Bicameralism

[JamesHackerMP]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I guess I misinterpreted "How's that equitable?" to mean you thought it was not equitable. 

Do you not see any value in having some level of checks and balances in our legislative process? Especially in a country with the power resting almost 100% in the hands of a single individual (party leader dictating what party does, and with majority government that means absolute power). 

Yes I agree.  But you said it wasn't equitable in the US to do the same thing, right?

[?Impact]

24 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

But you said it wasn't equitable in the US to do the same thing, right?

In the US there are 21 states with smaller populations than Puerto Rico, in fact 2 states have smaller populations than the District of Columbia. 

I think there is a lot about so-called democracy the is not equitable.

[JamesHackerMP]

Probably because we are more concerned with individual liberty, than with majority rule.  Majority rule is not a guarantee of individual liberty.  Lack thereof can often infringe upon individual liberty, but there's still such a thing as the tyranny of the majority.  The Senate mitigates that possibility to some extent (the US Senate).

[Boges]

18 hours ago, ?Impact said:

I guess I misinterpreted "How's that equitable?" to mean you thought it was not equitable. 

Do you not see any value in having some level of checks and balances in our legislative process? Especially in a country with the power resting almost 100% in the hands of a single individual (party leader dictating what party does, and with majority government that means absolute power). 

Provinces don't need it. You have the courts. The government of the day can still pad the Senate with however they want. Do you really think the latest round of Senate appointments are going to go against the government on anything?  

I actually prefer the US system where the Executive and Legislative branches are separate so it creates its own balance.

[JamesHackerMP]

Wow.