HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 11:18 AM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,651
I would like to see the Senate replaced with a Jury, 100 names would be drawn at random from those who voted in the last election (and maybe a few additional requirements like no criminal record, taxes/child support are paid up, etc). They would be the upper house for a year. There could be maybe be come sort of veto override just in case (e.g. 2/3 of the House) but politicians would generally have to convince a majority of their fellow citizens that what they are proposing is a good idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 2:13 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
I would like to see the Senate replaced with a Jury, 100 names would be drawn at random from those who voted in the last election (and maybe a few additional requirements like no criminal record, taxes/child support are paid up, etc). They would be the upper house for a year. There could be maybe be come sort of veto override just in case (e.g. 2/3 of the House) but politicians would generally have to convince a majority of their fellow citizens that what they are proposing is a good idea.
How do we ensure equal representation of Canadians if they're chosen at random? Going to be awkward when we draw 90 people from the GTA or 90 people from Alberta.

How do we ensure these representatives are well-read? If they aren't would they not just seek to vote in blocs or with others they agree with?

How do we ensure these people can take time out of their lives/jobs/careers in order to take part?

How do we ensure the continuation of government business via bills and action items if the upper house is shifting every year?

Why don't we just remove the upper house entirely?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 5:16 PM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 15,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
How do we ensure equal representation of Canadians if they're chosen at random? Going to be awkward when we draw 90 people from the GTA or 90 people from Alberta.

How do we ensure these representatives are well-read? If they aren't would they not just seek to vote in blocs or with others they agree with?

How do we ensure these people can take time out of their lives/jobs/careers in order to take part?

How do we ensure the continuation of government business via bills and action items if the upper house is shifting every year?

Why don't we just remove the upper house entirely?
A reasonable sample size usually gets a diverse set. You’re unlikely to get 90% heads if you flip a coin 100 times.

Is there a requirement that current MPs need to be well read?

You could compensate them for their year of service.

British Parliament is prorogued every year.

That’s an option too I guess. Some checks and balances would be nice though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 5:33 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
A reasonable sample size usually gets a diverse set. You’re unlikely to get 90% heads if you flip a coin 100 times.
My examples were of course extreme, but the (one of few) upsides of the current Senate is that regional representation is usually acknowledged, with the Maritimes being overrepresented and the Western provinces underrepresented. Currently the Senate has one in four members being from Ontario as a whole - would people be ok with a proportional senate in your proposal being one-in-six from just the GTA, assuming the draw for representatives is fully equal amongst all Canadians and provides for perfect representation (which statistically wouldn't always occur).

Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Is there a requirement that current MPs need to be well read?
Not really, but the current system usually filters them out automatically. Your proposed system does not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
You could compensate them for their year of service.
What would be acceptable, equal compensation for each member? How do you ensure they are entered back into the workforce effectively upon completion? This feels like conscription for politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
That’s an option too I guess. Some checks and balances would be nice though.
The lower house already has enough checks and balances, IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 5:39 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
A reasonable sample size usually gets a diverse set. You’re unlikely to get 90% heads if you flip a coin 100 times.

Is there a requirement that current MPs need to be well read?

You could compensate them for their year of service.

British Parliament is prorogued every year.

That’s an option too I guess. Some checks and balances would be nice though.
Thinking this through a bit more, just for fun.

It needn't be mandatory (not sure if you had in mind that it would be), and if you make it voluntary you would weed out at least some of the clueless dorks.

The 100 out of XX million chance of getting chosen also effectively rules out any chance that a group of ill-intentioned people could conspire to take it over. You'd have to get half the country's population on board for that type of conspiracy. (And at that point... if half the country agrees with a specific direction we could take collectively, is it still a conspiracy or does it not simply become a political movement or ''side" like all the others?)

Plus of course they're only there for a year, anyway.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 5:43 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
It needn't be mandatory (not sure if you had in mind that it would be), and if you make it voluntary you would weed out at least some of the clueless dorks.
...

Plus of course they're only there for a year, anyway.
If it's voluntary and only a year then you're more likely to attract clueless dorks, as you put it. People with nothing better to do to get a pay-raise in Ottawa for a year. Nobody is quitting a six-figure job for 12 months to sit in Senate.

It just sounds like a venture where nothing much would get done and would be an inherent waste of money, similar to the current Senate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 5:45 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is offline
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 33,677
I think the big thing missing is experimentation and empiricism. Lots of people arguing in the abstract over what they think might or might not work, not much trial and error.

If we didn't have our current democratic systems I don't think it would be obvious that they were ideal or comparatively stable. It took thousands of years of evolution to get something like the Canadian federal government system. Some version of a lottery component to the government may or may not be good. We don't really know because it has not been tried.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 5:46 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
My examples were of course extreme, but the (one of few) upsides of the current Senate is that regional representation is usually acknowledged, with the Maritimes being overrepresented and the Western provinces underrepresented..
This is generally considered an "upside" of our current Senate? NB and NS have more seats than BC and AB, and PEI which has less population than some neighbourhoods in Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary, has almost as many seats as BC or AB.

