senate
Why provincial elections, not federal?

The simple answer is, it’s easier for the provinces to enact Senate election legislation than it is for Parliament. As more provinces do this, the harder it becomes for any prime minister to ignore the results. Better to lose a handful of patronage appointments than seats in the House of Commons.

One province, Alberta – soon to be joined by Saskatchewan and possibly Manitoba – routinely holds “Senate nominee” elections. The last was in 2004, and cost 80 cents per eligible voter. [For more information, click on the image to the right]

Alberta has held three such elections since 1989, and two of the winners have been appointed so far to the Senate: Stan Waters in 1990 and Bert Brown in 2007. [Click second image on right.]

There are powerful reasons for Senate elections to be provincially run, even though senators are federal.

1. Provincial parties are closer to the people than federal parties, and are naturally more attuned to provincial rights
and interests.

2. A federal Senate consisting of numerous and different provincial parties would not engage in the national party grandstanding and chest-thumping we see in the Commons.

3. Provinces have a clear legal right to hold Senate elections, and Prime Ministers have a clear legal right to have the winners appointed. However, numerous experts have challenged Ottawa’s right to hold federal Senate elections without first amending the constitution – a lengthy, difficult process.

4. Provinces can adopt election rules to suit their own needs. A system of federal election will apply to the whole country, and will not accommodate local preferences. [Click image below for more information]

< Prev   Next >