|
Kafka Esq. posted:That's an interesting idea. Part of "sober second thought" part of the Senate is still wholeheartedly embraced by its members, that because they are no longer subject to party and voter whims they can be better impartial adjudicators of legislation. I've watched three interviews now where Liberals and Conservatives have said this is still their purpose. However, I haven't seen much other come out of the Senate other than in camera sessions, where the debate is masked. We haven't a clue how these proceed normally, under a Liberal or Conservative chair. Is the debate rigourous? Does the ruling party limit debate like they do in the house? Are people actually sober? As someone who has had the job of reading through the minutes of in-camera meetings, I can state that it is very much a debate, yet more civil that QP. They do tend to be more open, yet less if that makes sense. What I mean is, you don't have jeers, you don't have rabbal rousing, and the senators tend to remain formal. Debate does go back and forth. Of course, senators are free to make personal notes about how one person is a windbag etc.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:29 |
|
|
Actually I just thought about it, and it wouldn't work. If you got 50% of the vote, you wouldn't have 50% of the Senate. So either the senate is "merged" with the House, or a different system would be good. I personally prefer direct election, so two votes at election. Maybe no parties allowed in the Senate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
edit: ^^ a caucus is a voluntary association that politicians have has much of a right to associate with as anyone else. You're as close to an expert as we have, then. I've read that the debates the public would be most interested in - as in, not the boring financial stuff - is largely done in camera. Any thoughts? Kafka Esq. fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Special Kei posted:*SNIP* 1. This would absolutely require a constitutional amendment. Senators are constitutionally entitled to their jobs until they're 75 and can't be compelled to retire. 2. This proposal would institutionalize gridlock to a worse degree than in the US. Look at those number: any bill would need to be agreed to by the CPC, and two or three of the opposition parties. The Senate has the power to reject bills, but not to make the government fall, so we'd just spend our lives waiting for the CPC, LPC, and NDP to agree on policy. A government couldn't just dissolve Parliament and bring the question to the people, either, because the opposition would always have control of the Senate in this system. 3. For some reason, it also gives the pivotal role to the third party and marginalizes the official opposition. A bill could be passed in the Senate by LPC+NDP, LPC+BQ, LPC+GPC, or NDP+BQ+GPC. The NDP would have a lot of seats in the House, where those seats are useless, and fewer seats in the Senate, where they would be useless. Conversely, the LPC gets few seats in the House but more seats in the Senate. This isn't a quirk of this particular parliament, either - the third party is always underrepresented in the HoC, and the second party is almost always overrepresented. This proposal makes the third party more powerful than the official opposition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:
You mean me? Well, I mean, I don't agree with the in camera meetings at all, except in very specific cases (national security kinds of thing), as a matter of principle. I think they should all be open, especially if it's an accountability issue. The senator I worked for is a pretty decent guy, but honestly, that gives me more bias than I normally show, so I'd rather not comment on the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:My grandpa, rest his creepy soul, would have called metis tieflings Oh no! Who told you our secret!? The secrets out folks! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:53
|
|
"
|
This January, new election financing laws in Québec has lowered the donation ceiling to 100$ from 3000$. We now have fundraising results for the first four months. PQ: 290 833 $ QS 54 894 $  PLQ 39 508 $ CAQ 23 025 $ The PLQ was in a leadership race until mid-March, but holy those numbers are devastating for the Liberals and the CAQ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
It's ok, they have "other" channels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Does the PLQ have enough saved up to offset these funding losses until they can figure out a new strategy? If that discrepancy stays in place they're going to be at a severe disadvantage going into the next election. Also, this isn't exactly insightful commentary, but the picture of Duffy from this article: Kafka Esq. posted:http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/31/the-worst-month-in-the-history-of-canadian-politics/ is creeping me the hell out. All I can see is the Goblin King from the Hobbit movie. Political photography is a pretty interesting job, I can only imagine the work that goes into sifting through mountains of photos for the one with the best visual metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I'm astounded that the off-topic chat continues to go down when headlines like this are roaring around. This column is seriously lacking in perspective. Sure we have some bad scandals breaking headlines but the idea that this is the worst month in Canadian politics is ridiculous. The FLQ or even the tensions surrounding Meech Lake and Charlottetown were much more serious national crises than anything going on right now. Special Kei posted:I was thinking about voting reform and senate reform in Canada and it occurred to me that we could fix both problems in one go. Just change the senate from appointment to party lists with Senators selected so that the vote is proportional between the House and Senate. Now under the constitution each province gets a certain number of seats, so the party has a list for each province and territory (e.g. 24 for Ontario, 1 for Nunavut). I'm not 100% sure but this might avoid a constitutional change. Doing it this way will not change how people vote (should keep people happy), will not change the House, will make the Senate elected, and make elections fairly represented. Why would we want to have a more active senate though? Is greater regional representation really worth the risk of having an American style clusterfuck?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This column is seriously lacking in perspective. Sure we have some bad scandals breaking headlines but the idea that this is the worst month in Canadian politics is ridiculous. The FLQ or even the tensions surrounding Meech Lake and Charlottetown were much more serious national crises than anything going on right now. In the column he expresses it's less about the overall severity making it the worst but the sheer volume of incidents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
