Fixed Election Date

[The_Squid]

In BC a law was passed years ago that created fixed election dates. The premise was that the leader of a governing party couldn't call a snap election whenever it suited them politically. Makes perfect non-partisan sense.

Christy Clark, potential leader of the Libs, wants to call an election ASAP if she becomes the leader. Wait a second... what about the LAW?? What are the penalties if you break the fixed election date law? Well apparently there aren't any penalties.

Elections BC has thrown a bit of a wrench into her plans saying that they need 6 months to prepare....

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/expect+snap+election+time+soon/4007354/story.html

What a sham.... it's a law, until the party in power finds it inconvenient.... then it's not worth the paper it was written on.... sad state of democracy.

[Moonlight Graham]

What did Harper do that was similar to this a few years ago? He brought in some kind of law, i believe it was an election law, then drove over it himself.

[Shady]

What a sham.... it's a law, until the party in power finds it inconvenient.... then it's not worth the paper it was written on.... sad state of democracy.

Actually it's a perfect state of democracy. If people care enough about it, they'll vote for a different governing party. If they don't care enough about it, and care more about other things, then they won't. It's what the people want, therefore, democracy.

[jbg]

What did Harper do that was similar to this a few years ago? He brought in some kind of law, i believe it was an election law, then drove over it himself.

The way I understand it, a mere law is changeable at the whim of a Parliamentary majority.

[g_bambino]

Wait a second... what about the LAW??

What about the law? How about you read it.

BC's Constitution Act states:

23 (1) The Lieutenant Governor may, by proclamation in Her Majesty's name, prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly when the Lieutenant Governor sees fit.

(2) Subject to subsection (1) [emphasis mine], a general voting day must occur on May 17, 2005 and thereafter on the second Tuesday in May in the fourth calendar year following the general voting day for the most recently held general election.

Constitution Act

That means the lieutenant governor can dissolve the legislature at any time on the advice of the premier, if the premier loses the confidence of the legislature, or for whatever other reason. The Westminster parliamentary system doesn't allow for absolutely rigid election cycles.

[eyeball]

What about the law? How about you read it.

BC's Constitution Act states:

That means the lieutenant governor can dissolve the legislature at any time on the advice of the premier, if the premier loses the confidence of the legislature, or for whatever other reason. The Westminster parliamentary system doesn't allow for absolutely rigid election cycles.

The Westminster parliamentary system sure allows for a lot of bullshit. Putrescent heaping piles of it. It's no wonder so many people feel like distancing themselves from it.

What the law should say is 23 (1) The People may, by proclamation in their name, prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly whenever they see fit and bugger what the Lieutenant Governor or her Majesty thinks about it.

[g_bambino]

What the law should say is 23 (1) The People may, by proclamation in their name, prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly whenever they see fit and bugger what the Lieutenant Governor or her Majesty thinks about it.

Unclear and unworkable. So, no, it shouldn't.

[The_Squid]

Unclear and unworkable. So, no, it shouldn't.

Unclear is the Libs bringing in a "fixed election date"... but not really. They spent how much time and money on a law that does absolutely nothing at all and is completely meaningless?

[g_bambino]

Unclear is the Libs bringing in a "fixed election date"... but not really. They spent how much time and money on a law that does absolutely nothing at all and is completely meaningless?

Essentially, yes. Just like the amendment to the Elections Act drafted by the Conservative government in Ottawa and put to and passed by parliament therein. The federal law is even more explicit about what the act doesn't do:

56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

Canada Elections Act

[dre]

I like the idea of a taking the timing for elections out of the hands of the party in power.

But what I would actually like is RANDOM ELECTION DATES, that these fuckers cant even see coming until a month before election day. If they can prepare for a certain date, they get to script the whole thing out.

You could generate the random date with a computer program... (two years + x months), where x is a random number between 1 and 24. Nobody gets to know until its time.

[Wilber]

That means the lieutenant governor can dissolve the legislature at any time on the advice of the premier, if the premier loses the confidence of the legislature, or for whatever other reason. The Westminster parliamentary system doesn't allow for absolutely rigid election cycles.

The Liberals have a majority. There is no reason for them to call an election other than pure opportunism. If they do go this route, no doubt they will dream up something to try and sell it. I don't think a piece of blatant hypocrisy would be the best way of showing their new face but who knows. If they really want an election, let them have a confidence vote in the Legislature and vote themselves out of office. If they have no confidence in their ability to run the province, let each one get up and say so in front of the electorate, otherwise go back to work and do what the people elected them to do, legislate and govern, not hold elections.

Christy Clark is impressing me less every day. For someone who had a successful radio talk show, she seems out of touch with the very people relied on for her audience.

[Wilber]

I like the idea of a taking the timing for elections out of the hands of the party in power.

But what I would actually like is RANDOM ELECTION DATES, that these fuckers cant even see coming until a month before election day. If they can prepare for a certain date, they get to script the whole thing out.

You could generate the random date with a computer program... (two years + x months), where x is a random number between 1 and 24. Nobody gets to know until its time.

I don't think that would be very practical but I do think that a single party should not be the only one which knows when the next election will be held.

