eyeball Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) Not me. He bailed once, he'll bail again. I would never trust anyone who broke a contract with me. If he didn't intend to honour his mandate, I would never have voted for him in the first place. He must be good enough for CIBC, and he'll probably be earning ten times as much. Does this mean we need to offer politicians more money so we can attract better talent or worse? Edited November 5, 2010 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Wilber Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 Do you mean to tell me that if tomorrow you got offered a job, one that you really wanted (after having another that you loved taken away from you) that paid ten time the salary, that you wouldn't break your "obligation" to your employer? Like I said, they aren't married to the job. They can leave any time, just like I left my last permanent job in February. Someone who can put up with the boss that went through 5 underlings before you in the last two years (sorry, off topic) will replace them. Like I said, I have worked contract jobs. They are a two way street. As long as the other party keeps up their end, you have an obligation to keep up yours. If he can quit between elections, his constituents should have the ability to fire him between elections. He got the job he wanted. At least the one he told his constituents he wanted. He was elected as an MP, not a Minister. His boss is not the PM, it is the people who gave them his seat. The one he asked them for. I don't dispute that they can leave at any time, I just don't respect them for doing so. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
August1991 Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) He must be good enough for CIBC, and he'll probably be earning ten times as much.Does this mean we need to offer politicians more money so we can attract better talent or worse? How do I roll my eyeballs in exasperation on an Internet forum? ---- Eyeball, why is CIBC paying Prentice so much money? Why? Eyeball, if we offer more money to politicians, will this solve the problem? Eyeball, do you even understand the problem, or debate between Wilber and me above? Edited November 5, 2010 by August1991 Quote
August1991 Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 Like I said, I have worked contract jobs. They are a two way street. As long as the other party keeps up their end, you have an obligation to keep up yours.But what would you say about another party deciding to break the contract, and then going to work for someone else on much better terms - based on the original deal with you.Wilber, your problem is with the "breaking contract". My problem is with the "better terms", and why they even exist. Quote
Evening Star Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 On the other hand, you do raise a rather valid point here: Your "better offer" phrase deserves comment. I'm not comfortable with all these ex-politicians, ex-senior bureaucrats moving to the so-called private sector. From Ed Clark to Henri-Paul Rousseau, from Frank McKenna to, now, Jim Prentice. Think of Michael Sabia, the son of Laura Sabia.Prentice says that he spoke to Parliament's Ethic Commissioner (as if the Ethics Commissioner is a Christian God who can judge these things and decide... ). CIBC is not offering Prentice the job/salary because Jim Prentice has straight teeth and a full head of hair. CIBC is not even doing this because Prentice can appear on TV and sound intelligent. CIBC is doing this because of Prentice's knowledge of government and how it works - and because Prentice is a minor star to trot out in certain meetings. This is how Canada works, English and French. We talk of Quebec Inc. Maybe we should also talk of Canada Inc. Quote
eyeball Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 How do I roll my eyeballs in exasperation on an Internet forum? More to the point, why would you? ---- Eyeball, why is CIBC paying Prentice so much money? Why? Self interest I suspect. Eyeball, if we offer more money to politicians, will this solve the problem? I don't think so, but I recall how often extreme remuneration is glorified in the private sector and how often this is linked to the need to attract and keep talent and how untalented governments usually are. Eyeball, do you even understand the problem, or debate between Wilber and me above? I don't really care about the problem you or Wilber have with Prentice, I was commenting more on the CIBC. I understand where the sentiment that Prentice has bailed on his contract with his constituents comes from but CIBC apparently isn't the least bit fazed. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