I'll take multiple corruption scandals over a constitutional crisis that very nearly resulted in the country fragmenting or an incident where domestic terrorists kidnapped and murdered members of a sitting provincial government. We've also had a Prime Minister who was assassinated and some open and armed rebellions against crown authority. This is without going into the poo poo that happened as residential schools or the building of the railway. Those events may not have been remarked upon much in polite society as they were going down, but they were a lot worse by any sane measure. This month has been embarassing for our pundit class but the idea that this month is even in the running for "worst in Canadian history" is crazy talk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:23
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Jesus. Let me guess, racist said black people were orcs right, and jews were dwarves? I've run into a guy like that before. He also claimed latinos were kobolds..... This was broadly how it went, except Jews weren't included and South Asians were dwarves.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
priznat posted:Is there a 3rd Reich? Actually, Sam is the third. Relevant parts at 1:00 and 2:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdYCCM_4Nco Ceciltron posted:Pitt being a fan of a 3rd Reich, if there were one, wouldn't surprise me Come again? I find it quite disconcerting you would think so, unless this is my sarcasm detector failing me once again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:54
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Helsing posted:I'll take multiple corruption scandals over a constitutional crisis that very nearly resulted in the country fragmenting or an incident where domestic terrorists kidnapped and murdered members of a sitting provincial government. We've also had a Prime Minister who was assassinated and some open and armed rebellions against crown authority. Ha ha what? No Canadian Prime minster has been assasinated. the only Canadian politicians who were are D'Arcy Mcgee, George Brown and the aforementioned Pieree Laporte. None of them were PM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
I currently live in the United States, but I'm thinking of moving to another country. Would you advise I move to Canada, or is it not worth the effort? I think it is, but you're natives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I currently live in the United States, but I'm thinking of moving to another country. Would you advise I move to Canada, or is it not worth the effort? I think it is, but you're natives. I'd say so. I mean we get alot of the good things the states have, while having less of the bad things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I currently live in the United States, but I'm thinking of moving to another country. Would you advise I move to Canada, or is it not worth the effort? I think it is, but you're natives. Are you skilled in something? If so, yes move here. Are you not skilled in anything but a liberal? If so, yes move here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
To be honest, I'm quite partial to the American senate, where each province gets equal representation
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I currently live in the United States, but I'm thinking of moving to another country. Would you advise I move to Canada, or is it not worth the effort? I think it is, but you're natives. Is this because Obama won reelection? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Ha ha what?  Queen Victoria herself murdered our fourth Prime Minister at Windsor Castle in a dispute over the appropriate table setting for a dessert following a fish course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:
But since she is OUR ONE AND TRUE HOLY MONARCH it doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I currently live in the United States, but I'm thinking of moving to another country. Would you advise I move to Canada, or is it not worth the effort? I think it is, but you're natives. Canada is very regional and each province will have its own positives and negatives. Love forests and nature? Go to British Columbia. Be prepared to pay more for everything and to have 3 jobs to afford rent though. If you prefer a drier area with rolling plains then Alberta is the place to be. If you are liberal leaning at all though you will die a slow horrible death out here. Also you will probably end up working in some way for the tar sands oil patch. Those are just two of many various areas that are available to live in. Do you have a skill, trade or post secondary education though? If not it will be very hard to get it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This month has been embarassing for our pundit class but the idea that this month is even in the running for "worst in Canadian history" is crazy talk. Yeah, at the very least political satirists alone will have months of work ahead of them. Hardly the worst month for a lot of people unless you're worried about the Conservative brand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
Mederlock posted:To be honest, I'm quite partial to the American senate, where each province gets equal representation I don't really understand why Prince Edward Island should have equal representation with Ontario. Maybe it would be viable if the Maritime provinces merged. But even if this were to happen Quebec would throw a fit and rightly so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
To be honest, I'm quite partial to the American senate, where each province gets equal representation. It would be interesting to see how it would work in our system, to say the least