[g_bambino]

I don't think that would be very practical but I do think that a single party should not be the only one which knows when the next election will be held.

How do you suppose it should work, then?

[Wilber]

How do you suppose it should work, then?

Fixed election dates for majority governments. No exceptions. Not possible with minorities unfortunately because giving the opposition sole control over an election date is just as bad as giving it to the government.

[g_bambino]

Fixed election dates for majority governments. No exceptions.

Which would remove the ability of the Commons/legislative assembly to vote non-confidence in the government. Unlikely in a majority situation, but not impossible, unless your proposal were put in place. Further, what about coalition governments, where no party holds a majority but two parties working together would collectively have the most seats?

[sp]

Edited December 24, 2010 by g_bambino

[Wilber]

Which would remove the ability of the Commons/legislative assembly to vote non-confidence in the government. Unlikely in a majority situation, but not impossible, unless your proposal were put in place. Further, what about coalition governments, where no party holds a majority but two parties working together would collectively have the most seats?

[sp]

Why would a majority government want to vote non-confidence in itself? Why would a majority want to form a coalition and share power with another party? If enough members of a governing party want to vote against party lines on a non confidence motion and force an election, I don't have a problem with that but it is the only way there should be an unscheduled election in a majority situation.

Clark was deputy premier when the BC Liberals brought in the fixed date legislation on the grounds that it would discourage political opportunism. Seems she belongs more to the Chretien school of politics.

[Queenmandy85]

Eliminate the positions of premier and Prime Minister. Since they are hardly mentioned in the Constitution, no amendment is required.

[Smallc]

Eliminate the positions of premier and Prime Minister. Since they are hardly mentioned in the Constitution, no amendment is required.

I doubt you're a serious poster, but what would we do then?

[Queenmandy85]

By eliminating the position of premier / Prime Minister, you eliminate the power motive for MLA's. Members would then be able to focus on issues and their ridings rather than the pursuit of power. It would lessen the power of political parties. Appointments made by the Crown through the Governor in Council (such as to the Senate or cabinet) would no longer be based on partisanship. The office of First Minister is a recent experiment and quite possibly expendible.

And, yes, I am a serious poster. I've given this a lot of thought. Let's let the Constitution work as it was designed.

[Smallc]

By eliminating the position of premier / Prime Minister, you eliminate the power motive for MLA's. Members would then be able to focus on issues and their ridings rather than the pursuit of power. It would lessen the power of political parties. Appointments made by the Crown through the Governor in Council (such as to the Senate or cabinet) would no longer be based on partisanship. The office of First Minister is a recent experiment and quite possibly expendible.

Before that though, we had what amounted to dictatorial rule from the monarch. Without a head of government, I'm not sure how the government would even direct or focus itself.

[Queenmandy85]

Before that though, we had what amounted to dictatorial rule from the monarch. Without a head of government, I'm not sure how the government would even direct or focus itself.

The Monarch can not be a dictator. Historically, the Crown must have money voted by Parliament before acting. The Queen of Canada has the authority to declare war but she cannot pay for it without monies being voted on by the House of Commons and the Senate. Charles II was continually thwarted in his desire to rebuild the Navy but could not get Parliament to give him the money.

[Wilber]

By eliminating the position of premier / Prime Minister, you eliminate the power motive for MLA's. Members would then be able to focus on issues and their ridings rather than the pursuit of power. It would lessen the power of political parties. Appointments made by the Crown through the Governor in Council (such as to the Senate or cabinet) would no longer be based on partisanship. The office of First Minister is a recent experiment and quite possibly expendible.

And, yes, I am a serious poster. I've given this a lot of thought. Let's let the Constitution work as it was designed.

Doesn't sound to me like you have given it much thought.

[Queenmandy85]

To tie this into the topic, the Lieutenant Governor would call an election when, in his / her judgement:

the Government needs a new mandate;

the Government has lost the confidence of the Legislature;

the Government has lost the confidence of the electorate.

Thus, fixed election dates would not be required as they would inhibit the flexibility governments need.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Queenmandy85

[Wilber]

To tie this into the topic, the Lieutenant Governor would call an election when, in his / her judgement:

the Government needs a new mandate;

the Government has lost the confidence of the Legislature;

the Government has lost the confidence of the electorate.

Thus, fixed election dates would not be required as they would inhibit the flexibility governments need.

Who is the government? Who is the Lieutenant Governor?

Edited December 27, 2010 by Wilber

[Queenmandy85]

Who is the government? Who is the Lieutenant Governor?

The Lt. Gov. is the Queen's Representative, appointed by the Queen to govern through a ministry appointed by the Lt. Governor. That ministry is the government, referred to in the Constitution as the Council, or Governor in Council. I'm a militant Monarchist but I am aware that I am in a tiny minority and have no wish to impose my wierd ideas on the realm.

In the real world, the problem with fixed election dates is it is inflexible and does not allow for changing condidtions. If the US had our system, Obama would have had to go to the electorate this past year to regain the mandate he had lost. Open election dates keep governments and opposition parties on their toes. Fixed election dates makes them lazy and arrogant.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Queenmandy85