Hell, no. Sorry, but the US Senate is just about the last model I'd ape. The notion of regional representation isn't bad per se (matter of fact it's what Canada is supposed to be, with equal representation to four regions rather than each province and territory). But at least canada had the attack of mild sanity to actually use REGIONS rather than provinces for regional representation. The original idea for Canada,s split was four regions - West, Ontario, Quebec, Maritime - each of 24 seats. This is not demographically balanced, but the theory of it isn't TOO horrible. The four region at the time represented four distinct cultural and geographic area of Canada ; each distinct from the other and while the parity wasn't perfect (the Maritimes never had anywhere near the population of Ontario or Quebec), it wasn't unreasonable. Then the Maritimes/Atlantic managed to land themselves six extra seats when Newfoundland joined, and none of the other Maritime provinces were willing to let them have seats. Would have made sense to increase Quebec/the West/Ontario to 30 to compensate, but nope, Newfoundland got added as a kind-of-region-but-not. Moreover, "The West" really grew into two distinct regions (British Columbia/the Pacific on one side and the Prairies on the other end), so lobbing them all in one region doesn't make that much sense anymore. If I had to draw a new regional-representation-senate with 100 seats, it would go something like: Pacific Region (BC): 18 seats Prairies Region (AB/SK/MB): 10/4/4 seats, respectively. Ontario Region: 18 seats Quebec Region : 18 seats Atlantic Region (NB/NS/PE/NL): 5/5/3/5, respectively. Territories: 3 seats (1 each) First Nations: 6 seat - 1 per region and 1 from the territories. Ontario is still way underrepresentated compared to their population, but that's regional representation ; they're already in as small a unit as they can be. Zelig - Harper govt increased spending during the recession, but has been cut-happy ever since.