Few would argue with a statement in the Conservative party's recent election platform: "the current Senate must be either reformed or abolished. An unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of the elected House in the 21st century."

Whether election or abolition of the Senate is preferable remains a hotly debated topic. Indeed, a recent internal survey of Canadian Taxpayers Federation shows its supporters are evenly split on the question, even though most want change. The problem is that changing the senate requires changing the constitution; and the failures of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords have eliminated most political appetite for another long, difficult, and potentially futile attempt.

However, accepting the Senate in its current form, the Prime Minister could choose to appoint only senators who have been elected in the provinces. In the short term, this may be the most feasible approach.

The concept has a good deal of public support. A Decima public opinion poll in late 2006 showed that 64 percent of Canadians support Senate elections, and 72 percent favour eight-year terms. The Harper government tried to enact both changes in the last Parliament, but failed to get approval from - you guessed it - the Senate!

Still, it's worth another shot. Pragmatically, getting a majority of senators to vote themselves out of a life long appointment with a base salary of $130,400 along with a generous pension and plenty of perks is still easier than getting seven provinces with more than 50 percent of the population to vote for constitutional change.

Besides, Harper has an increasing number of allies. Bert Brown, a long-time proponent of Senate reform, was elected by Albertans in 2004 to represent them in the Senate. In 2006, Harper honoured that choice and appointed him to the Red Chamber. In Saskatchewan, Premier Brad Wall has voiced his intention to allow Senate elections. Premiers Campbell (British Columbia) and Doer (Manitoba) prefer abolition, but would support an elected Senate as a next-best option.

Opponents stand on shakier ground. Recently, Quebec's Jean Charest spoke out against any Senate reform unilaterally imposed by Ottawa. But the irony of his stance betrays him. The status quo means Harper would unilaterally choose Quebec's senator without any say from Quebec voters, hardly a preferable option.

Harper has another trump card: the large number of vacancies in the Senate. Little outcry has emerged regarding the 16 seats currently empty in the Upper House. Yet by the end of 2012, another 28 senators will have retired. This means 44 of the 105 seats in the Senate will be subject to Harper's whim.

These vacancies help the cause of reform in two useful ways. A large portion of Senators so close to retirement may want to be remembered for making a positive contribution to democratic reform in the country. Second, many politicians of a different stripe to the government - in the Senate and otherwise - may prefer the public's judgment over the Prime Minister's in filling vacant Senate seats.

Barring even this, however, Harper could simply work with willing provinces who agree on their own to hold Senate elections. Over time, the convention of Senate elections will grow, creating its own momentum for other provinces to participate. Eventually, pressures created by under-representation in the Senate and a general populace that supports Senate reform, may be enough to win over the remaining premiers.

Another option would be to hold a referendum on the senate concurrent with the next federal election. Give people a choice between a reformed and elected Senate, the status quo, and abolition. Overwhelming support for change would be one more reason for premiers to respond.

Whatever the direction, the re-elected Harper government should continue to pursue senate reform. It is absurd that any modern country calling itself a democracy still appoints fully one-quarter of its lawmakers.