Harper to appoint Brown as elected senator
Clogeroo @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:06 am
What the PM did hardly reforms the Senate at all actually it does nothing. Essentially some Albertans made a preference for someone a couple years ago and so he appointed him or is going to. This wasn't an elected senator because there was no real election. Even if they started having real elections and the PM just appointed those who won it would solve nothing or wouldn't stop any other Prime minister to appoint whoever they want. The constitution needs to change to make an elected Senate happen. Anything short of that is no real change or reform at all.
bootlegga @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:54 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
For the time being, yea. This "election" was a farce, and added no value to the process. Looking at the results, party affiliation is listed, but I don't recall it on the ballot (though that may just be my memory). Of the 10 candidates, 5 were PC, 3 Alberta Alliance, 2 independent. No Liberals. No NDP. No Green. This was hardly a fair vote. This was a vote for people whose sole interest is dismantling the senate as it stands.
I have to agree with Hurley.
There was no essentially campaigning for the Senate election, aside from a couple press conferences and all of the candidates were from the right. To me, the election reminded me of the old 'elections' the USSR had. They'd put 4 or 5 Communist party members on the ballot...take your pick. I spoiled my ballot as well (I think something like 40% of Albertans did so). If Alberta really wants to use these elections as a way to move on senate reform, then they should have had made sure candidates from all parties/political affiliations were represented, otherwise it looks like a farce.
I want a Triple E senate (so much so that I supported the Charlottetown Accords), but I want it done right, not in some half-assed fashion. And while I'm happy for Bert, someone who got 312,000 votes does not strike me as representing the province of Alberta...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Se ... on%2C_2004
Clogeroo @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:34 am
$1:
I have to agree with Hurley.
There was no essentially campaigning for the Senate election, aside from a couple press conferences and all of the candidates were from the right. To me, the election reminded me of the old 'elections' the USSR had. They'd put 4 or 5 Communist party members on the ballot...take your pick. I spoiled my ballot as well (I think something like 40% of Albertans did so). If Alberta really wants to use these elections as a way to move on senate reform, then they should have had made sure candidates from all parties/political affiliations were represented, otherwise it looks like a farce.
I want a Triple E senate (so much so that I supported the Charlottetown Accords), but I want it done right, not in some half-assed fashion. And while I'm happy for Bert, someone who got 312,000 votes does not strike me as representing the province of Alberta...
Well considering 5 of Alberta's 6 senators are Liberals in a province that the liberals have not seen a majority in what decades? So maybe that is why they were not on your mock election ballots? I guess some may look at it as it is better to have a guy with 300,000 votes than one who has no votes or is from a party the majority of Albertans do not even support. Although it is more like trading cow patties for horse "dung". Different appearance on the outside but its still the same old "dung" so I can see why many people spoiled their ballots.
Patrick_Ross @ Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:16 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
The only time a lack of check and balance actually caused problems I know about is when Mulroney overrode the senate when it tried to block the GST by adding 8 PC senators to make sure it passed.
You're forgetting about a little thing called "The National Energy Program".
Also, arguably, the Conscription Crisis in 1944, or (even more arguably) the envokation of the War Measures Act in 1970.
Checks and balances are needed in our system to protect minority interests from the tyranny of the majority, as unquestionably demonstrated by the NEP, and arguably demonstrated by the latter two examples.
$1:
My priorities, as far as democratic renewal goes:
1: Provincial Electoral Reform
2: Federal Electoral Reform
3: Provincial Separation of Powers
4: Federal Separation of Powers
5: Senate reform
1: Provincial Electoral Reform
2: Federal Electoral Reform
3: Provincial Separation of Powers
4: Federal Separation of Powers
5: Senate reform
That's great. You just go ahead and make that as ambiguous as you can.
Personally, my priorities, vis a vis democratic renewal are as such:
1. Senate reform -- insitution of a Triple-E senate, elected proportionally within each of the regions (Western Canada, Central Canada, Quebec, Atlantic Canada and the Territories).
2. Decentralization of federal powers
3. Decentralization of provincial powers
4. Reform of riding redistribution practices
5. Constitutional reform, aimed at bringing both Quebec and our aboriginal peoples into Confederation - organization of Canada's provinces within five regional organizations (each which will share appropriate cultural and economic powers), the transformation of treaty areas into defacto provinces, which would proceed to collect transfer payments in place of funding distributed via Department of Indian Affairs.
$1:
That's what I was thinking, but it was two and a half years ago, and the results list the affiliation. I wouldn't put it past the Alberta government to be sneaky like that, but I just can't remember accurately.
So, you're saying that you don't remember seeing it, but don't necessarily remember looking for it. Fair enough.
But party affiliations were listed on the ballot prominently enough, I still think you'd remember them. It's clear to me that they weren't prominent enough.