Comments on: So you want an elected Senate? Think twice.

By: Jeremy Handcock

Jeremy Handcock — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:18:42 +0000

@Sabrina S.: Yes, I compiled the graph using data obtained from the LEGISinfo database. Feel free to cite these data, however, note that the numbers haven't been reviewed by anyone but myself.

By: Sabrina S.

Sabrina S. — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:17:58 +0000

Did you compile the graph? i need to do something similar for a paper and if I use your graph as part of my research then I need to cite it properly. Thanks!

By: Jeremy Handcock

Jeremy Handcock — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:49:21 +0000

Thanks for the comment!

I think point 1) has more to do with electoral reform in general. I respect the position of many Green Party and NDP supporters who want to see proportional representation in the House and the Senate. However, federal governments that have a strong minority or majority of seats represented by mainstream political parties (the Liberals and the Conservatives) will be more progressive and functional than governments cobbled together in a coalition of small, disparate parties. Again, more democratic does not equal better IMO.

WRT point 2), I'd argue that an unelected Senate would be more likely to be all those things.

Not sure I agree with "The Senate is irrelevant and doesn't do much at all." Clearly they're doing something in there.

By: Aran

Aran — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:19:58 +0000

Senate 2.0 should be elected on a proportional representation basis, therefore
1. includes the Green party and other parties that never get past the post
2. is accountable to the interests of the nation as a whole, opposing gerrymandering, pork projects and local politics

Of course, the conservatives aren't really considering this, but I can dream.

I think the simplest explanation for your data above is not "The Senate is currently a house of sober second thought" and more "The Senate is currently irrelevant and doesn't do much at all."