Should Canada Elect Senators?

Revised from a 2018 post

During a late-night political debate at AtlSecCon, I found myself drawing an unusual comparison: Canadian politics and PID control loops. While system control theory and political science are distant fields, the analogy holds up surprisingly well when we examine how different branches of government interact and how changes to the system, like electing senators, could affect political stability.

The Problem with Pure Democracy

In a perfect world, democracy would involve voting on every issue, ensuring that the government is always aligned with the will of the people. But the logistical nightmare and dangers of such a system—imagine a society constantly pivoting with every whim of public opinion—make it unfeasible. Some science fiction, like that unsettling episode of The Orville, explores the risks of such systems. Instead, we have representative democracies, like Canada’s, where elected officials represent us in Parliament for fixed terms.

But here’s the catch: the average Canadian’s beliefs and priorities are constantly shifting. Whether it’s due to economic changes, global events, or social movements, public opinion is a moving target. The government needs to respond to these changes, but without veering too far off course or bouncing between extremes. This is where I find the analogy to PID loops useful.

DALL-E: wierdly on point, but deeply unsettling, as always.

What is a PID Loop?

In control systems, a PID controller (Proportional-Integral-Derivative) is used to manage and stabilize outputs—like keeping your car at a set speed while accounting for inclines and declines. Just as the PID loop adjusts the throttle to smooth out deviations from the target speed, the different elements of the Canadian government work to stabilize policy and governance in the face of changing public opinion.

A PID loop has three parts:

1. Proportional (P): Adjusts the output based on the current error.
2. Integral (I): Accounts for accumulated past errors to smooth long-term changes.
3. Derivative (D): Predicts future errors to prevent overcorrections.

Now, let’s map these components to the Canadian political system.

The Proportional Gain: Parliament

The House of Commons functions like the Proportional (P) element of a PID loop. The elected Members of Parliament (MPs) react to the current will of the people, adjusting policies and laws based on immediate concerns. In control theory, the proportional gain reacts to the difference between the target value (what we want) and the current value (what we have). Similarly, Parliament responds directly to the electorate, working to close the gap between the current state of the nation and the desires of voters.

However, relying solely on proportional control can lead to instability. Imagine driving a car and slamming on the brakes when you overshoot your desired speed, only to floor the gas when you drop too low. The result is oscillation—constant overcorrection. Without checks and balances, a government without dampening could swing wildly in policy direction every election cycle. That’s where the Senate comes in.

The Integral Gain: The Senate

In a PID loop, the Integral (I) part helps smooth out the output by considering the cumulative past errors. This can be thought of as a shock absorber that prevents wild oscillations. In Canada’s political system, the Senate serves this purpose. Senators, appointed for life, provide a "sober second thought," reviewing and revising legislation with a long-term perspective. Free from the pressures of elections, the Senate can take into account the cumulative lessons of past governments and temper the swift swings in policy that the House of Commons might introduce.

By taking a broader, long-term view, the Senate acts like the integral gain in a PID loop—stabilizing the political system and preventing rapid, reactionary shifts. In this analogy, life appointments are critical to maintaining this function. Senators are not beholden to the same immediate political pressures as MPs, allowing them to act as a counterweight to the rapid pace of electoral politics.

The Derivative Gain: The Crown

In PID loops, the Derivative (D) component helps predict future errors and corrects for them before they happen. In Canada, this role can be seen in the Crown (or more practically, the Governor General as the monarch’s representative). Although rarely invoked, the Governor General has the power to intervene in extreme situations—such as the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis—when the political system is at risk of serious instability. While this "derivative control" is rarely used, its mere existence can serve as a backstop against overshoot and political chaos.

However, in the post-Elizabeth II era, this role is becoming more ambiguous. As public sentiment shifts regarding the monarchy, it’s unclear how much authority the Crown’s reserve powers will carry in future crises. Nonetheless, for now, the Governor General remains an important but rarely activated element of Canada’s political stabilizer.

The Danger of Electing Senators with Fixed Terms: Two Proportional Gains

Here’s the crux of the issue: some advocate for an elected Senate, arguing that life appointments are undemocratic. However, electing senators with fixed terms could severely disrupt this balance. If senators were elected on the same or similar cycles as MPs, they might start reacting to the same political trends as the House of Commons, especially if they run on party lines. This would turn the Senate into another proportional gain—responding to immediate public opinion rather than dampening it.

In a control loop, having two proportional gains without the stabilizing effect of the integral would lead to resonant frequencies—wild swings between extremes, as both chambers of government overcorrect to match short-term public sentiment. In such a scenario, the political system would oscillate between policies without ever settling on a stable middle ground.

Just as in control theory, the stabilizing function of the integral—the Senate in this case—is crucial. Without it, Canada risks sliding into political instability, driven by constant changes in popular opinion.

A Solution: Electing Senators for Life

One possible middle ground is electing senators for life. This solution could introduce an element of democracy without undermining the Senate’s stabilizing function. By keeping senators in place for life, they would still be free from the short-term pressures of elections, allowing them to act independently and provide long-term balance.

Electing senators for life could avoid the risk of turning the Senate into another proportional gain, while satisfying concerns about democratic legitimacy. Once elected, senators would no longer be beholden to voters, allowing them to take a broader view and dampen the oscillations that come with rapid political shifts. Their democratic mandate could lend more credibility to their role, while their life terms ensure the stability and continuity needed to maintain balance in the political system.

This would keep the shock absorber in place while addressing concerns about representation.

Conclusion: Stability, Democracy, and Life-Term Senators

Just like a well-tuned PID loop, the Canadian political system relies on careful balance to function smoothly. The House of Commons reacts quickly to shifts in public opinion, while the Senate absorbs these shocks and ensures that policy changes are more gradual and considered. Meanwhile, the Crown provides a rarely-used but essential check against the most extreme potential outcomes.

By electing senators for life, Canada could introduce a democratic element to the Senate while preserving its stabilizing function. Without this balance, an elected Senate with fixed terms risks turning into another proportional gain, amplifying political swings rather than dampening them. In a world of increasing political polarization, the Senate’s role as a stabilizer is more important than ever.