

It seems this one little salient fact slipped past you: None of those countries are federations. Unless you propose the abolition of the provinces, there's no point in comparing Canada to New Zealand or Iceland.

Again, the Senate can take a hike

Hmm... Perhaps that is the best you can do.

[sp]

Edited August 25, 2011 by g_bambino

[finnth]

the canadian senate was created so the Prime Minister could appoint his rich friends to make sure the lower class in the HoC didn't make stupid decisions.

In todays Canada, it isn't really a necessity but i do believe in still having a Senate because they can be a valuable resource when it comes to large Bills. Canada has a long history of opening constitutional issues and when they do, it's dangerous to leave it to just the HoC. Same goes for any large and important bills. But they should be elected no doubt, one for every riding.

[g_bambino]

the canadian senate was created so the Prime Minister could appoint his rich friends to make sure the lower class in the HoC didn't make stupid decisions.

The Senate as is was a compromise, since Canada didn't (and still doesn't) have a peerage, nor did the Fathers of Confederation want an overly politicised senate as was (and is) the case in the United States. It's difficult to tell just what advantage the Senate is to prime ministers; there's no way a prime minister can remove a senator, and senators continue to sit as such long after the prime minister who recommended their appointment is gone from office. And what makes you think the Commons doesn't make stupid decisions today?

But they should be elected no doubt, one for every riding.

Er, what's the point of having two Houses of Commons?

[+]

Edited August 25, 2011 by g_bambino

[segnosaur]

You wisely said federated country when stating there are no unicameral parliaments, but you choose to neglect the fact that some of the best functioning democracies in the world are unicameral. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Iceland, South Korea to name a few

In addition to the mistake you made about federated countries not having unicameral parliaments, there is something else to remember....

All of the countries you mentioned are relatively small geographically, and except for one or 2 cases (e.g. South Korea) have a smaller population base than Canada.

The reason why a Senate with regional representation is better in countries like Canada and the U.S. is because of the size of the population and the diversity of cultures between various regions of the country.

Oh, and by the way... putting South Korea in a list of 'best functioning' democracies is a bit questionable. Until the mid to late 80s they were seen as having fairly authoritative rule, and its only been in the past decade or 2 that they've become what we'd recognize as a full fledged democracy.

[g_bambino]

Interesting that this should've popped up today (is David Warren a poster on these boards?):

Our system of government is different from those in the other North American polities, and to my view is much superior to them. An essentially unicameral legislature, with prime minister and cabinet answering directly to a formal opposition, has the capacity to move quickly and decisively in times of pressing need. It is not a cat's cradle of mutually sabotaging checks and balances. Yet it had two important checks: the Senate, and the Monarchy.

These were not accidental provisions of the British North America Act, included only for reasons of sentiment, or in the hope of retaining Imperial military protection.

No solid history is taught in our schools, or Canadians today would be more aware that our Fathers of Confederation were meeting in the shadow of the American Civil War, in full review of the fate of what we might reasonably call "the First American Republic." They therefore carefully considered the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. Constitution.

In particular, the retention of the Monarchy, and the provision of an appointive and not elected Senate, were done in direct response to what our own founders considered errors of judgment by the U.S. founders. They produced a Hamiltonian constitution, free of bombast, concerned even more with the preservation of liberty, and even less with the extension of democracy.

As Alexander Hamilton put it: "If government is in the hands of the few, they will tyrannize over the many; if in the hands of the many, they will tyrannize over the few."

The task was to prevent the rise of demagogues and dictators, while retaining unity.

And as Gouverneur Morris, the learned "penman of the [u.S.] constitution," put it: "If the legislative authority be not restrained, there can be neither liberty nor stability. However the legislative power may be formed, it will, if disposed, be able to ruin the country."

Our Senate was conceived as a brake on demagoguery in the House of Commons. Not as a way to block the public will, but to delay it sometimes, for "sober second thought." And our Monarch, acting locally through the governor general, was placed to referee any contest of wills...

Hamilton, again, famously supported an hereditary monarch for the United States. His argument was that a head of state politically selected, will have too much power. Yet that king should have power enough that he has something to lose by over-reaching. For as Lord Acton added, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Our Monarchy, and our Senate, are there for reasons. They are not merely ghosts from some barbaric past. They are instead ghosts from a more civilized past, in need of restoration.

The Canadian identity is not accidental