William Ashley Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) What contract, Members of Parliament have the right to resign. It is a house rule from 1623, house rules are set by the individual legislatures for their own affairs - for example parliament for parliament - it isn't what I would deem constitutional - but it is probably close to that in the UK, house rules can be changed by parliament - and I'm not aware of it existing in the Canadian Parliament - however - a breach of law - without codification would be up for a judge to determine - but parliamentary privilege would have effect - and the seat would simply be vacant by choice - unless a judge found grounds for a court order for attendance for instance - with stipulations. Also there is no rule forbidden private employment while in the commons - it was actually regular practice back in the founding days of Canada such as with John A. McDonald who was a lawyer. The act of settlement only deals with governmental offices of the crown. There is no prohibition on private employment. (Although one might qeustion the difference bewteen executive office - re: executive council or cabinet - and thus not being permited to be a PM on those grounds - but then the PM and the rest of cabinet would have to resign their seats in the commons and this is problematic for the westerminster system - otherwise cabinet would be breaking the law while in seating. The only way it would be legal is if the office positions were not paid - but they all are so every paid executive in parliament would be inpermissiable to be an MP. And cabinet is an executive post is it not? Or is governor in council not an executive function - ??? Not sure on how Canada treats this one but I'm not sure if Canada is de facto legally existing anymore - as In the olden days it would be the GG who was executive but the PM would have to be a purely advisorial office, not an executive office - or the PM could not be paid. Under the act of settlment. The act of settlment is a constitutional act though... however... its not like the rest of cabinet - it is sorta a "well you can't resign because it is illegal to not be a MP unless you are a paid member of cabinet. So because you resigned cabinet you can't resign as an MP... but if you were then you could. ??? Make sense much? Unless cabinet isn't executive but some functions are imposed by ministers... so wold that not be an executive function? Or even MP's in isuing a security certificate? Those are exectutive functions are they not? Hmm? Edited November 5, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no person who shall have in his own name or in the name of any person or persons in trust for him or for his benefit any new office or place of profit whatsoever under the crown, which at any time since the five and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and five have been created or erected, or heaeafter shall be created or erected, nor any person who shall be commissioner or sub commissioner of prizes, secretary or receiver of the prizes, nor any comptroller of the accounts of the army, nor any commissioner of the transports, nor any commissioner of the suck and wounded, nor any agent for any regiment, nor any commissioner for any wine licenses, nor any governor [or] deputy governor of any of the Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) FULLTEXT 245. The Place Act(1707. 6 Anne, c. 7. First enacted in 1705, in 4 Anne, c. 8. 8 S. R. 742.) [Part omitted] XXIV. AND be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no person who shall have in his own name or in the name of any person or persons in trust for him or for his benefit any new office or place of profit whatsoever under the crown, which at any time since the five and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and five have been created or erected, or hereafter shall be created or erected, nor any person who shall be commissioner or sub-commissioner of prizes, secretary or receiver of the prizes, nor any comptroller of the accounts of the army, nor any commissioner of transports, nor any commissioner of the sick and wounded, nor any agent for any regiment, nor any commissioner for any wine licenses, nor any governor [or] deputy governor of any of the plantations, nor any commissioners of the navy employed in any of the out ports, nor any person having any pension from the crown during pleasure, shall be capable of being elected or of sitting or voting as a member of the house of Commons in any parliament which shall be hereafter summoned and holden. XXV. Provided always, that if any person being chosen a member of the house of commons shall accept of any office of profit from the crown, during such time as he shall continue a member, his election shall be and is hereby declared to be void, and a new writ shall issue for a new election, as if such person so accepting was naturally dead: provided nevertheless that such person shall be capable of being again elected, as if his place had not become void as aforesaid. XXVI. Provided also, and be it enacted, that in order to prevent for the future too great a number of commissioners to be appointed or constituted for the executing of any office, that no greater number of commissioners shall be made or constituted for the execution of any office, than have been employed in the execution of such respective office at some time before the first day of this present parliament. XXVII. Provided also, that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to any member of the house of commons, being an officer in Her Majesty’s navy or