Does the Senate need Fixing?

[bcholmes]

A headline in the Toronto Star reads: "Next step in fixing Senate unveiled", talking about Prime Minister Harper's (*ptui*) bill to allow voters to select "preferences" for Senator positions. In theory, the Prime Minister would take these preferences into consideration when appointing Senators (the idea that Canadians could elect Senators would require a Constitutional amendment, if memory serves).

In Harper's speech, yesterday, he said something to the effective of "after a century and a half, democracy will finally come to the Senate". (I suppose that makes it a bit like Iraq).

My preferred party, the NDP, has stated its platform that, really, the Senate should simply be abolished. I can't say that I really agree with them, there.

The stated objective of the Senate is to provide a "sober second thought" about legislation, and in that sense, I view it as similar to the way judicial appeal works. A court case is often (but not always) heard by a jury of one's peers. But an appeal is usually heard by a "learned man or woman of law", because sometimes juries (who aren't required to be familiar with the nuances of law) make bad decisions. I think the same is true of the parliamentary process. While I'm all in favour of a democratically-elected House of Commons, I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea that the Senate must be "fixed" by making it democratically elected. To my ears, that sounds as weird as suggesting that Supreme Court Justices should be democratically elected.

And I guess I'm annoyed at the a priori assumption that everyone believes that the Senate is broken. Damn media chasing sound-bytes, rather than doing real reporting.

Comments

[elphie.livejournal.com]

I think democratically electing Senators really damaged the American political system.

In the USA, prior to 1900 or so, the Senators were appointed by the state governments rather than directly elected by the people. The Senate was supposed to represent the states while the House was supposed to represent the people. This was a check on the power of the federal government over the states, because the Senators were accountable to the state governments.

I don't think the federal government would be able to dominate the state governments the way it does now without that change. I am generally a fan of local control especially with respect to social issues, so I don't like this shift.

[the_axel]

I think the problem with the current state of the Senate is that too many of the current senators are political hacks & any kind of election just ties them even more closely to the political parties.

So, Harpers solution just makes the problem I perceive worse.

I think they should be appointed by an arms length body, although keeping that impartial would be nearly as difficult.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't making the senate democratic effectively be like doubling the size of parliament and eliminating the senate?

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

The concept of "majority" would be different. The party that controlled the Senate could be different than the party that controlled the Commons.

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

It took nearly a century-and-a-half (about 137 years) for US senators to be directly elected. And some here would say that wasn't a terribly bright idea. And it did require a Constitutional amendment.

This reminds me...I need to write out a list of the senators up for re-election in 2008 so that I can determine which are at-risk, and which the Dems can take from the GOP. I'd already mentally noted South Dakota as one the Dems could lose, but it almost looks certain now, even if Johnson stays in the seat until the elections.

[svartormr.livejournal.com]

IMHO, an elected Senate is fraught with peril.

In politics, there is a perception that being elected means you have a greater right to exercise power and judgement (notwithstanding the fact that most people in life get appointed and not elected)--it's all about "democracy". But there already is an elected body of politicians, the House of Commons. So we'll have another chapter of "uncertain shifting of power in effective government", examples of which are spread throughout the history of Parliament.

I feel it's a mistake to just take any principle, even being elected "democratically", and just spread it hither and yon. Democracy isn't just good in itself, it has reasons it's good and reasons it should be limited in its use.

Democracy gives us all a feeling that we are involved in the politics of governing, however peripherally, and thus we all should pay attention and take responsibility for what happens and what we do. But our role is limited and most people seems rather blase about it.

Secondly, democracy makes change of government expected and relatively routine. Many times in the past there were very good governments, but eventually they ended and were replaced. Often the "process" of changing government destroyed most of whatever benefit came during better times.

This whole idea of an "equal, elected, and effective" Senate partly came about due to frustration out here in Western Canada with the policies of the central government. The proponents thought that things would be better for them with their triple-E Senate and to them it was just the right thing to do.

Well, I'm a Western Canadian and I was never as frustrated with those same policies. But I am frustrated with the political mono-culture out here and the blind approval for making the Senate elected. Virtually no one ever questions the idea or demands that the proponents address any of the obvious concerns I've raise above.

I like the current role of the Senate as John A. MacDonald's place of "sober second thought" and I think it works doing that, especially during a minority government. And I like bcholmes comparing it to an appeal court made of learned people. I'm not certain we would be better off without it, but better without it that twisting our current form of government, which though we may not like it we more-or-less understand, into something completely different.

And this is all just faux-democracy. It's still the PM appointing from a slate of candidates. Given a big enough list, the vote will be close to pointless.

[(Anonymous)]

The purpose of Senate "reform" isn't democratic, it's to take power away from Ontario and Quebec.

The big problem with Harper's proposal is it's an unconstitutional method to change the constitution without the bother of constitutional amendment. The (new) Conservatives can't be bothered with seeking a multipartisan consensus, they just want to unilaterally shift power away from the democratic parliamentary majority.

I often don't agree with the NDP about economic policies. But in a system of more than two or three parties, proportional representation starts to make a lot of sense.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

And I guess I'm annoyed at the a priori assumption that everyone believes that the Senate is broken.

Amen. I get the same hackle-raising every four years down here when people talk about abolishing the Electoral College.

Even more alarming is the a priori assumption that purer democracies are better systems of government. If I read my James Madison correctly, it's good to have a dozen different hurdles to a bill becoming law because any one of those hurdles is going to filter out some bad laws that are contrary to some deserving constituency. Like people above me have been saying about our Congress, we went from a public-rights House and a states-right Senate to an impulsive House and a relatively sober Senate which is not obviously better in my view.