A continuation from this comment-thread, which last left off with the following from NorthEdge:
So you would like to see them take a consistently active role?As for elections, do you think they should be elected for terms or one election and in?
Do you think they should alter the numbers to be more representative by population?
Active, yes. They have their little committees, but from what I understand, they're little make-work projects that don't really accomplish much.
Yes, they should be elected for terms. Nobody should ever have a post for life. That's a hangnail from the days of feudalism.
Representative by population is arbitrary. Any number can be made to represent some number of people. There's a few ways we could achieve an elected senate, and I think many of those options are all decent ones.
In general, the purpose of the Senate was to be the "Sober Second Thought" but that hasn't worked out at all. It's nothing but a place where parties can continue to exert the same power, and senators are generally expected to tow the party line. This makes them completely pointless in their present form.
I think if we really want to make use of the senate as a sober second thought, then they should be responsible for working together collectively to identify the results of bills that have already been passed. Are they accomplishing their goals? Do they need tweaking? What is working and what isn't? They should be the ones handling the evaluation of results, so that anything that needs changing can be adjusted in a democratic fashion.
In that regard, I think they must be elected, and should mirror the House in structure, with a speaker, policy debates, etc. Ideally, I think that the senate should be elected from the general public by the public but no party distinctions should be allowed nor identified on the ballot. There should be minimum requirements for who can run for a senate seat; they must have some sort of relevant experience, either parliamentary or in the civil service as policy analysts or diplomats, or in universities as political/social policy experts. Electing a used car sales person might be okay for the lower house, but the upper house should be reserved for people who actually know wtf they're doing.
There are some parallels here with the current role of the judiciary. Our supreme court is forced on occasion to send laws back to the House that violate various constitutional rights or are deemed to contradict with other existing laws. They are also responsible for pointing out very old laws that need to be scrapped or updated. This remains in their purview, but I think that this is the exact sort of thing that the Senate should (and could) be doing more rapidly, and if they are already and elected house, then they have full powers to actually make modifications rather than waiting for the slow process of passing bills through both chambers.
Interesting
Perhaps a longer term than the less than 5? Or a set term? I always thought the flexible terms in Canada was a little odd - some good things, some bad things I guess. Good for the sitting govt if you time it right.
I suppose if you had set terms (i.e.) for MPs and Senators, and you still had parties you could stagger them to ensure that we don't have years of asshole moves by a bad sitting party - of course, also can block good moves by the party in power. I like what you're talking about with speed vs. passing everything twice, I'd hate for an active Senate to mirror the debacle that US politics can be when passing legislation - it's insanely difficult and the process looks more like legalized bribery, bullying and begging (and stupidity) then a checks and balances system.
You've also addressed that here though with your no party affiliations concept. Sounds good but do you have any thoughts on how that would work on a practical basis? Yes, people may not be officially be involved with a party but parties will immediately be looking for any and all ways to circumvent that rule. Also hard to imagine how people could campaign for an election without party funding. They would have to be independently wealthy or insanely popular due to a public profile.
Maybe there should be an appointment committee? Or submit your names and, should you meet the qualifications, you get selected for 1 term through random draw? Keep people from becoming professional politicians...just throwing that out there.
a new take
i think that Canada should have her own monarchy. they would be entirely symbolic, unelected posts with armed duals every three years to determine succession. the king would lead the royal household and his/her sole duty would be decreeing the annual High Days with the stipulation that these Feasts be entirely secular. of these, they could set from eight to 24 and, together with their household and staff, they would lay out the structure of any festivities and disseminate the particulars to the public. they would, of course, figure largely in the ceremonies, but since they could not possibly be everywhere at once, each area of the country would select people to perform as proxies. all other official ritual observances would be end (except Canada Day, of course--in fact, the armed duals would take place every third July 1 with symbolic duals held each off year).
think of the possibilities: every three years, a whole new crop of Made in Canada souvenirs modelled on the latest High Days could flood the shelves of curio shops nation-wide. artists would find useful employment designing new themes and developing new rituals. we could toss the mythical 'multicultural' in favour of the entirely accurate 'spasmocultural'. tourism would flourish and Canadians would no longer stumble over describing their culture as something other than 'not American' (the words 'chaotic' and 'eccentric' come to mind).
Awesome
I'm all for it.