The Senate is an unnecessary part of our government and should be abolished. A senator's job is to provide a final check on legislations passed in the House of Commons; they can also introduce bills, but is very uncommon. However, the Senate is corrupted and cost taxpayers money for work that they rarely do. Did you know that the average senator only went to work 72 times last year? Some people argue that we should reform the Senate instead of abolishing it, but it would increase taxes and why should we reform something that has little purpose in the first place? To add onto that, due to the fact that the Senate is appointed, there's little representation for the western provinces in Canada.
The Senate cost too much work and money to fix and taxpayers don't want a tax increase on something that isn't very useful. If we were to reform the senate and make it elected, a tax
…show more content…
increase would definitely occur. The taxes are already used on senators travel money and their own benefit and we shouldn't give them more to spend on luxuries. To add onto that, the Canadian Government is already over employed and over governed. The House of Commons already does the work that the Senate does. The House of Commons can do the work by themselves and they don't need the Senate to second guess them. If the Senate was abolished, taxes would lower; reforming will do the opposite, with little result. Previously we talked about the representation in the western provinces for the Senate.
The Atlantic region, which is smaller in size and population than the western provinces, has more seats in the Senate. Representation in the Senate is very unfair and unevenly distributed. The House of Commons is representation by population and is fair. If The Senate were to be elected, the campaigning costs would cause a tax increase, resulting in unhappy citizens. Another thing about the Senate is that senators can stay in position until they are 75. This lowers the chance of different people having a seat in the Senate. Younger senators who might have different ideas than traditional elderly senators might not get a chance to voice their opinions. Times have changed and whereas I'm sure the elderly has more wisdom and experiences, many of the viewpoints and circumstances have changed than back then and we need people who have fresher ideas. However if we were to change how long the senators can stay in position, it would need a new set of rules and it would be a very complicated and unnecessary
process. As you can see, the Senate is very unuseful due to the fact that we already have a House of Commons who does the work already. The Senate gives a final check on bills that the House of Commons have passed; which is very unnecessary. If we were to reform it, it would raise our taxes which is already very high. There are many problems with the Senate, for instance how they spend taxpayers money, how long the senators can stay in position, Western representation in the seats, and so much more. Reforming would cost too much and would take too much work with nothing or very little to show for it. Do you think we should abolish the Senate?
The types of things that this proposal calls for are great because it would strengthen the portion of Parliament that has had many problems since it was created in the 1867 Confederation, however when all three ideas are put together would be very difficult to implement. Senate reform itself presents a very daunting task that has been proposed many times over the years, with little actual change because both implementation and operation of new changes would be very difficult for the federal government to pass. Despite the optimism of the idea of Triple E Senate, there are problems in the powers it wants to bring to the Senate, as well as the idea of equal representation per province. I also think that this senate reform will not be passed on the simple idea that the two biggest provinces, Ontario and Quebec, do not want to lose any of their power and autonomy to be added into equal representation of all provinces. They would have over 60 percent of Canada’s population but would only account for 20 percent of the senators. I feel that the way in which the seating of the Senate is wrong, but the ideas in this reform are only a stepping stone to how we can actually fix the representation issues in parliament while still noting the provinces with the biggest parts of the
Filibusters can surely be effective for Senate minority leaders. However, it can have both its pros and cons. Some of the advantages include that the filibuster was created to protect the privileges of the Senators in order to fully debate and modify laws in the United States Senate, therefore securing the concern of all the citizens in America. Filibusters tend to exist thanks to the Founding Fathers ideology of designing a democratic government in which politicians became involved and educated throughout many political processes. Whenever a Senator goes on the Senate floor and talks endlessly for hours on a particular issue, it automatically engages attention to the particular matter, such as the 11-hour filibuster Senator Wendy Davis accomplished
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
2016 is slowly approaching as 2015 comes to an end and thus ushers in a new president at the end of the year! The 2016 election will be held on November 8th, 2016 and will be the 58th quadrennial presidential election. With each presidential election comes the controversy on the basis of how they were elected. Primarily, the public’s opinion on the Electoral College and how it is the actual determining factor, in who is chosen for the presidency. The problems that may spring forward will be what the Electoral College actually is and how it works, why the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College, major criticisms on the Electoral College, and why it should be abolished.
Canada is a society built on the promise of democracy; democracy being defined as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” In order to operate at full potential, the people of Canada must voice their opinions and participate fully in the political system. This is why it’s shocking to see that people are becoming less engaged in politics and the voter turnout has steadily been declining over the last 20 years. This lack of participation by Canadians is creating a government that is influenced by fewer people, which is detrimental to the democratic system Canada is built on.
The Electoral College is an outdated and unrealistic arrangement that caters to eighteenth century federalist America in a way that is detrimental to modern democracy. The electoral college gives too much power to the government, overlooks equal representation, and creates loopholes that do not serve to help America thrive.
