4 ms·
When you have a smaller population the ratio of constituents to elected member goes down, making lobbying more expensive. We have just as many MPs as the US has
by 3pt14159 13y ago
When you have a smaller population the ratio of constituents to elected member goes down, making lobbying more expensive. We have just as many MPs as the US has senators and a tenth of the population.
- Zarathust 13y agoMaximum monetary contributions to a political party in Canada is only a fraction of what it is in the US (1200$ max). Also it is impossible for a corporation to donate directly. This reduce lobbying to diner parties and yacht rides. My guess is that lobbying is less intensive in Canada than in the US because it is very difficult to do legally. I watch a commission in Quebec about the alleged local corruption and I am stunned to see that most of what is at stake there would be absolutely legal in the US.
- tingletech 13y ago"We have just as many MPs as the US has senators and a tenth of the population." wikipedia says Canada has 308 MPs and 108 senators; and the US has 2 senators per state and 50 states so 100 senators. US House has 435 reps. Still a good point re: population per representative
- 3pt14159 13y agoMeant to say congresspersons.
- jholman 13y agoCanadian senators are political cronies with expense accounts. It is unclear what, if anything, they contribute to democracy. Note that they have essentially no power. Just assume that Canada has one house in the legislative assembly, and then also a hole that we pour money into. The Canadian system has several.... "quirks". It is therefore astounding to me that it appears to work better in practice than the US system, which to my eye looks better-in-theory.
- reginaldjcooper 13y agoI am reminded that the USA was designed to have a much greater congressperson to person ratio than it currently has.