Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged

jdobbin · September 9, 2009

Some posters who insist the Conservatives broke their own election law also think there would be nothing wrong with overturning election results and replacing the elected government with a coalition of the losers. The common denominator is that their guy did not win. You lose an election, suck it up and work for your losing party to do better next time.

I don't think he broke the law. I didn't think the law had any teeth. It still doesn't and now the Conservative government will go to court to say just that.

jdobbin · September 9, 2009

I for one am getting awfully weary of my elected representative being totally subservient to some party leader who's name didn't appear on my ballot and was elected by someone else, somewhere else. But that is the system I am stuck with. Considering the declining percentage of people who actually vote, I don't think I am the only one.

Doesn't the U.S. have even lower voter participation if that is the system you are arguing for?

jdobbin · September 9, 2009

It's too bad we couldn't just wiggle our noses and put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine if the Liberals held 143 seats and the Conservatives, with 77 seats, joined with the NDP and Bloc as a coalition to oust the Liberals from power.

The Tories were working to do just that... twice!

Do you think these coalion supporters would be singing the same tune? Somehow I don't think so. But you know, I don't even think they have the capacity to understand how partisan their argument is. It's just another example of the self absorbed, self-righteous Left - unable to see any viewpoint except their own.

It is part of our system.

If you are going to argue for no election for four years period... no confidence votes or government calls for an election and no coalitions, you have to face the possibility that a party with minority support will run the government and votes won't matter. It sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Wilber · September 9, 2009

Doesn't the U.S. have even lower voter participation if that is the system you are arguing for?

Americans are voting in some sort of federal or state election every fall, they also vote on many initiatives other than just for candidates. I think if you totaled up the number of votes individual American voters cast, they would beat out the average Canadian voter by at least ten to one.

jdobbin · September 9, 2009

Americans are voting in some sort of federal or state election every fall, they also vote on many initiatives other than just for candidates. I think if you totaled up the number of votes individual American voters cast, they would beat out the average Canadian voter by at least ten to one.

I'd have to see the numbers to agree with that.

Do you want elections for MPs every two years?

Wilber · September 9, 2009

Doesn't the U.S. have even lower voter participation if that is the system you are arguing for?

I am arguing for a vote that counts, not a rubber stamp for a party leader.

Wilber · September 9, 2009

I'd have to see the numbers to agree with that.
Do you want elections for MPs every two years?

Go to the US in October, I guarantee you will find an election going on.

I want fixed dates to elimate 50% of the crap that goes on in Parliament which has nothing to do with governing the country?

Edited September 9, 2009 by Wilber

jdobbin · September 9, 2009

Go to the US in October, I guarantee you will find an election going on.

That doesn't tell me the whole story on voter participation.

I want fixed dates to elimate 50% of the crap that goes on in Parliament which has nothing to do with governing the country?

Then you might want some checks and balances on the system. Or can you see what might be a problem with it?

jdobbin · September 9, 2009

I am arguing for a vote that counts, not a rubber stamp for a party leader.

That would be a constitutional amendment. I don't know that the Tories will commit to that.

Wilber · September 9, 2009

That doesn't tell me the whole story on voter participation.
Then you might want some checks and balances on the system. Or can you see what might be a problem with it?

Sure it does, if you are an American who votes in every election, you will cast many more votes than a Canadian who votes in every election. You have to work a lot harder to be a committed voter in the US.

What checks and balances do we have now? A majority government has none. A minority government with mandatory fixed dates would have to get support of some of the other members in order to pass any legislation. Both sides would have to be more accommodating because neither could threaten the other with an election. Sounds a lot more balanced than what we have now.

Wilber · September 9, 2009

That would be a constitutional amendment. I don't know that the Tories will commit to that.

Are you saying the Liberals would?

Smallc · September 9, 2009

Are you saying the Liberals would?

Why would they want to? I haven't seen any evidence that people want the kind of change you're calling for. The system works, and most people know it. An election is really no big deal.

g_bambino · September 9, 2009

Too afraid of independent thinking from our elected representatives?

Copying the US instead of Britain is independent thinking?

g_bambino · September 9, 2009

I haven't seen any evidence that people want the kind of change you're calling for. The system works, and most people know it.

