Fixed Election Date

[bush_cheney2004]

.....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.

No, if the US had your system, Obama would only have to survive a confidence vote in Congress, irrespective of the electorate's position.

[Wilber]

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.

So you want to go back to a time where the Monarch chose an unelected first minister and government. Even then it couldn't work unless you plan on banning political parties because the majority party in Parliament would decide what legislation was passed regardless of who proposed it. You would have the Monarch's representative writing the laws and the only say an elected Parliament would have is to accept or reject them. I think you are in a very tiny minority, even among Monarchists.

Fixed election dates do nothing of the sort. Under our system a majority government is under no obligation to have elections before its mandate has expired but can impose them in order to advance its own interests, not those of the electorate. In a minority situation fixed dates are not possible because a government must be able to function and cannot do so if the opposition decides otherwise. Even in a minority, fixed dates should be the object if possible. Parties should not be looking for excuses to call or force elections. Governments are elected to govern, not waste the public's time and money holding elections for their own benefit.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Wilber

[Queenmandy85]

Fixed election dates tennd to encourage parties to begin the campaign much earlier such as in the States. Political parties are too strong in Canada because leaders can use the power of rewards (Cabinet positions etc.) to force member loyalty. Canadian Premiers and Prime Ministers control their members rather than the other way around. The member is concerned with their political careers. Sorry, it is not a career, it is a service to your country.

You have a negative view of our Monarchs. With the exceptions of Richard the Lionheart, Edward II and maybe Richard II, Our Monarchs have been better than our Prime Ministers. 42 Monarchs since Edward the Confessor, with 3 duds; not a bad record.

[bush_cheney2004]

....You have a negative view of our Monarchs. With the exceptions of Richard the Lionheart, Edward II and maybe Richard II, Our Monarchs have been better than our Prime Ministers. 42 Monarchs since Edward the Confessor, with 3 duds; not a bad record.

Well, since you mentioned the "States", they were not very fond of George III, and would hang/burn his Tory behind in effigy, so deep was their hatred of him. The rest is history....

[Queenmandy85]

Well, since you mentioned the "States", they were not very fond of George III, and would hang/burn his Tory behind in effigy, so deep was their hatred of him. The rest is history....

The minority of American Colonists (about one-third) that rebelled against the Crown did so to stiff their creditors in England (Hancock and Adams), and evade taxes designed to pay for the conquest of Quebec to which they were the sole benificiaries. George III was a good and devoted King although his health affected him for a few years, hence, the Regency. He was sympathetic to the Americans but taxes are controlled by Parliament.

Most Americans supported the King. Thus the mass migration into Canada. The United Empire Loyalists who "Gave up everything, save Honour."

[bush_cheney2004]

....Most Americans supported the King. Thus the mass migration into Canada. The United Empire Loyalists who "Gave up everything, save Honour."

I disagree....most loyalists supported the king...the Americans went to war and cast off the onerous monarchy forever. Loyalist Tories fled to Canada before being burned down with their houses.

[Queenmandy85]

I disagree....most loyalists supported the king...the Americans went to war and cast off the onerous monarchy forever. Loyalist Tories fled to Canada before being burned down with their houses.

We must disagree then.

[bush_cheney2004]

We must disagree then.

Fair enough....I leave you with a letter from The King Who Lost America:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/GeorgeIIILossofAmericas.html

[jbg]

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

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.

If you were a serious poster you would realize that much of the Canadian constitution is the unwritten British constitution. In which the post of PM is alive and well.

[Wilber]

Fixed election dates tennd to encourage parties to begin the campaign much earlier such as in the States. Political parties are too strong in Canada because leaders can use the power of rewards (Cabinet positions etc.) to force member loyalty. Canadian Premiers and Prime Ministers control their members rather than the other way around. The member is concerned with their political careers. Sorry, it is not a career, it is a service to your country.

You have a negative view of our Monarchs. With the exceptions of Richard the Lionheart, Edward II and maybe Richard II, Our Monarchs have been better than our Prime Ministers. 42 Monarchs since Edward the Confessor, with 3 duds; not a bad record.