army, who shall receive any new or other commission in the army or navy respectively. XXVIII. And be it further enacted, that if any person hereby disabled, or declared to be incapable to sit or vote in any parliament hereafter to be holden, shall nevertheless be returned as a member to serve for any county, stewartry, city, town or Cinque port in any such parliament, such election and return are hereby enacted and declared to be void to all intents and purposes whatsoever: and if any person disabled or declared incapable by this act to be elected shall after the dissolution or determination of this present parliament presume to sit or vote as a member of the house of commons in any parliament to he hereafter summoned, such person so sitting or voting shall forfeit the sum of five hundred pounds, to be recovered by such person as shall sue for the same in England by action of debt, bill, plaint or information, wherein no essoin, protection or wager of law shall be allowed, and only one imparlance. XXIX. And be it further enacted and declared, that every person disabled to be elected or to sit or vote in the house of commons of any parliament of England shall be disabled to be elected or to sit or vote in the house of commons of any parliament of Great Britain. [Part omitted] [back to Contents] Yes this means every member of cabinet is ineligible to be an MP. THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO TAKE OATHS AT THE BAR OF THE COMMONS WHEN REPORTING ON A SUMMONS TO PARLIAMENT OR A COMMITTEE - THEIR ROLE IS TO ACT AS AN EXECUTIVE COUNCIL NOT LEGISLATORS. THAT IS THE COMMONS ROLE TO INTRODUCE ACCOUNTING ACTS AND A CONDUIT FOR PETITIONS AND REDRESS TO THE CROWN. MPS ARE SUPPOSE TO REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENTS FOR ISSUES OF REDRESS. Edited November 5, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) And you may wonder HOW this happened that PM's are also MP's it dates to the turn of the century... Since 1902, all prime ministers have been members of the Commons (the sole exception, the Earl of Home, disclaimed his peerage days after becoming prime minister, and was immediately elected to the House of Commons as Sir Alec Douglas-Home). One would then have to look and see what happened in 1902 - Canada was still a dominion then - so it was colonial rule and the act of settlement wasn't yet assumed on equality in the Canadian Constitution for parliamentary equality or perhaps before - this is issued - one would have to look to the Canada Act, and the constitution so you could see that Canada has only been violating the constitution since Canadian parliament gained its own 'sovereign' crown. although this is constitutional law... One must examine what happened in 1902 to understand why the change occurred. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury was the last constitutional PM perhaps, except for William Lyon McKenzie King (who also wasn't an MP) as far as legally sitting as a member of parliament. IF THEY GOT PAID. BUT MPS were not paid in the dominion ERA... this is why in part parliament has long recesses so they could tend to private business. The stuff that supported their political career this is why the early period saw usually wealthy professionals - because only they could afford to travel and sit. One must ask - when they started to get paid... but hold on executive offices often got paid - when did ministers start getting paid... they use to leave from the house to go to the executive councils during the times of the Canadas.. they were seperate bodies back then. My guess it ties into this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867 Here we go Ministers of the Crown act 1937 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/acts/ministers-of-the-crown-act-1937 FUNFACT: 1937 was the first Act of Parliament to recognize the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his Cabinet. FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN: The Act set out salaries for Government ministers and certain members of the Opposition. Although applying to "ministers" it did not define ministers and indeed excluded two of them: the Lord Chancellor and Attorney General for England and Wales. The Act first gave the salary for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which was set at £10,000 a year.[n 1] This was only the second time that the Prime Minister had been mentioned in an Act of Parliament, after the Chequers Estate Act 1917, which granted him a country residence at Chequers. Further: heads of department, and under-secretaries. Heads of certain departments, such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, received £5,000[n 2] a year regardless of their membership in the Cabinet, while others such as the Lord Privy Seal received £3,000,[n 3] with an increase to £5,000 if they come to sit in the Cabinet. The under-secretaries were granted £3,000 a year if Chief Whip, £2,000[n 4] if Financial Secretary to the Treasury, £1,500[n 5] if Financial Secretary to the Admiralty or similar and £1,000[n 6] if Assistant Postmaster-General. The Act also gave a pension of £2,000 a year to any individual who had served as Prime Minister, and a salary of £2,000 to the Leader of the Opposition.