Canadians: Should our Senators be Elected?

[Pasi Nurminen]

With all this talk about the upcoming Canadian election, I decided to make a thread about our Senate, which is an appointed body, unlike American Senators which are elected. Do you, as Canadians, think that our Senators should be elected?

Poll coming.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Probably best elect them. Populist pandering>cronyism/corruption. Although I suspect there'll be plenty of both.

 

[Taliesin]

I'm warming up to the idea (voted yes). Unlike England, we don't have an organic and historical system that justifies having an unelected check on legislative power. However, I would institute 10-year terms for Senators, and I don't think the riding system would be a good basis for Senate elections. I'm not sure precisely how the election should be implemented; perhaps it should be done by province, with each voter given some multiple number of votes, and the top X most popular choices are appointed. Or perhaps provinces should elect Senators to life terms, and replace them in by-elections.

 

[El_Machinae]

You're right, as longevity increases, then our natural check to power (death) will be reduced. I think that right now that they have to leave at 75, but that could be challenged.

However, I do like that Senators are 'voices of Christmas past', and often represent the will of voters from the previous decade. If we elected them, I don't want to change this aspect.

 

[Che Guava]

CFC is sure getting a lesson in Canadian politics this week!

However, I do like that Senators are 'voices of Christmas past', and often represent the will of voters from the previous decade. If we elected them, I don't want to change this aspect.

It's precisely this reason that I fully support our appointed Senate: the 'sober second thought' of officials that have been working at thier posts for longer, aren't swayed as much by the trend of the day, and can speak and vote without fear of reprisals from the very strong executive branch we have.

I'm also a little wary of getting provincially elected/appointed senators. IMHO, anyone who works in parliament should have all canadians in mind, not just thier constituents. Let the house take care of regional rivalries, let the cabinet negotiate with the provinces, but leave the Senate out of it.

 

[Taliesin]

Che, I agree with you on the need to have a moderate Senate to give Canada's past a voice in present policy-- that's why I would insist on 10-year or life-long terms for elected Senators. However, don't you think that electing Senators would do a better job of truly representing today's voters in the future? The Liberals possess only a third of the electorate's support, and yet they still receive the benefit of controlling the majority of appointments to the Senate. The New Democrats have been around for seventy years and are the primary voice of at least three sizeable political communities in Canada, so why is it that there is only one NDP Senator? (In fact, she couldn't even enter the Senate as a New Democrat, due to the party's strict policy of advocating an elected Senate.) This, I think, is by itself a significant enough harm to the integrity and value of the Senate that election seems a good idea. The current situation is such that small farmers, unionists, and urban social democrats simply don't factor in, which means that the Senate doesn't equitably represent the voices of Canada's past.

 

[Leonel]

Not sure. Don't have a clue as to how Canadian politics works so I'd be cool with whatever you decide.

 

[Che Guava]

Taliesin: All excellent points, and I wouldn't be totally unhappy with the kind of system you propose. I think what it comes down to is that i have a deep-seeded mistrust of the electoral system. In my experience, it takes a certain type of person to get elected. Once upon a time, it depended on intelligence, wit, strength of character and inginuity. Nowadays, I see potentially great members swept aside because they don't have the right look, background, etc. The people I see elected today to the house seem to have less vision, less integrity, but good soundbites. Don't get me wrong, it's the best system we've got, but I think the failings of an elected house shouldn't be duplicated in the senate. I'd rather have a lower house of power-hungry opportunists and an upper house of out-of-touch fatcats than two houses with the same vices.

 

[Che Guava]

Not sure. Don't have a clue as to how Canadian politics works so I'd be cool with whatever you decide.

A couple primers:

Government of Canada

Canadaonline

Wiki

Now do your homework!

 

[kronic]

If the senators are elected the Senate will inevitably gain influence. It will then become a true second chamber whereas it is now rather insignificant (de facto), at least that's how I understand it. It's unthinkable that a directly elected body (and thus a body with the highest possible legitimacy) remains without real influence on policy making. (Check out the roles of second chambers in other democratic federations such as the US or Germany and compare them with the role of the Canadian Senate)

That said the introduction of Senate elections would provoke considerable changes in the whole political system of Canada. That makes the decision much more difficult.

 

[Taliesin]

In my experience, it takes a certain type of person to get elected.

Possibly. However, I think this phenomenon would be mitigated in the Senate by a couple of factors:
1) the elections would be much less frequent, and people would be able to judge performance over a much longer term;
2) the Senators would be more or less free of the political scheming and hackery that has co-opted the elected Commons;
3) Senate positions could not be used for patronage purposes.

Combined, these would largely counteract the type of candidate inferiority we see in the Commons, and would make the Senate a more balanced and useful institution.

I think the biggest problem would actually be the issue of who exactly could run for Senate positions. There would have to be some element of official nomination, to prevent just anybody from running for the positions; otherwise, the Senate would more or less duplicate the Commons, unless we can trust voters to use different criteria when voting.

 

[Che Guava]

I don't much trust the voters to begin with

Great points, but I'm still not convinced. I'll write a proper rebuttle a little later..!

 

[Riesstiu IV]

No, Senators should he appointed by the Emperor.

 

[sysyphus]

An option is missing.

I think we should model our Senate after the New Zealand Senate.

 

[Babbler]

No, Senators should he appointed by the Emperor.

They are ready appointed by the Prime Minster.

I think we should model our Senate after the New Zealand Senate.

Perhaps. I think the Aussie Senate is worth looking at, even if it has it problems.

 

[Nobody]

I think we should model our Senate after the New Zealand Senate.

New Zealand dosen't have a senate we have one house of parliament. unless you were saying canada should abolish their senate.

 

[ComradeDavo]

No Politician should ever be appointed - Democracy is about electing your leaders and law makers!

 

[sysyphus]

New Zealand dosen't have a senate we have one house of parliament. unless you were saying canada should abolish their senate.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Could a moderator please add the option "Canada should abolish it's Senate" please?

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Canada should abolish it's Senate