Saturday, September 09, 2006

Democracy and the Senate

Yesterday, Ned Franks, a political science professor from Queen's University, had an op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail extolling the virtues of the appointed Senate.

Here's a letter I wrote in response which appears in today's paper:

Red Chamber, indeed

Ned Franks seems to think the appointed Senate is more representative of the Canadian people than the elected House of Commons.

Why?

Because the Senate has a greater proportion of aboriginals, women and other minorities than does the House.

In other words, the Canadian people, according to Mr. Franks, keep voting the wrong way. Perhaps, then, instead of concentrating on making the Senate elected, we should focus on making the House appointed.

So, who would make the appointments to ensure the proper racial and gender mix? Maybe Mr. Franks could do it.

1 comment:

Miles Lunn said...

I think we should just abolish the senate as it serves really no purpose or at the very least make it only an advisory body with no actual powers since they do good committee work. Having an unelected body make decisions is totally out of date and this assumption that the elites somehow know better than the rest of us smacks in the face of democracy. They may have better ideas, but the population is smart enough that if they properly sell them and they make sense the public will support them. It is only when they don't make sense or aren't explained properly the public won't buy them.