Furthermore, the issues of representation in the House of Commons are even more evident in terms of the alienation of certain provinces. Western Canada has experienced political alienation due to the dominance and influence of Ontario and Quebec over policy-making as both provinces contain the founding Cultures of Canada (Miljan, 2012, p. 53) Also, the fact that Ontario and Quebec make up more than 60 percent of Canada’s population attracts policymakers to those provinces while marginalizing the interests of westerners (Miljan, 2012, p. 53). Thus, policymakers will favor Ontario and Quebec as these provinces harbor the most ridings as well as the bigger electors’ base. In fact, Western Canada is also underrepresented in both the House of Commons and the Senate when compared to the Maritime provinces as the Maritime provinces are overrepresented compared to their population. Also, many western Canadians are turned off by the federal government as they have been alienated from major political action and discussion due to low representation (Canada and the World Backgrounder, 2002). In other words, Ottawa does not address the needs and hopes of Western Canada
Canada itself claims to be democratic, yet the Canadian Senate is appointed to office by the current Prime Minister rather than elected by the citizens. The original purpose of the Senate was to give fair representation between provinces and to the citizens. Having failed its purpose, clearly there are issues within the Senate that need to be addressed. Because of the Prime Minister appointing the Senators, they will now serve the Prime Ministers needs rather than the people who they should have been listening to. As if this were not enough of a show of power for the Prime Minister, the Senators cannot be lawfully kicked out of office until the age of seventy-five. An example of Senate idiosyncrasy in Canadian government is Ross Fitzpatrick, who was appointed to office by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien of the Liberals in June 1990. His official opponent, Preston Manning, rightfully questioned the circumstances regardin...
The topic of the death penalty is one that has been highly debated throughout history. In the Intelligence Squared debate, Barry Scheck and Diann Rust-Tierney argue for the notion of abolishing the death penalty while Robert Blecker and Kent Scheidegger argue against abolishing the death penalty. Diann Rust-Tierney and Barney Scheck uses logos and ethos to debate against Robert Blecker and Kent Scheidegger who masterfully manipulate ethos and pathos for their case.
It was said that Canada’s MPs’ power is been minimalize completely by the Prime Minister (Kilgour, 2012 p.1). The reason for less restriction of party discipline is to give them the permission to vote according to the public and personal belief rather than under the influence of the party whip, which will result in freedom of vote for general public. The reason that members of parliament are there are that: they are the representatives of the sections; they are the voice of the people. In Canada we do not elect our MPs to be a puppet solely to be govern under the prime minister. Our country is a democratic country where there’s freedom of speech and freedom to vote. In reducing the hold on party discipline allows the governmental personnel to openly state their opinions without sparking an unnecessary controversy. Which will benefit both opposition and government in power to discuss the controversial debates and will speed up the process of decision making.
First, some background on the subject. Canada is divided into 308 ridings, and each riding elects one person to represent all the citizens in that riding. The party that wins the most ridings forms the government, and if that party has gained more than half the seats, as is usually the case, they form a majority and have the ability to pass any bill in the House of Commons that they wish, regardless of the opinions that other representatives have. This SMP system has remained unchanged in Canada since Confederation in 1867. On the other hand there is proportional representation, which is broken down into two main forms: Mixed Member Proportionality (MMP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV). MMP was first put into use ...
As the United States of America gets older, so does the presidential election voting system. The argument to change this method of voting has been becoming more and more popular as the years go on. It has been said that the Framers of the Constitution came up with this method because of the bad transportation, communication, and they feared the public’s intelligence was not suitable for choosing the President of the United States. Others say that the Framers made this method because they feared that the public did not receive sufficient information about candidates outside of their state to make such a decision based on direct popular vote. My research on this controversial issue of politics will look into the factors into why the Electoral College exists and if it is possibly outdated for today’s society. It will look into the pros and cons of this voting system, and it will explore the alternative methods of voting such as the Direct Popular vote. Many scholarly authors have gathered research to prove that this voting system is outdated and it does not accurately represent the national popular will. Many U.S. citizens value their vote because they only get one to cast towards the candidate of their choice in the presidential election. Based on the Electoral College system their vote may possibly not be represented. Because of today’s society in the U.S. the Electoral College should be abolished because it is not necessary to use a middle-man to choose our president for us. It is a vote by the people, all of us having one voice, one vote.
Canada has a central government designed to deal with the country as a whole. Things like national defense, banking, currency, and commerce are controlled by the central government. All other matters are left to the provinces to deal with. Such as education, hospitals, and civil rights are responsibilities of the states. The Canadian Parliament consists of two houses. Their Senate is made up of 104 members who serve until the age of seventy-five.
17 May 1787 -. The Senate is composed of 100 Members, 2 from each State, who are. elected to serve for a term of 6 years. Senators were originally chosen by the State legislature. This procedure was changed by the 17th amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1913, which made the Constitution. election of Senators a function of the people.
As student senate representative, I represented the college of nursing on the senate council and stood for matters pertinent to the continued quality of education, affordability (Bill 31) and continued excellence throughout the university. Students already go through a lot at the university to pay tuition at the university so the impact of my voice in the Senate body was essential to maintaining the continued affordability at the University of Manitoba. I was a firm voice in standing up for issues and opposing issues that I felt would have a negative impact on the students in any way which would limit their chances to excel academically