I (sort of) understand why things are like that. Or at least, I understand the history.

But it seems like we've ended up with a sub-optimal hybrid between rep-by-pop and the full equality of provinces without regard for population, that might actually be the worst of both worlds.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 5:49 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123 View Post
I think the big thing missing is experimentation and empiricism. Lots of people arguing in the abstract over what they think might or might not work, not much trial and error.

If we didn't have our current democratic systems I don't think it would be obvious that they were ideal or comparatively stable. It took thousands of years of evolution to get something like the Canadian federal government system. Some version of a lottery component to the government may or may not be good. We don't really know because it has not been tried.
Hey, on parle pour parler.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 5:54 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
This is generally considered an "upside" of our current Senate? NB and NS have more seats than BC and AB, and PEI which has less population than some neighbourhoods in Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary, has almost as many seats as BC or AB.
It's an upside more-so in the fact that specific areas have specific representatives, much like Parliament does (IE Senator for Moncton, Senator for southern Saskatchewan, whatever). It's still obviously not entirely representative of Canada. acottawa's proposal removes this entirely and hopes that it's still representative via lottery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
But it seems like we've ended up with a sub-optimal hybrid between rep-by-pop and the full equality of provinces without regard for population, that might actually be the worst of both worlds.
It more or less is. It's an outdated body that should have been scrapped or heavily modified decades ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 7:55 PM
Franco401 Franco401 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Fredericton
Posts: 1,203
The idea that we "have the technology" for direct democracy is highly flawed. This video concerns only our current representative democracy, but electronic voting is a bad idea.

https://youtu.be/LkH2r-sNjQs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 8:10 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,014
I love acottawa's idea of a Senate that's a jury of (a well-read and politically interested subset of) our peers.




Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
If it's voluntary and only a year then you're more likely to attract clueless dorks, as you put it. People with nothing better to do to get a pay-raise in Ottawa for a year. Nobody is quitting a six-figure job for 12 months to sit in Senate.

It just sounds like a venture where nothing much would get done and would be an inherent waste of money, similar to the current Senate.
With today's technology, there would definitely be no requirement at all to physically show up in Ottawa. And it would have to be part-time, of course; no one would quit their job.

For it to work the way acottawa intends it, the applicants would have to be randomly drawn from a pool of volunteers (therefore, excluding anyone politically apathetic), then go through some further selection to make sure they're educated and reasonable, and then the 100 "chosen ones" would keep their jobs and stay where they are, but pocket a bonus for their service (a few tens of thousands would be fair, I guess) in exchange for some part-time work throughout the year.

The voting records would be public, so if you're a slacker or someone who doesn't do the Senate part-time job seriously, then the people you know (your colleagues, your boss) can actually see it. Further motivation to do it well!

Since all the exchanges and brainstorming would take place via email, there would be no scheduling constraints, it would be reasonably easy to do the job in whatever free time these Yearly Senators have.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 8:14 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
acottawa's proposal removes this entirely and hopes that it's still representative via lottery.
On average it's guaranteed to be, since it'll change every year.

For the same reason that if you flip a penny a million times, the outcome will be quite representative (inevitably, roughly ~500k heads and ~500k tails).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 8:18 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
For it to work the way acottawa intends it, the applicants would have to be randomly drawn from a pool of volunteers (therefore, excluding anyone politically apathetic), then go through some further selection to make sure they're educated and reasonable, and then the 100 "chosen ones" would keep their jobs and stay where they are, but pocket a bonus for their service (a few tens of thousands would be fair, I guess) in exchange for some part-time work throughout the year.
Who determines what is educated and reasonable? Once you start down this process you start watering down potential Senators, very much in line with what currently happens anyway. If you want to actually have this be representative then we're also looking to include low-income, disadvantaged, and anyone else who might want to have a say in Canada's politics (including, shocker, people you probably don't think should be in the Senate). The more you create hurdles and requirements the more it resembles our current Senate.

I'd imagine having to read up, educate oneself, and then voting on matters of national importance would need to be a full-time gig. I don't want government matters in the upper house to be determined by Joe as he sips a morning coffee before going to his actual job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
On average it's guaranteed to be, since it'll change every year.

For the same reason that if you flip a penny a million times, the outcome will be quite representative (inevitably, roughly ~500k heads and ~500k tails).
Sure, but this does not prevent extenuating circumstances from occasionally happening, which has been my point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 8:32 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
Who determines what is educated and reasonable? Once you start down this process you start watering down potential Senators, very much in line with what currently happens anyway. If you want to actually have this be representative then we're also looking to include low-income, disadvantaged, and anyone else who might want to have a say in Canada's politics (including, shocker, people you probably don't think should be in the Senate). The more you create hurdles and requirements the more it resembles our current Senate.

