Pros And Cons Of Triple E Senate

Unit Four - State Hearing Question 2 The filibuster is essential to good governance in the United States. By nature, this arrangement works to protect minority rights, encourage compromise, and prevent impromptu legislation. Although indispensable, the filibuster must be reevaluated and modified to prevent impotence in the Senate.

In Maryland as well as at the federal level, the Senate would serve as a form of aristocratic check on the executive as well as on the democracy. Carroll helped create a system of checks and balance that would still work hundreds of years

Modern congress and its members seem largely concerned and focused on partisan advancements. Though there are many reasons as to why the enormous division in congress is as it is, there is one factor that draws the most attention. Filibuster an action that is used by most congressmen and women to delay the passage of laws, has increasingly over the course of time become a negative action rather than positive. The use of mostly long speeches as ways to prohibit and hinder bills or laws is now being used by many senators to advance personal and party goals thus, it is crucial that the ban of filibuster must be considered and replaced with the simple majority rule. First and foremost, some reasons as to why filibuster should be exempted from

Looking at the political history of Canada, there has been quite a few times when provinces were unhappy with the divisions of powers between themselves and the federal government. In 1985 Alberta’s Select Special Committee proposed the idea of a Triple E Senate reform. They viewed parliament, especially Senate, as a way that they could bring their issues to the national forum and they could be taken care of. The provinces have been more interested in a more regionally represented parliament that would be more interested in aiding in regional issues. They believe that Senate should follow through with one of its major duties and instead of simply focusing on Ontario and Quebec due to their larger populations, should instead have representatives from each province to strengthen the federal government in its relations with its provinces and the total Canadian

The word “senate” came from the root word “senex”,

Nancy Zhou Social 11A Mr. B September, 17th, 2017 Q: Should Canada keep, change or abolish the senate? The Reason Canada Need to Change the Senate Canada should change the Senate because the senate is useless, undemocratic and costly today. However, the principle of Senate is a good idea, so it is still needed and important. The Senate is a legislative body of the government, which has the almost the same power as the House of Common.

The legislature could hold all the power and re-elect the same senator and he could hold power for as long as he wanted. The people have to have a say in their government in order to create their happiness. They didn 't

The Canadian Senate has been a fundamental part of Canadian Democracy since the Constitution Act, 1867. It was created to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority in the House of Commons. For 147 years the Senate has acted as the house of “sober-second” thought in the Canadian Parliamentary system. Overall, the senate has performed exceptionally at its role, but due to recent scandal and corruption the good work of the Senate been ignored. This has caused calls for reform to be brought back into the Canadian spot light.

One becoming a senate must be: over 30 years old, been a US citizen for 9 years, and length of the term is 6 years. There is no limit on how many terms one can serve in either or. From looking at the qualifications, it is fascinating that Representatives have more relaxed qualifications compared to the Senate. These qualifications and the total number of members allowed could be a way to promote sociological representation, representation of group through similar race, gender, ethnicity, and religion as the group.

However, abolishing the Senate may not be the best for Canada in the end, so another argument is to reform the Senate. The best plan at the moment to reform the Senate is the Triple E plan, as it would make it so that the Senators are elected, each province is represented equally, making the Senate more effective. If we were to abolish the Senate the only way to do so would be by a constitutional amendment backed by at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population, or one with unanimous provincial

The Senate: “The upper chamber of Parliament where there are 105 members who are appointed until age 75 by the Crown on the advice if the prime minister.” (Rules of the Game pg 106)The original Senate that was created in 1867 had only originally 72 seats. It was created to counter balance representation population in the House of Commons, although in recent years the Senate has become to reinforce representation of groups that have often been underrepresented in parliament, examples; Aboriginals, visible minorities and women. There has been a huge debate’s on whether Canada should keep the Senate. The people all over Canada have mixed opinions on if we should keep the Senate or not.

Prorogation is much like a complex acronym to Canadians. We understand that it conveys meaning in some way, yet the majority of us are not familiar with the term. Developed during the Tudor period, prorogation is a healthy alternative to dissolution; however, today prorogation is a process that once approved by the Governor General, the acting Prime Minister may cease the current parliamentary session, effectively clearing the parliamentary agenda and ending proceedings for a set period of time. In recent years there has been a growing controversy in relation to prorogation in Canada. This is largely due to the 2008-2009 parliamentary disputes between the Conservative minority government and the opposition governments; however, that is addressed

The Senate in Canada should be abolished Introduction: Canada senate is a part of legislation institution in Canada, which represents the interests of upper class people. Different from America, it is not produced by election but directly-nominated by the premier and appointed by governor. Senate, governor, and the House of Commons are like three legs of a tripod which constitute the congress and legislation system in Canada. Senate undertakes the responsibility of proposing expostulation to governor and cabinet, which acts the role of supervision and restriction. Senate played critical role when Canada established federal government in 1867, the diversity of senators warrants the smooth convey of popular will to governors and legislators coming from different ethnic group and social status.

"Candidate with the highest number of the vote wins the right to represent the particular seat in the House of Commons", according to CBC news. There are some limitations regarding this method. First of all, it could possibly happen that candidate with less than half vote wins, which means it only reaches minority people's desired outcome. In addition to the tactical voting, the two-party system could be a serious problem. Since only the first matters, candidates with the low possibility to win may exist the election.

Parliamentarism, or a parliamentary government, is defined “as a system of government in which the executive, the government, is chosen by and is responsible to…the legislature.” (Gerring, Thacker and Moreno, 2005, p. 15) With this form of governmental control, many advantages and disadvantages arise, especially when this system is compared to the likes of ‘Presidential systems’ or even that of ‘Semi-presidential systems’. However, my aim within this essay is to, both, highlight to advantages of parliamentarism, and to also give my opinion as to why this system is better when compared and contrasted with the aforementioned systems. According to Hague and Harrop (2007, p. 336), there are three different branches relating to the parliamentary system. Firstly, the legislature and the executive are “originally linked”.