The Unelected elected senate

I begin this by saying I'd be just as happy if we scrapped the senate altogether, and if we aren't going to do that, then if we just left it alone.

But Harper's plan to elect the senators smells like the Smoke and Mirrors Supreme Court Snorefest yesterday. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

The argument for an elected Senate runs that an unelected senate is undemocratic.

True enough, if democracy is defined simply by the ballot box, ignoring that the appointments are based on the recommendations of an elected MP who is the Prime Minister.

But if the goal is democracy and accountability, where is the sense in electing people to hold a post for a maximum of 45 years?

With no fixed term in the plan (and one requiring a constitutional amendment) there is no control on the senate.

An individual's first election is about seeking a mandate. Who can seek a 45 year mandate and seriously tell voters they have a plan for the entire 45 years?

Elected officials are not held accountable at their first election - how can they be? They haven't done anything yet...

They are accountable when they return to the voters to seek a new mandate and approval for their actions to date... but with no fixed term, no senator will ever have to return to the voters... thus they will be no more accountable than they are now...

Curiously, Harper has not called for a review process of Senate appointments similar to the one held yesterday for the Supreme Court nominee... now that would be interesting...

Care to answer a few questions about your qualifications Mr. Fortier...?