You Wanna Be A Senator?

[Bonam]

Totally. I wouldn't mind being an MP either. Damn skeletons.

I bet a lot of people we would otherwise benefit from having in government just simply don't want anything to do with it due to the way politics, privacy, and media are.

[Vega]

Why can't we just go back to having the Senate be how it was? Either that or get rid of it wholestock. This meeting in the middle just won't work and is weird.

That being said, I filled out an application.

[Smallc]

Why would you prefer the status quo to this?

[Vega]

Why would you prefer the status quo to this?

Mainly because it provides no certainty. Should the Conservatives eventually get back into power, they could decide to appoint Senators another way. There needs to be a definiteness to the Senate that this middle ground doesn't accomplish

[JamesHackerMP]

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.

[Smallc]

Mainly because it provides no certainty. Should the Conservatives eventually get back into power, they could decide to appoint Senators another way. There needs to be a definiteness to the Senate that this middle ground doesn't accomplish

If this works well, Canadians won't accept a return to previous methods.

[Big Guy]

Representation by population is guaranteed in the House of Commons. Representation by region is supposed to guarantee that every province and every region in Canada has a say in governing. The Senate is supposed to guarantee that every province, no matter its size and population, will have a "strong" say in the running of Canada.

As new Canada became greater Canada by adding provinces, that is the promise that the provinces were given through the constitution for joining the country. If that contract is invalidated then the provinces should have the right to leave.

[?Impact]

As new Canada became greater Canada by adding provinces, that is the promise that the provinces were given through the constitution for joining the country.

Saskatchewan, Alberta, and even Manitoba were creations of the the country and never joined.

[Smallc]

Saskatchewan, Alberta, and even Manitoba were creations of the the country and never joined.

With Manitoba, that's a bit of hair splitting, as the original part of it was 'created' as a direct result of the Metis Rebellion.

That's also irrelevant, as those provinces now have (Saskatchewan and Alberta didn't at joining) the same sovereign authority as all of the others).

Edited July 18, 2016 by Smallc

[Vega]

If this works well, Canadians won't accept a return to previous methods.

I doubt the Conservatives will go along with it, owing to their name.

I feel like a fine way to get a less partisan Senate would be to let the Governor-General pick them. He already leads the nation in not being overly political, so I'm sure he could fill new Senators in that mold as well.

[Smallc]

As I've said before, he can't exercise his power without advice.

[JamesHackerMP]

Funny what qualifies as merit these days.

Sorry, I know this quote is from page one and we're on page 5 now, but I thought it worth commenting on.

Democracy is not government by merit. The civil service is run by merit, at least in theory, because you need to take exams and what not for promotions. There is no exam one needs to take in order to be an MP or a senator, right?

While in my country, there are no such exams, either, a bill was put forth in the Arizona State Legislature to put the IQ of a candidate for office next to the candidate's name.

Naturally, to protect their own power it is quite likely, the bill died in committee.

Edited July 19, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[?Impact]

IQ of a candidate

Perhaps there should be a minimum IQ, but I don't think that IQ by itself is a good indicator of decision making capability on a broad range of subjects.

[Wilber]

Sorry, I know this quote is from page one and we're on page 5 now, but I thought it worth commenting on.

Democracy is not government by merit. The civil service is run by merit, at least in theory, because you need to take exams and what not for promotions. There is no exam one needs to take in order to be an MP or a senator, right?

While in my country, there are no such exams, either, a bill was put forth in the Arizona State Legislature to put the IQ of a candidate for office next to the candidate's name.

Naturally, to protect their own power it is quite likely, the bill died in committee.

I understand that. My comment was regarding what qualified as merit. Apparently, any reason used to select someone is now called merit.

BTW, Baldrick in real life got knighted. Sir Anthony Robinson if you please.

[JamesHackerMP]

In Starship Troopers and other books by sci-fi author Robert Heinlein (a political writer masquerading as a sci fi writer, actually) they did have a "meritocracy" of elected officials. You had to do federal service for at least two years to be able to vote and run for office. In democracy, as we know it, there's no barrier to either. In a democracy there really can't be, when you get right down to it. We give civil servants exams, yes. But they're administrators; their role is supposed to be apolitical, so what's on their exams is not something politically controversial. (In other words what I am saying is this: if we started requiring "merit" to hold office, what would the qualifications be? and who would determine those qualifications?)

[JamesHackerMP]

OK that was a little off topic and seemed to have stalled the conversation for a few days, sorry.

I was surprised (shocked actually) to learn that the Canadian Constitution (since the original when it was confederated to create the Dominion of Canada) requires a senator to own $4,000 of property (after mortgage/debt etc.) and a new worth of at least $4000 in the province the senator represents. That's shocking...although good of you to not have indexed that for inflation.

I wonder what $4,000 Canadian dollars in 1867 would be today? That sounds like a crap-ton of money for that year. Thankfully, the authors of you constitution had the wisdom not to index that for inflation.

[Vega]

OK that was a little off topic and seemed to have stalled the conversation for a few days, sorry.

I was surprised (shocked actually) to learn that the Canadian Constitution (since the original when it was confederated to create the Dominion of Canada) requires a senator to own $4,000 of property (after mortgage/debt etc.) and a new worth of at least $4000 in the province the senator represents. That's shocking...although good of you to not have indexed that for inflation.

I wonder what $4,000 Canadian dollars in 1867 would be today? That sounds like a crap-ton of money for that year. Thankfully, the authors of you constitution had the wisdom not to index that for inflation.

Nothing shocking about it, really. The U.S. had similar requirements early on, let alone for Blacks.

[jacee]

OK that was a little off topic and seemed to have stalled the conversation for a few days, sorry.

I think you blew your cover.

.

[JamesHackerMP]

Blew what cover? LOL

[JamesHackerMP]

Nothing shocking about it, really. The U.S. had similar requirements early on, let alone for Blacks.

Yes, but the requirements (OK, for the white people) were dropped by the 1840s, mostly. The electorate expanded to "universal" suffrage* by the 1850s. (*"universal" = all the white males over 21)

[JamesHackerMP]

Anywho, yeah I'd love to be a senator. One of you called it Low Responsibility mixed with High Pay. I couldn't ask for better, at this juncture in my life.

[JamesHackerMP]

But do any of you see an actual ADVANTAGE in the Senate, the way it is now? Any advantage at all?

[Smallc]

There are certainly advantages. The Senate isn't beholden to the whims of voters, chief among them.

[JamesHackerMP]

That's what I was thinking. A couple of Britons were telling me the same sort of thing about the House of Lords (only they don't step down at 75!) The Lords can consider things apolitically, whereas the Commons cannot in the UK, so it's detached from the MP-machine of the House of Commons in Westminster. The difference is, they have a much better cross section of "professions" in the Lords that can actually give EXPERT scrutiny to bills the HOC cannot---in Canada, it seems (from what you have all told me) that they're "party hacks".

However, if ALL members were elected for the same parliamentary mandate (it's 5 years, right?) wouldn't that preclude the "obstruction" that many of you seem to worry about?

In Maryland, the state legislature is completely fercockta---excuse the Yiddish profanity---but the method of the election between the two chambers (state Senate and House of Delegates) is exactly at the same time, for exactly the same length of term: everyone in the state is elected for four years, at the same election.

Now, for the United States, yes, that's fercockta; but in Canada, would this not solve the problem of preventing "obstructionism" between Commons and Senate? And in the mean time, allow for an elected Senate? Just a thought I'm throwing out there...one of you did poo-poo the Australian arrangement as precisely that.