Elections, Senators and Effective Representation

The Prime Minister has appointed Bert Brown to the Senate who was 'elected' in a free and fair election. This is, apparently, in keeping with his promise to reform the Senate.

Poppycock.

Bert Brown didn't even finish first in his last election. He finished second to Betty Unger. So much for a free election, it is really more proof the Prime Minister hates women. It is convenient that the current constitutional rules will require Mr. Brown to retire in 6 years at age 75, but I digress.

Mr. Brown is in favour of a Triple-E Senate: possibly the most asinine idea in the world if you are interested in being a true democrat. Giving PEI the same voice as Ontario would pretty much force every person in PEI to be a Senator. Regional critics lament their lack of representation in Ottawa. More Poppycock.

Canadians are, sadly, already over-represented in Elected offices. The tri-partite measures of representation that currently exists creates more confusion and red-tape then it does ensure that any one's concerns are adequately addressed. Adding a level of representation which will likely assume vast constitutional authority under the rubric of effective representation will not make people better represented.

Ontario, however, doesn't have the same stones as the PM. They had a citizen's commission to study 'effectively translating popular support' to what the electoral system gives us. Rather than blindly following the report, the government is having a referendum. I hope everyone votes against it.

All electoral systems are flawed in some way - forgive me if I am in no hurry to change a system that hasn't produced any egregious results. So what if an electoral system provides government to a party that hasn't gotten 50% of the vote. The American system doesn't provide government to a man who got more votes than his opponent.

Maybe that was a bad example...