Will Canada have an elected Senate?
 

Well looks like PM Harper wants to turn the Senate into an elected body... more evidence that the traditional Tories of old, have been replaced by the Alliance/republican elements within the Conservative party :(

The irony of the whole situation is that the Conservatives, the traditional defenders of, well, traditional institutions are the ones pushing this through... while the Liberals, a party who more "fringe" elements traditional agitated for an elected Sentate are the ones fighting it :rolleyes:

As an old Tory this grieves me...

How do you currently... er.. not elect senators?

They are appointed.

Is Canada's Parliament only one house?

That's the whole reason for the US's system of the House having representation by population and the Senate having 2 for each state.

ETA: not saying that you don't know that... just commenting.

It's okay, I don't "get" Canadian politics either, mainly because it is not interesting to me. :)

To be honest, as much as I "get" American politics... I'm not that interested either. Unless it's on a local level, I have a hard time caring about which special interest groups are getting elected.

That type of Senate reform I wouldn't mind - the bumping up of seat numbers for some of the "smaller" province (representatively). Say bring the territorries up to 3 each; bump PEI to 6, leave Ontario and Quebec as is, and bump all the rest up to 12 each... spread it around a bit more to reduce some of the regionalism.

Anyways I've always liked that the Senate isn't as beholden to the poltical winds of the day - so it is much easier for them to vote outside of their supposed party lines, and take a much longer term view of things.

Now I know Harper's proposal is part and parcel of the Republic movement in Alberta... case in point they have "Senators in waiting" - Senate aspirants that have been "elected" and are awaiting a vacancy to open up. This has been a bone of contention between Alberta and Ottawa... in that while it all nice and dandy of them to "elect" a Senator, the PM does have to give this person any consideration - in fact the last one that was "elected" than appointed by a PM was back under Mulroney.

The only snag in Harper's plan is either he has to rely on Royal approval (via the Govenor General); or it's another fun round on Constitutional reform... and I'm sure if Constitutional reform comes up, you know Same-Sex Marriage is going to come back to the surface given Harper's social conservative base... and if that is the case, well, all bets are off.

While our Senate (probably comparable to yours) is elected by popular vote (this is fairly new in the grand scheme of things), there are only two per state. Therefore, New Mexico has the same number of Senators as California.

The House, however, draws representatives based on the relative population of each state.

^^^^ Right. The House is supposed to represent the people, and therefore is based on population, while the Senate theoretically is supposed to reflect the federal nature of the country by representing states. (Which is why, for so long, Senators were elected/appointed by state legislatures rather than by popular election.)

And let's see how long it takes me to remember that Kevin and ktsnake are one and the same. ;)

I oppose the 17th Amendment. If Canada wants some neighborly advice, I say don't do it. Unless you want your Senate to be clogged with innane ramblings and partisan bs.