[2]The Act is notable for several reasons; it was the first Act of Parliament to directly deal with ministerial salaries, and also the first Act to provide a salary for the Prime Minister,[3] and for the Leader of the Opposition. As well as being only the second time the Prime Minister has been mentioned in a statute, the Act was also the first statute to recognise the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet.[4] The Act was repealed by the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965 Somewhere between the statute of westminster and the British North American (No.2) 1949 But I still need to determine this a little more clearly as I havn't found the figures in Canada on salary of Canadian Ministers.. FROM CONSTITUTION ACT 1867. ------------ Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all Laws in force in the several Provinces at the Union relative to the following Matters or any of them, namely, — the Qualifications and Disqualifications of Persons to be elected or to sit or vote as Members of the House of Assembly or Legislative Assembly in the several Provinces, the Voters at Elections of such Members, the Oaths to be taken by Voters, the Returning Officers, their Powers and Duties, the Proceedings at Elections, the Periods during which Elections may be continued, the Trial of controverted Elections, and Proceedings incident tFhereto, the vacating of Seats of Members, and the Execution of new Writs in case of Seats vacated otherwise than by Dissolution, — shall respectively apply to Elections of Members to serve in the House of Commons for the same several Provinces. Provided that, until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, at any Election for a Member of the House of Commons for the District of Algoma, in addition to Persons qualified by the Law of the Province of Canada to vote, every Male British Subject, aged Twenty-one Years or upwards, being a Householder, shall have a Vote. Note however the "british" subject is a dieing breed perhaps since the removal of british subject status for people holding citizenship by british nationality acts. -------- Then the elections act comes into play but it only deals with elections not eligiblity to hold a seat once a paid executive position is taken. Someone englighten me on why they can be paid - is it that the act of settlement isn't applicable in Canada? Or that the MP's owe 500 pounds for everything they sat as ministers? how would this retroactively apply - perhaps to question the legality - or would this be able to be corrected - by annuling the illegal acts that would not have been passed without the ministers votes? Perhaps one should define if a minister or any of the following are "executive crown officers?" Member of the House of Commons Basic Sessional Indemnity Members who occupy certain offices and positions are entitled to additional remuneration in accordance with the Parliament of Canada Act as listed. $157,731.00 Prime Minister Salary $157,731.00 Prime Minister Car Allowance $2,112.00 Speaker of the House of Commons Salary $75,516.00 Speaker of the House of Commons Car Allowance $1,061.00 Speaker of the House of Commons Rent Allowance $3,000.00 Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons Salary $75,516.00 Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons Car Allowance $2,122.00 Minister Salary $75,516.00 Minister Car Allowance $2,122.00 Minister of State Salary $56,637.00 Secretary of State Salary $56,637.00 Leader - Other Parties Salary $53,694.00 Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons Salary $39,179.00 Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons Rent Allowance $1,500.00 Opposition House Leader Salary $39,179.00 Chief Government Whip Salary $28,420.00 Chief Opposition Whip Salary $28,420.00 Parliamentary Secretary Salary $15,834.00 Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole Salary $15,834.00 Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole Salary $15,834.00 House Leader - Other Parties Salary $15,834.00 Deputy House Leaders - Government and Official Opposition Salary $15,834.00 Whip - Other Parties Salary $11,165.00 Chief Government Whip's assistant Salary $11,165.00 Deputy Whip of the Official Opposition Salary $11,165.00 Caucus Chair - Government and Official Opposition Salary $11,165.00 Chair of Standing and Standing Joint Committee Salary excluding the Liaison Committee and the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament $11,165.00 Caucus Chair - Other Parties Salary $5,684.00 Deputy House Leaders - Other Parties Salary $5,684.00 Deputy Whip - Other Parties Salary $5,684.00 Vice-Chair of Standing and Standing Joint Committee Salary excluding the Liaison Committee and the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament $5, --------- Also senators arn't suppose to be paid No person who is a member of the Senate shall, directly or indirectly, knowingly and wilfully be a party to or be concerned in any contract under which the public money of Canada is to be paid. Where exactly is that money coming from? Is it not