I'd imagine having to read up, educate oneself, and then voting on matters of national importance would need to be a full-time gig. I don't want government matters in the upper house to be determined by Joe as he sips a morning coffee before going to his actual job.
.
How is that significantly different from what often happens today, which is that Senator Joes sometimes determine government matters in the upper house while sipping a morning coffee and playing Candy Crush.

Before anyone thinks I am being disrespectful of Senators, I'd gladly accept one of those jobs, and take it quite seriously and assiduously.

But I don't think that overall we'd necessarily be dumbing down the institution if we went with a fine-tuned, refined, robust version of acottawa's plan.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2021, 8:36 PM
JHikka's Avatar
JHikka JHikka is offline
ハルウララ
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
How is that significantly different from what often happens today, which is that Senator Joes sometimes determine government matters in the upper house while sipping a morning coffee and playing Candy Crush.
They're (usually) vetted by upper echelons of government leadership, including the PM.

And before we get any fun responses about orange juices, i'd like to point out that I think Harper purposely appointed people who he knew would be awful Senators to discredit the institution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
But I don't think that overall we'd necessarily be dumbing down the institution if we went with a fine-tuned, refined, robust version of acottawa's plan.
If we're choosing voters at random, as acottawa described, then we almost certainly would be. Fine-tuned, refined, robust is just speak for filtering out people who we (who?) don't want there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 1:38 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHikka View Post
And before we get any fun responses about orange juices, i'd like to point out that I think Harper purposely appointed people who he knew would be awful Senators to discredit the institution.
Ha. Possibly the most plausible explanation for some of his appointments.

Although you have to appreciate the irony that one of those appointments ended up playing the foil to JT and in doing so, helped elevate him to a level where he ended up defeating Harper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 1:49 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 9,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker View Post
Direct democracy feels like it would be a full-time job and I’ve already one of those. Tyranny of the majority also worries me, especially with an aging population whose priorities are the opposite of the legislative tools needed to attract young families.

It would be good for some things though. Regionalism here, for example. General guidelines are you need one PET scanner for every two million people. PEI doesn’t even have one, they share NS’s. We have one in St. John’s that is obviously not being used to capacity. This week Corner Brook residents are ready to storm our Confederation Building because they’re not getting one of their own for a city the size of Mount Pearl. Protests, letters. And it’s the seat of the current government’s power - even the Premier’s seat is out there. So with an election call coming soon, it’s become an even bigger issue and could cost them seats out there, the local residents are that pissed.

With direct democracy, they’re not getting a fucking PET scanner. With our current system, I’ll be shocked if they don’t. One for every two million. We’ll be paying for two for 500,000. Sometimes I wish the isthmus would collapse and Avalon was its own province I’d miss the Bonavista Peninsula, but not enough to keep the rest. The entitlement here is... insane. In St. John’s too, to be sure, but out around the bay? We’re still dealing with the impact of how Confederation was sold to them in the 40s. Our Terms of Union enshrine our right to re-establish our would-now-be-provincial Senate. We really should to have some “sober second thought” about economically detrimental decisions that aren’t in the province’s overall interest.

So, no to direct democracy please. I can’t be arsed to learn the right decision to every little question government has to answer, even if it would be good in some cases.
That is a complicated example and also one direct democracy is a problem.

When I was in Saskatchewan, it was complex but I was involved in a committee that looked at that. At the end of the day the driver for it was the Cancer Agency and the travel costs they were covering to have people travel from Saskatoon to Edmonton. The travel cost exceeded the operating of having the machine. The university was going to be built an cyclotron for isotope production anyway. The media attention was on the fancy object not the financial case for it and the usage projections.

The general public simply does not have the time to collect and review all the information that goes into making these decisions. The slow process that legislatures go through is all about collecting and reviewing that type of information.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 1:54 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 9,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
This is generally considered an "upside" of our current Senate? NB and NS have more seats than BC and AB, and PEI which has less population than some neighbourhoods in Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary, has almost as many seats as BC or AB.

I (sort of) understand why things are like that. Or at least, I understand the history.

But it seems like we've ended up with a sub-optimal hybrid between rep-by-pop and the full equality of provinces without regard for population, that might actually be the worst of both worlds.
Why we have the number of provinces we do is arbitrary. Vancouver Island and British Columbia were two different colonies and could have easily ended up as independent provinces. Northern Ontario some would argue today should be a separate province. This is all arbitrary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 3:06 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
Why we have the number of provinces we do is arbitrary. Vancouver Island and British Columbia were two different colonies and could have easily ended up as independent provinces. Northern Ontario some would argue today should be a separate province. This is all arbitrary.
Agreed, and Cape Breton could have been its own province, or PEI could have been part of Nova Scotia.

Though this only reinforces the weirdness of how Senate seats are divided up. Senatorial divisions (are most people even aware of them?) often make little sense and have no relationship to population either.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:24 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.