Also people seem to be thinking that democracy is equivalent to liberty. We are not going to be any more liberated as a country with an elected Senate than we already are. The Third Reich was a democracy, the USSR was initially a democracy, and Iran is a direct democracy yet none of those countries are free. I believe we as a country are free and freedom is guaranteed even for those who don't have a majority voice precisely because of the checks and balances afforded by non-political actors.
The last thing we need is more politicians in Ottawa. We need to give credence to the wisdom founders of this country, who established the Senate for some very good reasons that have been forgotten. The Senate was supposed to provide a check against the dictatorial majorities that our parliamentary system produces. The Senate was meant to provide sober second though by non-political actors. I favour Senate reform to make the Senate less politically influenced by the PM but not much else.
We don't need an elected senate, but it should be made better. What should be done is how they do it in South Africa. The people elect their provincial legislatures, which then appoint their senators. The PM shouldn't be allowed to appoint Senators, but electing them directly would be bad too. Indirect election where the Provincial Legislatures elect the senators for their province is the best solution.
When I first found out that the Canadian senate wasn't elected, I was surprised, but then I thought about it, and it didn't seem like such a bad thing. Being free of politics allows a person to become a wiser and more sage like people, than the corrupt greedy bastards most politicians are. Am I for ultimate power and unlimited terms? Of course not. There should always be a limit to power. But I feel that the best way to have a senate, after much thinking, is appointing one.
Ignatieff's notion that electing Senators would alter the relative powers of the Senate and the House is just plain wrong.
The Prime Minister requires the confidence of the House to govern, not the Senate. Plus only the House can introduce money bills. Anyone who understands our system of government knows this clearly makes the House the dominant chamber, and nothing but a constitutional change would alter that.
Once again, Ignatieff is lecturing us on a topic he knows nothing about.
In Canada, we don't decide our vote on the basis of our local candidate; studies show when we vote we consider the leader first and the policies second. So Iggy's suggestion that the Senate might be for good, ineluctable people is weak. There is no such thing as an ineluctable candidate.
... Patrick Brazeau has a job until he is 75, not 65.
I rather would like to see it abolished myself, but otherwise I agree with Iggy.
@papalosopher The case is more that these political leaders can block popular legislation that's not in the best interest of the country fro example bob rays NDP doubled welfare rates popular but not smart. Their should be a place to look at legislation without incurring the wraft of the electorate
There is already a body that can block legislation not in the interests of the country without facing electorates. That would be the courts, which can deem cases and rulings unconstitutional, and ask the H of C to redo legislation whenever necessary.
IMO, the courts are doing a better job of fine-tuning legislation than the Senate, and the Dialogue Theory shows how this works. Do more research on this before ranting about how we ought to keep the Senate unelected and unaccountable.
Also people seem to be thinking that democracy is equivalent to liberty. We are not going to be any more liberated as a country with an elected Senate than we already are. The Third Reich was a democracy, the USSR was initially a democracy, and Iran is a direct democracy yet none of those countries are free. I believe we as a country are free and freedom is guaranteed even for those who don't have a majority voice precisely because of the checks and balances afforded by non-political actors.
MrEthekyaa 10 months ago
The last thing we need is more politicians in Ottawa. We need to give credence to the wisdom founders of this country, who established the Senate for some very good reasons that have been forgotten. The Senate was supposed to provide a check against the dictatorial majorities that our parliamentary system produces. The Senate was meant to provide sober second though by non-political actors. I favour Senate reform to make the Senate less politically influenced by the PM but not much else.
MrEthekyaa 10 months ago
We don't need an elected senate, but it should be made better. What should be done is how they do it in South Africa. The people elect their provincial legislatures, which then appoint their senators. The PM shouldn't be allowed to appoint Senators, but electing them directly would be bad too. Indirect election where the Provincial Legislatures elect the senators for their province is the best solution.
Fry1989HD 1 year ago
When I first found out that the Canadian senate wasn't elected, I was surprised, but then I thought about it, and it didn't seem like such a bad thing. Being free of politics allows a person to become a wiser and more sage like people, than the corrupt greedy bastards most politicians are. Am I for ultimate power and unlimited terms? Of course not. There should always be a limit to power. But I feel that the best way to have a senate, after much thinking, is appointing one.
TheoreticChaos 1 year ago
Ignatieff's notion that electing Senators would alter the relative powers of the Senate and the House is just plain wrong.
The Prime Minister requires the confidence of the House to govern, not the Senate. Plus only the House can introduce money bills. Anyone who understands our system of government knows this clearly makes the House the dominant chamber, and nothing but a constitutional change would alter that.
Once again, Ignatieff is lecturing us on a topic he knows nothing about.
liberty4canada 1 year ago
we need a elected senate or abolish it
KMAN6000 2 years ago
In Canada, we don't decide our vote on the basis of our local candidate; studies show when we vote we consider the leader first and the policies second. So Iggy's suggestion that the Senate might be for good, ineluctable people is weak. There is no such thing as an ineluctable candidate.
... Patrick Brazeau has a job until he is 75, not 65.
I rather would like to see it abolished myself, but otherwise I agree with Iggy.
papalosopher 2 years ago
@papalosopher The case is more that these political leaders can block popular legislation that's not in the best interest of the country fro example bob rays NDP doubled welfare rates popular but not smart. Their should be a place to look at legislation without incurring the wraft of the electorate
zxcvbnmjhgfdsa1 2 years ago
There is already a body that can block legislation not in the interests of the country without facing electorates. That would be the courts, which can deem cases and rulings unconstitutional, and ask the H of C to redo legislation whenever necessary.
IMO, the courts are doing a better job of fine-tuning legislation than the Senate, and the Dialogue Theory shows how this works. Do more research on this before ranting about how we ought to keep the Senate unelected and unaccountable.
lkcwu 2 years ago