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Mederlock posted:To be honest, I'm quite partial to the American senate, where each province gets equal representation. It would be interesting to see how it would work in our system, to say the least Right, because PEI and Quebec deserve equal representation. I would agree to this if we did it on a regional basis though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Mederlock posted:To be honest, I'm quite partial to the American senate, where each province gets equal representation. It would be interesting to see how it would work in our system, to say the least Also the American Senate is terrible. Absolutely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Mederlock posted:To be honest, I'm quite partial to the American senate, where each province gets equal representation Why? It's a system that basically disenfranchises, to a degree, literally hundreds of millions of people in the US. It does act as a check, but a weak one. And seriously, have you seen how well the US Senate has been rolling along lately? I'd rather keep our appointed for life idiots than handing a quarter of the voting power in the Senate to the three territories (with a total population hovering around 100,000).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Rather than have equal representation then just one Senator from each province and territory. If they have a disagreement then it goes down via Thunderdome; Two Fat White Guys enter, only one waddles out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Plus the Canadian Senate is already a territorially-proportioned body like the American Senate. A third of the Senate is already controlled by 7% of the population. What do we achieve by skewing it further? What will magicically happen if we give that 7% half of the Senate instead?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Well I think the biggest issue with the US Senate right now is procedural, rather than representation. The representation is a long-standing issue, but the US Senate currently can't operate because of crippling procedural and structural issues regardless of how the people are represented in that part of the legislature. It's similar to how we might view American elections. The Electoral College system is pretty problematic but currently the biggest issue with that system right now is the lack of campaign finance regulation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 20:29
|
|
Funkdreamer posted:Plus the Canadian Senate is already a territorially-proportioned body like the American Senate. A third of the Senate is already controlled by 7% of the population. What do we achieve by skewing it further? What will magicically happen if we give that 7% half of the Senate instead? If by territorially proportioned you mean "each state gets two senators", then yes, you're correct.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
NewtGoongrich posted:If by territorially proportioned you mean "each state gets two senators", then yes, you're correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
The Connecticut Compromise was a good way to handle the question of representation by population vs. by state or region. There are valid reasons to want both perspectives, so that small states don`t get ignored by large ones but also don`t wield too much disproportionate influence. Democracy often has to balance between respecting the will of the majority without becoming the tyranny of the majority, so having a bicameral legislature with one house for each approach isn`t a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:Canada is very regional and each province will have its own positives and negatives. I've never really accepted the idea that Canada is more regional than other countries. Like, there are some very different areas, especially between the French and English areas but I have a difficult time believing that the differences between places like Texas, California, Florida, Oregon and New York aren't bigger than those between Alberta and Ontario.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Dolash posted:The Connecticut Compromise was a good way to handle the question of representation by population vs. by state or region. There are valid reasons to want both perspectives, so that small states don`t get ignored by large ones but also don`t wield too much disproportionate influence. Democracy often has to balance between respecting the will of the majority without becoming the tyranny of the majority, so having a bicameral legislature with one house for each approach isn`t a bad idea. Yeah, the Connecticut Compromise is actually pretty fitting. When you live in a big city straight proportional representation seems like a no brainer, but a democracy can function poorly if you marginalize all the concerns and interests of areas with sparser populations. I have to agree that the problems with the American Senate are almost entirely due to very large procedural problems and much less so it's structure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Faux Shoah posted:I don't really understand why Prince Edward Island should have equal representation with Ontario. Maybe it would be viable if the Maritime provinces merged. Well, one of our senators lives and works in Ontario so now we have three. Feel better?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
I partly brought up the point to see what you posters who are much more informed then myself had to say, and partly because I think the rough idea is sound, however I was ignorant to the fact that the senate seats are appointed regionally anyways, so the point is kinda moot. The American Senate, and by extension the Connecticut Compromise, in my opinion, are good ideas that theoretically would help balance sheer population majority versus regional interests to alleviate tyranny of the majority, however, much like communism, has turned out quite different in reality compared to the concept. I guess it just sorta falls apart when it's employed in a system that is so starkly bi-partisan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:29 |
|
|
MildManeredManikin posted:I've never really accepted the idea that Canada is more regional than other countries. Like, there are some very different areas, especially between the French and English areas but I have a difficult time believing that the differences between places like Texas, California, Florida, Oregon and New York aren't bigger than those between Alberta and Ontario. The worst people in Ontario tend to move to Alberta and assimilate perfectly. The best people in Alberta should probably move elsewhere and give up on the province. I'm pretty sure 15 years ago Alberta was an alright place and then the worst of Ontario had to move in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 21:59
|
|