[Lemmy]

There's only one way to reform the senate and have that reform be a positive change: the complete removal of the senate altogether. Making the house elected just means more waste, corruption and all the other bullshit that makes government inefficient. Why would we want more politicians in Ottawa? There's too damn many of them already. Either leave it the way it is or get rid of the goddamn thing altogether.

[bootlegga]

A majority in the Senate does not mean Harper can reform it. The only way to do so is to amend the Constitution or have a referendum.

All this means is that another Tory 'promise' will disappear (senate reform) and Harper will now have another tool to bully his opponents with. Remember what happened the last time he strong armed his opponents?

[ASLplease]

having a referendum would work. cost effective, too.

[Curtman]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Why would we want more politicians in Ottawa? There's too damn many of them already.

To stop minority governments who were elected by a third of the people from governing as if they had support of most of them.

[gigs]

Curtman Curtman:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Why would we want more politicians in Ottawa? There's too damn many of them already.

To stop minority governments who were elected by a third of the people from governing as if they had support of most of them.

Yeah like those 40% majorities of Chretien. it wasn't an issue than because "the naturally governing party" of Canada was at the helm.



100 divided by 3 is 33.3 not 37.6.

[Curtman]

gigs gigs:

it wasn't an issue than because "the naturally governing party" of Canada was at the helm.

It wasn't an issue because anything at all was a hell of a lot better than Mulroney. And because they were able to clean up most of Mulroney's mess in short order.

[ASLplease]

Curtman Curtman:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Why would we want more politicians in Ottawa? There's too damn many of them already.

To stop minority governments who were elected by a third of the people from governing as if they had support of most of them.

did you mean to stop majority governments who were elected by less than half of the people from governing as if they had support of most of them?

[gigs]

Curtman Curtman:

gigs gigs:

it wasn't an issue than because "the naturally governing party" of Canada was at the helm.

It wasn't an issue because anything at all was a hell of a lot better than Mulroney. And because they were able to clean up most of Mulroney's mess in short order.

Thanks for proving my point, you have no issue with the percentages but rather who owns the percentages.

[EyeBrock]

Lemmy Lemmy:

There's only one way to reform the senate and have that reform be a positive change: the complete removal of the senate altogether. Making the house elected just means more waste, corruption and all the other bullshit that makes government inefficient. Why would we want more politicians in Ottawa? There's too damn many of them already. Either leave it the way it is or get rid of the goddamn thing altogether.

I don't think it's a bad idea to have two Houses. Most functioning democracy's do. If we can make the senate elected I think it will be a good thing.

The senators would have a riding or province to answer to as well as their parties.

A final reading for a bill where the senators were accountable to the electorate can only enhance our democracy.

[Curtman]

gigs gigs:

Thanks for proving my point, you have no issue with the percentages but rather who owns the percentages.

Not at all.. I have an issue with what they do with the percentages they are given. C:36% -vs- L:30% is not the same thing as L:41% -vs C:16%.

[saturn_656]

Curtman Curtman:

gigs gigs:

Thanks for proving my point, you have no issue with the percentages but rather who owns the percentages.

Not at all.. I have an issue with what they do with the percentages they are given. C:36% -vs- L:30% is not the same thing as L:41% -vs C:16%.

There isn't much difference between L:41% and C:36%. Both percentages represent a minority of total voters.

[Curtman]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

There isn't much difference between L:41% and C:36%. Both percentages represent a minority of total voters.

The difference is how it translates to seats obviously.

[gigs]

Were you okay with the Libs 38.5 in 97? While the CA and Pcs had 38.2?

How about 2004 with the Libs at 36.7 and the Tories at 29.6?

[saturn_656]

Curtman Curtman:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

There isn't much difference between L:41% and C:36%. Both percentages represent a minority of total voters.

The difference is how it translates to seats obviously.

If Harper can govern like a majority with only a minority of seats, then the fault lies with the opposition who will not keep him in check.

Mind you, I generally like Harper.

[Curtman]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

If Harper can govern like a majority with only a minority of seats, then the fault lies with the opposition who will not keep him in check.

He went on holidays to avoid losing power completely. And subverted our democratic system all the while crying about how unfair it was.