POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY WILLIAM THORSELL IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
Absolutely.
The United States Senate has been the single most
destructive institution of the United States' government since its inception.
Under a Parliamentary system, we have no need for a second
elected body.
All the corruptions and immense influence of money and
advocacy for narrow special interests will be duplicated to no purpose other
than the corruption of democratic values.
While it may sound odd to speak of democratic values while
we have an appointed senate, it actually is not on closer examination.
The current institution has little power and actually on
occasion serves as a useful forum, and it is a distinction awarded for past
loyal service, something politicians will always find a way of doing even were
the senate abolished.
The Senate should either be abolished or reformed, but it
should not become a second Parliament.
In the United States, the elected Senate positively works
against democratic values: it does this in many ways.
First, it is not representative at all: a Senator from
California represents over 16 million people while a Senator from Alaska
represents a few hundred thousand.
There is no hope that the average Californian will ever even
shake hands with his or her Senator, let alone influence them.
This also makes campaigns in big states unbelievably
expensive.
The average American Senator spends 2/3 of his or her time
soliciting for campaign funds.
That fact locks them into the special interests who can
supply serious and regular amounts of money.
Second, elections for the American Senate are staggered so
that only 1/3 of the members are elected at any period: this means issues of
the day cannot seriously disturb the composition of the body.
Third, the Senate operates with a 60% rule which means that
a super-majority is needed to deal with an issue.
Fourth, this conservative, special interests-bound
institution has the right too veto all legislation.
Fifth, this conservative, special interests-bound
institution must approve all senior Presidential appointments and treaties
negotiated: it thus has immense power over the popularly elected President.
The process of hearings and approvals regularly gets bogged
down into an ugly behind-the-scenes horse-trading operation which in no way
reflects public opinion.
Sixth, the system of equal numerical representation for each
state is totally anti-democratic, especially given the great powers of the
Senate. It was deliberately designed that way since many of America's founders
had no faith in democracy.
Seventh, the American Senate is effectively an aristocracy.
Just examine its membership and history. It is largely a bunch of old men with
minds not open to new things and beholden to the wealthy suppliers of campaign
funds. There even is a considerable element of inherited seats in the Senate,
many times fathers having effectively bequeathed a seat to a son.
Is it any wonder Stephen Harper likes the concept?
Now, if we were making a new elected Senate, we could have
it totally representational, but all that would do is create a second
Parliament. Surely that would be a
stupid waste of resources.
Harper's interests in the West's having more influence
(despite its minority population) and his keen interest in obtaining new
special interest campaign-contributors for his party tell us that his long term
interests in reform are not in keeping with democratic values.
Abolish the Senate or keep it mainly as is, a place for
honors with little power. Only those two options are in keeping with our
democratic values.
