Well it's an interesting week in terms of the senate.
One of the most interesting appointments, at least in Quebec, is the appointment of Jacques Demers to the senate. Famous now for admiting his illiteracy there's been a fair amount of commentary on this choice. (Which I think was the point)
What also piqued my interest this week was the following comment by Matthew Yglesias
— It’s also important to have in place systems for effective monitoring of elected officials. A Canadian voter elects one federal official—a Member of Parliament. An American elects four—a President, two Senators, and one Representative. Americans don’t have four times as much time as Canadians to pay attention to what politicians are doing or to learn the issues; our politicians are just being monitored less. When you consider the proliferation of things like independently elected school boards, district attorneys, sherrifs, etc. keep in mind that this diffusion of responsibility is a good way for the egomaniacal to evade
responsibility.
This is actually one of the best arguments against Senate reform. I've never really understood who the Senators would represent. It would complicate Federal-provincial relations. Ultimately I kind of like the idea of undercutting the provinces by having an elected Senate that can represent regional (or provincial) interests in federal legislation. However the possibility of gridlock is there. Also of course on paper is one thing, but in reality I can imagine elected senators trying to expand their power.
One of the reasons the Senate actually works is because of its illegitimacy. It has a high amount of power, but it is checked by the fact that they are not elected.
Generally, I think it works ok, and I think there are a lot of problems with having elected senators.
No comments:
Post a Comment