The voters in Israel sent a message to the governing parties with their same old messages that hey have had enough and wanted change and voted for Yesh Adid and its message that "there is a future" and its emphasis of dealing wiyh economic and social problems. Now they have done the same in Italy by giving 25% of the votes to comedian Beppe Grillo and his anti-establishment message. At the same time they also supported Silvio Berlusconi, who had had 10 years of stable if not economically successful government.
     They voted for a clown and an aged gigolo and have thrown Italy back to the years of uncertainty and instability of government, an election every 9 months or so. During the 1950's -1990's, Italy muddled along from government to government, but the country did build the third largest economy even amidst the violence of the Red Brigade and the crime spree which ensnared many top politicians.
     Crime and violence may have gone down, but the instability of government has made a comeback with the center-left Luigi Bersani holding a narrow majotity in the lower house (with the largest share of the votes, 29.5%, he gets a bonus which pushed his seat total to 340 of 630; Berlusconi made a great comeback with a surprising 29.2% ( mosty from the north) and Grilli got 25% thanks to social media that brought new voters out to protest against the austerity measures imposed by Mario Monti, the outgoing prime minister whose party fared very badly. 
     The Senate, (where seats are distributed on a regional basis,) is deadlocked, as a result of Grillo's showing, with Bersani winning only 121 seats, falling short of the 158 needed for a majority; Berlusconi won 117 seats and the reaminder spread between Grillo and the other parties.
     So here you have it. Vox Populi......the voters protest, a gigolo. a clown and a new Pope. Ciao Italia. Hell, it's better han the droll French Hollande and the boring Brit Cameron, with "Brunhilde" Merkel cracking the whip. Bring  " Ruby and the Bunga, Bunga" parties   

     Created in 1867 to represent the regions, property rights and  conservatism, the Senate has lost most of its powers to, first the Cabinet and then the PMO and the provincial governments themselves. It has become the "the old folks home" for retired, spent, defeated candidates, bagmen, friends of the Prime Minister and others, who meet the fancy of the Prime Minister, " the choicest plum in the patronage basket". 
     In recent days it has come under close scrutiny, because of some senators making outlandish claims for housing and travel expenses and for not attending meetings  and in one case for domestic violence. There is demand for outright abolition of the Senate from many and for reform from some.
     It will require the consent of each province, together with the federal parliament to abolish it, but it will only require the federal parliament and the consent of seven provinces, representing 50% of the population of Canada to reform it. The Senate itself can delay such an amendment for 180 days, after which it can be bypassed.
     There have been many proposals in the past to reform it and the present Ref/Con. government ( from its Reform Party days) had proposed a triple -e, senate...equal, elected and effective and still do. This is opposed by the other political parties and more importantly by the  provinces and so this will not "fly". The larger provinces , Ontario and Quebec do not support the idea that all provinces be equally represented and electing it, is opposed on the grounds that it will compete with the House of Commons for power and create a gridlock in government as is the case in the Unite States with its equal, elected Senate and Rep, by Pop House.
     Others have suggested a term limit ( rather the present retirement at 75 yrs.); that the appointment be taken away from the Prime Minister and be given to an independent body; that it (like in Germany) become the representative of the provinces and be given specific powers to do so, (a federal system require a two-house, so there is no getting away with one House); that it be chosen by the provinces to represent their interests ( this will make it untenable with each province reps. being mere extension of provincial interests, but may force them to look for common cause and work out compromises). There are many other suggestions but what must be borne in mind is Canada's uniqueness of linguistic, religious, geographic and economic, regional cleavages. 
     We do need a House of the Regions as was initially decided. That's where we should begin. Equal representation of  the regions ( it was 24 from each of four regions and special consideration for the North), with the regions choosing their representatives, based on national standards and with clear powers to represent regional interests ( the  Supreme Court can act as arbiter in disputes, as it does presently in Federal /Provincial disputes). This will make the "second" house equal. elected and effective. Triple "e", but regional, not provincial. 
     The second house becomeS relevant and reflects the needs of the regions and thus the country and we get rid of the 'albatross' that we presently have.