We have had fixed election dates in BC for two terms and I haven't noticed any difference in the amount of campaigning. As a matter of fact, I bet most people in BC would be some ticked if a government decided to go back to the old system. We also have different rules than the US when it comes to campaigns. One reason it seems like the US is always campaigning is because they are. There are elections every fall. Besides, Canadian goverments know when the next election is coming so they go into campaign mode before they call it anyway. The rest of your post is accurate, the power concentrated in the PMO's office is always a problem with our system but the solution is not giving that power back to the Monarchy.

Only three duds, you must be kidding. Since 1066, other than those you mention, William II, John, Steven, Richard III and most of the others who reigned for a little while during the Wars of the Roses. Henry VIII was a larger than life character but not really a very good king. He spent half his life trying to make sure the person who turned out to be one of the best monarchs in British history didn't get the throne. At least half of the Stewarts, not to mention a ton of power hungry, manipulating regents along the way. That's just off the top of my head.

[scribblet]

Fixed election dates should be the norm, but federally I don't think it was ever binding.

I believe the amendment to the Canada Elections Act is subject to an override clause saying the Governor-General retains the power to dissolve Parliament at his or her discretion, which means of course, at the request of a PM.

They can get an election together in less than 6 months but it's a scramble. Speaking of elections, I would like to see a permanent R.O. for both federal and provincial elections (not appointed but hired based on merit etc.) with permanent polling stations and returning offices.

[Wilber]

Well, since you mentioned the "States", they were not very fond of George III, and would hang/burn his Tory behind in effigy, so deep was their hatred of him. The rest is history....

A misplaced hatred but it served the purpose. While George III might not have been a particularly good king, he was neither a tyrant or a bad person.

[bush_cheney2004]

A misplaced hatred but it served the purpose. While George III might not have been a particularly good king, he was neither a tyrant or a bad person.

Moreover, he was a very sick king as well, driven to seizures towards the end. This guy was king for 60 YEARS!

[DrGreenthumb]

What's funny is the Con partisans that are doing contortions to try and critisize the BC Liberals for planning to do what their dear leader Herr Harper did do. Breaking his own fixed election date law for political opportunism. All the bullshit about it being a minority so it didn't count was just that, BULLSHIT. Harper thought he could get a majority against Dion, thankfully he failed big time. If he can't get a majority against a guy who can't even speak coherent English, maybe the Conbots should just accept that most of Canada can't stand Harper the dick-tator.

[Wilber]

Fixed dates aren't workable in a minority situation. They just transfer control of the election date from the government to the opposition. Harpers mistake was committing to a fixed date when he had a minority. I don't think he thought that one through. He did call that election for political reasons. There was no real need for one. On the other hand, the opposition would have brought down the government for political reasons if they thought it was to their advantage.

I kind of like minorities for that reason. They make everyone think a little harder before they act.

[dre]

Fixed dates aren't workable in a minority situation. They just transfer control of the election date from the government to the opposition. Harpers mistake was committing to a fixed date when he had a minority. I don't think he thought that one through. He did call that election for political reasons. There was no real need for one. On the other hand, the opposition would have brought down the government for political reasons if they thought it was to their advantage.

I kind of like minorities for that reason. They make everyone think a little harder before they act.

My guess is it will be a LONG time before theres another majority government in Canada. Maybe decades. More and more people are obsessed with the bogus left/right dichotomy, and the swing vote gets smaller and smaller.

[scribblet]

What's funny is the Con partisans that are doing contortions to try and critisize the BC Liberals for planning to do what their dear leader Herr Harper did do. Breaking his own fixed election date law for political opportunism. All the bullshit about it being a minority so it didn't count was just that, BULLSHIT. Harper thought he could get a majority against Dion, thankfully he failed big time. If he can't get a majority against a guy who can't even speak coherent English, maybe the Conbots should just accept that most of Canada can't stand Harper the dick-tator.

:rolleyes:

Maybe the Sopranos/liebrals should accept that they are no longer entitled to their entitlements

[psychicdude]

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.

Yep this isn't a democracy the way we were lead to believe

[pinko]

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

If there is a need for a prime minister then maybe the person should be elected by a majority of parliamentarians or alternatively by giving the voters the choice at election time.

