[Canuck E Stan]

P.E.I. might hold first Senate election, Tories say

Quote

The first official Senate election will take place this fall in Prince Edward Island, some federal Tories say.

Premier Pat Binns has agreed to hold a provincewide vote on the island this fall, some Tories say, while others say the idea is just one proposal among many being considered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The arguements for picking PEI as the first province seem ideal for the Harper and the Tories.
Although Senate elections must go through constitutional change, Harper can endorse the selection of the province because the PM picks the senators.
His first move was on limiting senators to a 8 year term this was the start reform he said he would do, Elections would be another major change for the way the Senate is run.
Can't say Harper is a do nothing PM.
He's doing what others before him didn't have the balls to do, and all in short order.

[jdobbin]

Canuck E Stan, on Sep 1 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

He's doing what others before him didn't have the balls to do, and all in short order.

If he had the balls, he would abolish the Senate like many premiers want.

[jbg]

jdobbin, on Sep 1 2006, 09:31 PM, said:

Canuck E Stan, on Sep 1 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

He's doing what others before him didn't have the balls to do, and all in short order.

If he had the balls, he would abolish the Senate like many premiers want.

A bicameral legislature can be useful as a check on "tyranny of the majority". It should, in some sense, be elected, but elected in a different manner from the lower house so that it doesn't wind up as purely a rubber stamp.

In the US, State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Perhaps that would not be a bad approach.

[Canuck E Stan]

jdobbin, on Sep 1 2006, 07:31 PM, said:

If he had the balls, he would abolish the Senate like many premiers want.

I would also like the Senate to be abolished.
That wouldn't happen in your life time.
This is the next best choice, at least it would take the patronage appointment out of the hands of the PM and let the people of the provinces make the choice.

[jdobbin]

Canuck E Stan, on Sep 1 2006, 08:41 PM, said:

I would also like the Senate to be abolished.
That wouldn't happen in your life time.
This is the next best choice, at least it would take the patronage appointment out of the hands of the PM and let the people of the provinces make the choice.

That is totally unsatisfactory for some provinces so this deal with Nova Scotia is going to show division across the country.

[Canuck E Stan]

jdobbin, on Sep 1 2006, 07:46 PM, said:

That is totally unsatisfactory for some provinces so this deal with Nova Scotia is going to show division across the country.

When in Canadian Politics was there ever a consensus on anything?
Harper's on the right track.....and the province is PEI,not Nova Scotia.

[jdobbin]

Canuck E Stan, on Sep 1 2006, 09:43 PM, said:

When in Canadian Politics was there ever a consensus on anything?
Harper's on the right track.....and the province is PEI,not Nova Scotia.

Sorry, you're correct. PEI.

I still think it is divisive. And the thought of having enough BQ in the Senate to block legislation sickens me.

[Wilber]

Provinces should be picking their own Senators but until we have an upper house similar to the US model that gives equal representation to each province, the Senate shouldn't have any more power than it has now.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Don't quite see how it would *take balls* to cave in to what the majority of Liberal premiers want rather than attempting to implement a change that his party actually believes in and provides a balance to the excesses of a majority government.

Don't know if the legislatures *electing* Senators would make for much of a change. Hacks are hacks.

jbg, on Sep 1 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

jdobbin, on Sep 1 2006, 09:31 PM, said:

If he had the balls, he would abolish the Senate like many premiers want.

A bicameral legislature can be useful as a check on "tyranny of the majority". It should, in some sense, be elected, but elected in a different manner from the lower house so that it doesn't wind up as purely a rubber stamp.

In the US, State Legislatures used to elect Senators. Perhaps that would not be a bad approach.

[jbg]

Ricki Bobbi, on Sep 1 2006, 11:15 PM, said:

Don't quite see how it would *take balls* to cave in to what the majority of Liberal premiers want rather than attempting to implement a change that his party actually believes in and provides a balance to the excesses of a majority government.

Don't know if the legislatures *electing* Senators would make for much of a change. Hacks are hacks.

Good point. I forgot why the US changed over to popular election of Senators. "Senior moment" there.

[jdobbin]

Ricki Bobbi, on Sep 1 2006, 10:15 PM, said:

Don't quite see how it would *take balls* to cave in to what the majority of Liberal premiers want rather than attempting to implement a change that his party actually believes in and provides a balance to the excesses of a majority government.

Don't know if the legislatures *electing* Senators would make for much of a change. Hacks are hacks.

It hasn't just been Liberal premiers. Over the years, it has been voiced by almost all parties federally and provincially.

Manitoba used to have an upper house.

It just isn't needed.

Our system wasn't built for checks and balances. If a prime minister wants to create that system, open it up to a constitutional conference. Don't go about things willy nilly. Elect a senator in PEI and appoint one in Quebec? Yikes.

[Hicksey]

jdobbin, on Sep 1 2006, 07:31 PM, said:

Canuck E Stan, on Sep 1 2006, 08:29 PM, said:

He's doing what others before him didn't have the balls to do, and all in short order.

If he had the balls, he would abolish the Senate like many premiers want.

Whether or not the senate should be abolished is different debate.

But if Harper had balls he would start the elections in Quebec. We have not forgotten about Mr. Fortier. If anyone should be the first it should be he.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Here's a brief rundown of the history of why the U.S. started to elect senators.

The movement to elect Senators began in the 1820s, but didn't gain much steam for quite a few years.

Most U.S. states have an upper and a lower house. Around the time of the Civil War (late 1860s) there started to be a lot of issues with deadlocks between the houses in given states which lead to some Senate seats going unfilled for a number of years.

Oregon became the first state to elect a Senator in 1906. It caught on and by 1912 a total of 29 states had elected at least one Senator.

In 1913 the 17th amendment to the Constitution required that all states elect their Senators, which began in 1914.

jbg, on Sep 1 2006, 09:16 PM, said:

Good point. I forgot why the US changed over to popular election of Senators. "Senior moment" there.

jdobbin, on Sep 1 2006, 09:35 PM, said:

Our system wasn't built for checks and balances.

Yeah, it is. The Senate has the constitional power to act as a balance on the House of Commons, it just doesn't have the legitimacy.

[jdobbin]

Ricki Bobbi, on Sep 1 2006, 10:50 PM, said:

Yeah, it is. The Senate has the constitional power to act as a balance on the House of Commons, it just doesn't have the legitimacy.

That's the same thing as saying no checks and balances.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Uhhh, but once Senators are elected they will have the legitimacy to exercise their power. Thus they will be able to serve as a check on the house of commons.

jdobbin, on Sep 1 2006, 09:55 PM, said:

That's the same thing as saying no checks and balances.