public money? although it only results in a Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall forfeit the sum of two hundred dollars for each day during which the contravention continues. Or 73000 pay deduction each year. So I guess they are still making a salary lets find the Senator salary - the 73000 per year. 132300 - 73000 IS... $59300 Looks like I might be a rich man in a few days A sum forfeited by any person under subsection (2) is recoverable from that person by any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction in Canada. that is about $7.665 million just waiting for me to eat up. per year.... hmm wonder how man years these guys have been not paying the fine. Wonder if estates count tooo... this is one of those like beating up the queens elderly champion -- you may win but is it really worth it. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/crpf/publicmoneyoriginal.pdf Edited November 5, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Wilber Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 But what would you say about another party deciding to break the contract, and then going to work for someone else on much better terms - based on the original deal with you. Wilber, your problem is with the "breaking contract". My problem is with the "better terms", and why they even exist. You can't control what others do, only what you do. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 What contract, Members of Parliament have the right to resign. No one disputes that. The question is do they have a moral obligation to complete the job they asked the voters to give them during the last election. I think they do and not to do so is an abuse of the trust they put in them. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 But what would you say about another party deciding to break the contract, and then going to work for someone else on much better terms - based on the original deal with you. Wilber, your problem is with the "breaking contract". My problem is with the "better terms", and why they even exist. My problem is with people who don't complete the job they agreed to take on. The job that they asked for. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
PIK Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 I'm not debating history, just giving my opinion of elected officials who quit in midstream because they are offered another job. I don't respect them and would never vote for them again. Sarah Palin is a prime example. She asked the people of Alaska to make her Governor and they did. Half way through her mandate, Fox News made a better offer and it was AMF Alaska. I don't respect that. I know why Prentice was hired. Then run for his job then putting in almost 10 years and workinbg on the toughest jobs in govermentwill burn out anyoine, time to make some serious cash and then in 4 years when harper is done after winning his majority will hand it off to jim. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
TimG Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 (edited) I don't respect them and would never vote for them again. Sarah Palin is a prime example. She asked the people of Alaska to make her Governor and they did. Half way through her mandate, Fox News made a better offer and it was AMF Alaska. I don't respect that.Palin decided that her top personal priority was plan a run at the presidency in 2012. Unlike other politicians who are happy to take the tax payers dime while they pursue personal ambitions (e.g. Obama as a senator), Palin quit so someone focused only on Alaska could do the job right.Frankly, if I have someone working for me that does not want to do the job anymore I want them to quit. There is nothing more damaging than an unmotivated worker - that applies to MPs as well. The people in Prentice's riding will be much better off with a by-election and a chance to elect someone that actually wants the job. Your position is completely incomprehensible to me. Edited November 5, 2010 by TimG Quote
Wilber Posted November 5, 2010 Report Posted November 5, 2010 Frankly, if I have someone working for me that does not want to do the job anymore I want them to quit. There is nothing more damaging than an unmotivated worker - that applies to MPs as well. The people in Prentice's riding will be much better off with a by-election and a chance to elect someone that actually wants the job. Your position is completely incomprehensible to me. I can understand that you wouldn't want someone working for you that didn't want to do the job. During my contract days, if either party didn't complete the contract, it cost them. My position is, don't ask for a job that you are not prepared to carry through to its conclusion. Guess I come from a different world. In fairness to Prentice, minority governments make it difficult to plan for the future. Makes a good case for mandatory fixed election dates at least for majority governments. At least you could be sure of the date you might be out of a job and could plan accordingly. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted November 6, 2010 Report Posted November 6, 2010 (edited) In fairness to Prentice, minority governments make it difficult to plan for the future. Makes a good case for mandatory fixed election dates at least for majority governments. No it doesn't. We already have mandatory election dates, it's just that we don't have to wait five years (where the whole 4 year thing came from, I have no idea). I suppose we could fix it to those for both majority and minority in most cases, like the British are doing. Edited November 6, 2010 by Smallc Quote
