Ever Wondered Why Some Are Against Elected Senate?

Here's how one of the Senate reform opponents reacts to the announcement that Manitoba government is to launch province-wide hearings on Senate elections:

JD Wood from Toronto, Canada writes: The last thing we need is an elected senate. There is a reason senators are chosen for their wisdom, education, and experience -- not their electability. This so called U.S. idea of 'elitism' is absurd... I would RATHER have an 'elitist' in the senate than some dolt who might invite you to a pig roast and beer party. The senate exists to protect the electorate from itself when they make major mistakes (e.g. electing Harper). I do not trust the ignorant masses to tie their shoes nevermind elect senators.

(Source)

So here you have it - as per JD Wood none of us can even be trusted to tie our shoes without some Liberal (anti-Family, anti-West, anti-Christian) activist giving us instructions. Electing Senators? Are you kidding? We should be thankful we're allowed to elect MPs without having to take a Political Correctness test first!

Opponents of the Senate reform praise the status-quo because the Senate is currently dominated by the Liberals. But that won't last long. With 14 seats vacant, with 15 more Senators scheduled for retirement by the end of next year (only 2 of them - Conservatives) and with the Prime Minister having the right to appoint 8 additional ("regional") Senators on top of that, the Conservative party can establish a Senate majority as early as next December...

But who knows - maybe that's the way to go? First of all, it would turn many Liberal elitists like JD Wood into fierce supporters of the term limits and Senate elections (they wouldn't want more Conservatives appointed as the Liberal Senators keep retiring, would they?) And, once the Conservatives have a majority in the Senate, they could easily pass all the Senate reform bills and then vote for a dissolution of an Upper Chamber so that Canada's first general Senate election could be held.