The "zombie" candidate and MMP
MMP has been criticized as allowing some candidates to "live on after death". The House of Commons is elected one riding at a time and if the Senate was elected on the basis of the overall % of national popular vote derived from the election of MPs, then it would be possible for a candidate to lose the election for MP, but still win a Senate seat, even if the Commons was elected using a pro-rep method. This offends some, especially political scientists. But this would be better than the party lists being composed of any person except those who have been chosen by the broad membership of a Party to run for the MP position. A Senate seat is not a "consolation prize", it is another opportunity for us to obtain the services of the best of the best.
But, there is a vast difference between the primary responsibilities of an MP to represent constituents and those of a Senator. Not the least difference is that each Senator is primarily responsible, to represent the whole of Canada all of the time. If a candidate has won the support of his or her Party to run for MP, failure to win does not change that support; these are still the best candidates the Party has to offer. And that is what we need, the best of the best. To disqualify a person because they have failed to win an election could leave us with no candidates in any of the parties at all! The "zombie" argument simply does not stand the test - it is academically interesting, but of no practical value.
So, if the Senate is "elected" indirectly as per the above, does this resolve the "tenure" issue? Do we really need the same faces in the Senate, year after year, decade after decade? If the Senate has a meaningful vote on legislation, I would say not. We need to keep the blood and ideas circulating. The Senate is not a retirement home for government ministers. I would prefer the Senators be assured a minimum four year term of office. No Senator would be able to continue in office for more than two consecutive four year terms, and would need to take a four year hiatus to be eligible to stand again.
No system is perfect, but we can do better!
- John Hague's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Theodore Tadeson |
- Rick Shea |
- Bram Kivenko |
- Rick Shea |
- David Barclay |
- 1 of 2171
- ››
Comments
Would Canadians Prefer Proportional Senate first?
A proportional system would be better for democracy in Canada but has been difficult to message and promote to Canadians. Both MMP in Ontario and STV in BC has failed. They were not promoted properly and voters did not understand what they were being asked to decide. Yet even if it were understood it may still not pass as there is risk to both voters and politicians to making such a signficiant change to our electoral system, even if that risk is worth it.
On the other hand I think that voters and politicians alike can agree that the Senate does not work in its current form, and there is much less risk to introducing a proportional electoral system in this body than in parliament.
I would encourage our party to promote a workable plan to reform the senate. This would give the Green party a voice in our government, provide a balance in the form of true electoral intent vs our regional representation parliament, and show Canadian voters and politicians that proportional representation can work here too.
Solving Problems with Creative Forward Thinking Solutions.
too much a leap
Maybe we should make changes at a more grassroots level first, like municipally or regionally. It seems that prop voting will never win on a provincial or federal ballot until there is a working canadian model to examine in action.
The Australian model with a
The Australian model with a proportional senate and a preferential commons is worth considering, as it provides Greens a voice in legislative process, while retaining representation by population for the house. The Conservatives senate reform legislation in 2007, proposed a similar thing using STV as a counting system. The australian Senate actually works more like straight PR system, since voters can voter for a party ticket and with the exception.
Similar to the Canadian Senate, Australia's Senate over rewards smaller states, but since the seats within each state are rewarded proportionally, the overall composition is more balanced.
For Canada to get this in place, we would have to (and should) have a constitution amendment offering term limits. This would either have to have the provinces support, or a national referendum. Arguably, if the Government wanted to, they could introduce a province by province term limits and elections.
In such a place, the Senate works as proper house of revision, with legitimacy to reject legislation.
The political will for this is here. The conservatives support it and if the Greens supported it the pressure on the Liberals, Bloc and NDP would be great. In theory, the NDP and Bloc should support it, although officially they both want the Senate eliminated, but with a grassroots push this would be possible to have the leaders will changed.
I've argued for some time that the Greens should take up proportional representation for the Senate, if only to frustrate Harper by making him share this the stage with the Greens on this issue.
Since the Senate is already basically politically appointees, any objections to PR lists, would be effectively eliminated.
As for Ignatieff, I'm not sure what his stance would be. As he is not from the old guard, he may be more open to it, in the same way he rid the party of the old delegate system.
Senate Reform and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy
There are at least two similar discussions going on within the "Groups" section and there could be other blogs as well.
The current consensus indicates support for Senate Reform with proportional representation. Also the question of tenure has been addressed and a consensus is forming on reasonable limits.
I would be most happy to join with others who are advocating this and craft a policy position brief for the next Party convention. Unless, of course, this initiative is already under way.
It would be good to hear from Elizabeth and our Deputy Leaders and Director/Chairs on Council. Please point me in the direction of policy formation on this crucial matter. Thank you.
The senate doesn't actually do anything.
The senate holds public consultations. It can conduct a few other fake political exercises. It's only real legislative power is that it can hold up legislation no more than 180 days. (If I'm mistaken, please correct me.) The Senate is really about patronage appointments.
I'm not sure we should waste our resources trying to reform the senate concurrently with introducing prop voting. Using the senate as a platform to introduce prop voting probably would find less support than undertaking either task separately.