Wilber Posted November 6, 2010 Report Posted November 6, 2010 No it doesn't. We already have mandatory election dates, it's just that we don't have to wait five years (where the whole 4 year thing came from, I have no idea). I suppose we could fix it to those for both majority and minority in most cases, like the British are doing. I don't know where the 4 year thing came from either. If we had constitutional mandatory election dates it would force the parties to compromise or there would be gridlock but because they are only legislated, the rules can be changed at any time. The last election proved it. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted November 6, 2010 Report Posted November 6, 2010 I don't know where the 4 year thing came from either. If we had constitutional mandatory election dates it would force the parties to compromise or there would be gridlock but because they are only legislated, the rules can be changed at any time. The last election proved it. As we saw after the last election, parties still have to compromise. Perhaps there should be no election sooner than 4 years, or later than 5 (which is already the case). That rule of course could be broken if necessary in a minority where no suitable government can be found. Quote
bloodyminded Posted November 7, 2010 Report Posted November 7, 2010 (edited) Palin decided that her top personal priority was plan a run at the presidency in 2012. Unlike other politicians who are happy to take the tax payers dime while they pursue personal ambitions (e.g. Obama as a senator), Palin quit so someone focused only on Alaska could do the job right. Or...she could have completed the job she was elected to do, and postponed her extremely high personal ambition for another four years. Then again, she's got a reality tv show to promote, perhaps with marketing tie-ins to "Cake Boss" and "Kate Plus Eight," which could be time-consuming. Edited November 7, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted November 8, 2010 Report Posted November 8, 2010 Or...she could have completed the job she was elected to do, and postponed her extremely high personal ambition for another four years. Let's stick with Canada for a moment. Since it's about CPC politician here Why would Belinda Stronach quit her job and run for CPC post? Then quit and joined Liberals since she was promised Cabinet post in the government. When Liberals were losing she quit again and went back to her old job. Prentice only resigned from politics, period, just like Mike Harris. Quote
Wilber Posted November 8, 2010 Report Posted November 8, 2010 Let's stick with Canada for a moment. Since it's about CPC politician here Why would Belinda Stronach quit her job and run for CPC post? Then quit and joined Liberals since she was promised Cabinet post in the government. When Liberals were losing she quit again and went back to her old job. Any odds on whether Stronach would have had her old job to go back to if her father didn't own the company? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Saipan Posted November 8, 2010 Report Posted November 8, 2010 Any odds on whether Stronach would have had her old job to go back to if her father didn't own the company? Not a point here. Quote
bloodyminded Posted November 8, 2010 Report Posted November 8, 2010 Let's stick with Canada for a moment. Since it's about CPC politician here I was responding to someone else, who brought her up. If you object to it, you should take your fellow conservative to task for this nefarious act. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
William Ashley Posted November 8, 2010 Report Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) No it doesn't. We already have mandatory election dates, it's just that we don't have to wait five years (where the whole 4 year thing came from, I have no idea). leap years election days natural niche --- how can you hold an election on a day that doesn't exist any other year??? hmm??? It is the only way you can have a totally 4 year election. In the Gregorian calendar, the current standard calendar in most of the world, most years that are evenly divisible by 4 are leap years. In each leap year, the month of February has 29 days instead of 28. Adding an extra day to the calendar every four years compensates for the fact that a period of 365 days is shorter than a solar year by almost 6 hours. It would be a divided extra leap day if it wasn't 4 years. Only every 4th 5 year election would be official under a 5 year system unless a vote of non confidence or self dismisal placed it within a leap period from the last election. Edited November 8, 2010 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.