Building a better Senate

As I've blogged about before, there are things I like and dislike about the Senate. The things I like tend to be those that provide a counterpoint to the House of Commons, while what I don't like tends to be when the Senate blindly rubber-stamps the House of Commons, without using the safety net afforded by their unelected nature to provide true sober second thought. So I was disappointed that recent discussions of Senate reform have the Senate either becoming more like the House of Commons without a clear differentiation between the two, or simply want to outright abolish the Senate without introducing sober second thought elsewhere.

So I've started brainstorming some ways to make the Senate more of what I like about the current system with less of what I dislike about the current system and about others' ideas for reform. Here's what I've come up with so far:

What if senators had to be non-partisan?

Currently, senators are affiliated with a political party (generally the party that appoints them, although I think there might be a few individual exceptions.) This is a hindrance to sober second thought when they vote along party lines.

What if we took the complete opposite approach and outright prohibited partisanship in senators? They aren't allowed to be members of political parties, they aren't allowed to donate or work in support of parties or candidates, and people who have engaged in these activities within a certain period of time before appointment are not allowed to be senators. These kinds of standards exist for certain types of high-profile or influential public service positions, so it seems feasible to extend them to make a non-partisan senate.

What if senators could not serve under the prime minister who appoints them?

A problem with the current system is that senators might feel beholden to the PM who appoints them. To solve this, what if prime ministers appointed senators to replace those retiring under the next mandate? Under this model, Stephen Harper would look at which senators will be retiring in 2015-2019, and come up with a short list of possible replacements. The flaw in this plan is that prime ministers can serve multiple terms, so it might not be entirely effective.

What if senators were drawn out of a hat?

Currently, prime ministers appoint one senator to fill each senate vacancy. What if, instead, they selected a number of people for a senate candidacy pool, and then whenever a vacancy comes up, they draw a name at random from this pool of candidates? All candidates appointed by all prime ministers remain in the pool until they reach the age of 75, unless they do something really bad that merits elimination from the pool (this would be carefully defined in the law.)

What if senators were picked at random from the general population?

Instead of the prime minister appointing people, what if we had "senate duty" along the lines of "jury duty"? People are selected at random from the voter list and told to report to Ottawa for a year or five years or some other defined term for senate duty. Relocation expenses are covered, you get a senator's salary, and maybe they have a rule that your employer has to keep your job waiting for you like with the military. I can make an argument for making senate duty mandatory, and I can make an argument for letting people who aren't interested simply opt out. There would also have to be a way to screen out people who aren't mentally competent etc., although they probably already have something like that for jury duty.

What if Senate votes were secret?

It would certainly be more difficult for senators to be beholden to their political masters if no one knows how they voted (or perhaps even how many votes for or against each bill got). This might sound like a bad thing because it's less transparent, but it would also provide a counterpoint to the House of Commons where there are open votes and party discipline.