It's my suspicion that rather than adjust the entire constitutional system to suit Wilber, the simpler solution would be for Wilber to move to where the constitutional system suits him.

Wilber · September 10, 2009

Copying the US instead of Britain is independent thinking?

Unfortunately we don't copy Britain's independent thinking, we have come up with our own bastardised version. Just because we share a parliamentary system, don't assume it operates the same way.

Wilber · September 10, 2009

It's my suspicion that rather than adjust the entire constitutional system to suit Wilber, the simpler solution would be for Wilber to move to where the constitutional system suits him.

Ah, the old "America love it or leave it" defence. I remember the bumper stickers from the Vietnam War.

Wilber · September 10, 2009

Why would they want to? I haven't seen any evidence that people want the kind of change you're calling for. The system works, and most people know it. An election is really no big deal.

Great, when are you writing the cheque for 300 mil?

Topaz · September 10, 2009

This is what Democracy Watch said, they are the party suing Harper..... http://www.canada.com/Harper+dishonest+Dem...4294/story.html

Wilber · September 10, 2009

Con-serv-a-tism: n. the disposition to preserve existing conditions, institutions etc.

Con-serv-a-tive: adj. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions and institutions. Webster.

If the shoe fits boys and girls.

Keepitsimple · September 10, 2009

We've had some strange times over the past 4 years - somewhat due to the fact that the Liberals realize they are fighting for the very existance of their party. Avoiding unnecessary elections can best be curtailed by the voters punishing the party that they feel instigated the election. If that happens, future minority opposition parties might be a reluctant to fabricate doomsday scenarios. There are signs already in recent polls that indicate the Liberals may be the recipients of a public backlash if in fact, they actually follow through on their threats. We'll soon see.

Topaz · September 10, 2009

So what Harper is doing is blaming the GG for calling the election it wasn't HIM!! Its always someone elses fault, they do no wrong.

jdobbin · September 10, 2009

Are you saying the Liberals would?

I'm saying no one would. If the Liberals said they were opening the Constitution even for this, I can imagine they would scream that it would break up the country. And they might be right considering the fight that would result.

jdobbin · September 10, 2009

Sure it does, if you are an American who votes in every election, you will cast many more votes than a Canadian who votes in every election. You have to work a lot harder to be a committed voter in the US.

It doesn't tell us vote particpation overall. Just having lots of votes doesn't mean a large majority are voting.

What checks and balances do we have now? A majority government has none. A minority government with mandatory fixed dates would have to get support of some of the other members in order to pass any legislation. Both sides would have to be more accommodating because neither could threaten the other with an election. Sounds a lot more balanced than what we have now.

I think you are wrong about that. If the minority could not get any budget passed, you would face a gridlocked Parliament. The Opposition now often passes a finance bill because not to do so results in an election.

I guess with the system you propose, the Opposition could write their own budgets and the government could not do anything about it. Zero.

jdobbin · September 10, 2009

We've had some strange times over the past 4 years - somewhat due to the fact that the Liberals realize they are fighting for the very existance of their party. Avoiding unnecessary elections can best be curtailed by the voters punishing the party that they feel instigated the election. If that happens, future minority opposition parties might be a reluctant to fabricate doomsday scenarios. There are signs already in recent polls that indicate the Liberals may be the recipients of a public backlash if in fact, they actually follow through on their threats. We'll soon see.

I don't think you can know exactly where the polls are going until the House comes back.

You say backlash but the latest polls are mostly tied or within the margin. You think the Tories are breaking free to win a majority?

Wilber · September 10, 2009

It doesn't tell us vote particpation overall. Just having lots of votes doesn't mean a large majority are voting.
I think you are wrong about that. If the minority could not get any budget passed, you would face a gridlocked Parliament. The Opposition now often passes a finance bill because not to do so results in an election.

I guess with the system you propose, the Opposition could write their own budgets and the government could not do anything about it. Zero.

It says that voting is more work in the US. I wonder if Canadians would be any better under those circumstances. On the other hand they might become more engaged if their vote had a direct result on government policy.

The opposition couldn't pass its budget either. Parliament would have to take responsibility for shutting down the country. Are you saying that the people in Parliament are irresponsible?