Edited December 29, 2010 by pinko

[bloodyminded]

A misplaced hatred but it served the purpose. While George III might not have been a particularly good king, he was neither a tyrant or a bad person.

I'm not interested in the "bad person" theme, but he was a tyrant by definition. But this was normal, not an aberation.

At any rate, modern sensibilites make it quite normal to side with the Americans on that issue, I think. I do, certainly.

[Wilber]

I'm not interested in the "bad person" theme, but he was a tyrant by definition. But this was normal, not an aberation.

At any rate, modern sensibilites make it quite normal to side with the Americans on that issue, I think. I do, certainly.

Britain's desire to have the Americans help pay for their own defense was reasonable, taxing them to do it without their having representation in Parliament was not. Like the War of 1812, it was an unnecessary war in large part caused by reasonable needs handled stupidly.

[dre]

Britain's desire to have the Americans help pay for their own defense was reasonable, taxing them to do it without their having representation in Parliament was not. Like the War of 1812, it was an unnecessary war in large part caused by reasonable needs handled stupidly.

Americas founders were not necessarily opposed to the idea of a monarchy, in fact thats exactly what a couple of them wanted. It was as you say the idea of paying taxes to a king a thousand miles away without getting representation, that set people off, and rightly so.

[jbg]

Britain's desire to have the Americans help pay for their own defense was reasonable, taxing them to do it without their having representation in Parliament was not. Like the War of 1812, it was an unnecessary war in large part caused by reasonable needs handled stupidly.

Americas founders were not necessarily opposed to the idea of a monarchy, in fact thats exactly what a couple of them wanted. It was as you say the idea of paying taxes to a king a thousand miles away without getting representation, that set people off, and rightly so.

I recognize that what both of you are saying is the result of what's taught in school. The trouble with "representation" was that it would have been token and futile, much like Alberta's "representation" in Parliament. Sure, the British could have let us have about 20 MP's out of a total of 400 or so that were in the HOC. What good would that have done the "thirteen colonies".

As a loyal American, I'll be frenkly honest. The Revolution was the result of the fact that we were more prosperous than the British. We had no interest in subsidizing London's Dickensian underclass. We still aren't good at helping our own poor.

On a more positive note though we also had no interest in subsidizing Europe's constant warfare. It took a mighty struggle to get us involve in WW I for that very reason.

[Wilber]

As a loyal American, I'll be frenkly honest. The Revolution was the result of the fact that we were more prosperous than the British. We had no interest in subsidizing London's Dickensian underclass. We still aren't good at helping our own poor.

On a more positive note though we also had no interest in subsidizing Europe's constant warfare. It took a mighty struggle to get us involve in WW I for that very reason.

At the time, the British were more highly taxed than the colonists. Although the Seven Years War was a global conflict, the Colonies benefited far more from the defeat of France in North America than the British. On top of this, the British were bearing most of the cost of continual frontier warfare with Indians resulting from the colony's expansion. The colonies were generating no small amount of that constant warfare on their own. As a result, the British tried to put limits on the colonies boundaries in order to reduce those costs. Needless to say, that didn't go over very well within the colonies.

A lot of the empire's expansion was due to the actions of its colonies, not directed from Westminster. With the communications of the day taking months for a message to get from many parts of the world to Britain and just as many months or more for a reply to find its way back, Westminster was continually finding out they now possessed new territories months after the fact. More than a few times they were places they didn't particularly want. To a large degree, colonial officials had more influence on the Empire's expansion than Westminster.

Interestingly enough, many modern historians now regard US involvement in WWI as a bad thing, feeling that if the US hadn't become involved there would have been an armistice in 1917, no punitive Versailles Treaty, no Hitler and no WWII. Churchill was of that opinion later in life.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Interestingly enough, many modern historians now regard US involvement in WWI as a bad thing, feeling that if the US hadn't become involved there would have been an armistice in 1917, no punitive Versailles Treaty, no Hitler and no WWII. Churchill was of that opinion later in life.

I would absolutely love a few names man. Can you help me out with that?