"Electing" Senators
I will say that I prefer Harper bringing this forward than the sham of a vote that Klein has had a few times in the past. At least this way it's a real organized system, not one province trying to push their own agenda. However, there are some problems:
1. As I read in a few places, and as people like Romeo Dallaire has stated, if we want to change the Senate, we should do it properly and legally. If you want to change stuff with the Senate, we should do it all at once, and have real talks and discussions about what it all accomplishes.
2. Who puts the names forward, and how does the vote run? If it's just anyone who can put their name forward, and everyone just votes for their first number of choices, then I'm all for it, 100%. In that case, we'll see 15 Conservatives run in Alberta, and only 1-2 Liberals. So in that case, the Liberals should easily win it, and every Senator from Alberta will be Liberal.
Now, I wouldn't mind actually having discussions about Senate reform, since it is not right that BC's only got 2 more Senators than PEI, but just doing little patchwork stuff here and there, where we would end up with multiple classes of Senators, and the Senators would then have to start worrying about re-election. I do think the Senate needs changes, but if we do change it, let's actually change it, and not just pass bills that aren't binding at all.
4 comments:
The form of the Senate should match the function we want it to perform.
We need to define the function first, then decide what form it should have.
Some criticism:
1. If Harper was to initiate a broader reform he would require an election in which he is granted the authority to initiate said discussions. As well, it would require more than a few months to complete (which the Grits indicate is all he has left before an election). It would also require constitutional amendments and the only way any province is going to agree is if we open up the whole constitution to amendments.
So, the only option is small changes one at a time. First it was the 8-year restriction (which is stalled by the Grits I understand), now it is the consultory elections. Moreover, what is 'illegal' or 'improper' about this method (you said that we should it 'properly and legally' - leading one to assume that any other way is 'improper and illegal')
Imagine the backlash if a PM was to blatantly ignore the will of the people in such a manner?
2. Not likely to occur. As occurs in many races people would vote not only for whom they want but to vote against someone else. As the election progresses support would coalesce around 2-3 Tories.
By the way, I believe BC also has had the 'sham' votes before too.
Before we vote for senators we need to decide why we even have a senate. I've always thought we should simply abolish it!! (will)
I like the senate as it is.
If people want a house to temper the centrifugal forces of confederation, they have never said anything about it. (especially premier who realize an effective senate reduces their power)
Post a Comment