Federal Election Polls

[ReeferMadness]

It is a system that has guaranteed peaceful transitions of government for three centuries.

Yes. And the definition of excellent democracy is any system that allows transition of power without shooting.

[Smallc]

You're equating an elected official with a 'rubber stamp'? And do you think that's the only other way?

That's the way most similar to ours. There are other systems, but I question their superiority to the one used by most advanced countries in the world.

And if the PM is supposed to be accountable to Parliament, then why not actually have a formal election of the PM by secret ballot of parliamentarians? At least, that would be some indication to people of how things are supposed to work.

Look, it's not my fault that people don't care to understand.

Or are you saying you prefer a system that nobody understands?

I understand it perfectly. At least one other person in this thread does, along with several other people on this site. If you don't, it's your responsibility to learn.

[Queenmandy85]

You're equating an elected official with a 'rubber stamp'? And do you think that's the only other way?

And if the PM is supposed to be accountable to Parliament, then why not actually have a formal election of the PM by secret ballot of parliamentarians? At least, that would be some indication to people of how things are supposed to work.

Or are you saying you prefer a system that nobody understands?

Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean the the rest of us share your confusion. The best way to overcome this inexperience is to chose a candidate, get them nominated and then work like heck to get them elected. Participate in the national party, get to know people and work hard to get the government you want.

The 'rubber stamp' comment refers to most presidents in the democratic world who have the same powers and authority as our Queen. Germany is a prime example. The only difference for us is that a President would be far more expensive than the Queen of Canada, without the gravitas. Our Queen is costs less than the British Embassy in Paris. A President of Canada would likely cost upwards of half a million dollars in salary alone and perform the same ceremonial functions as the Queen.

[ToadBrother]

The convention is, as I understand it, in a minority, the Governor General first asks the sitting Prime Minister if she can form a government that will have the confidence of the House. If she says no, the G then goes to the leader with the most seats.

In the interview with Mansbridge, Harper said if he did not have the most seats, he "would not be Prime Minister."

Today, on the cbc poll tracker, there are only six seats separating the NDP in the lead, and the Liberals in third place. The CPC is in the middle. I Love Politics.

In technical terms, the Prime Minister who dropped the writ did so while still enjoying the confidence of Parliament. In that case, he continues to enjoy the confidence of Parliament until that confidence is tested at the vote on the post-election Throne Speech. A PM who decides to continue governing does not even have to be sworn in again, again because he is still the head of the Government until Parliament decides otherwise.

It's precisely the seat count Eric is forecasting that has me fascinated. Who would form a government where six seats are all that stands between the third party and first?

It's a more complex calculation than simply "the guy with the most seats." Let's imagine that Tories end up with 115 seats, the NDP with 113 and the Liberals with 109. Harper's decision on whether to continue governing or to resign isn't just about a plurality, or even necessarily about surviving the Speech from the Throne. With these close numbers, any minority government would be under real threat of being accidentally defeated. Rarely are all MPs in the House for votes. Quite often Ministers are away on government business, MPs get sick, or they are on fact finding junkets, committee meetings and so on and so forth. The opportunities, intentionally or accidentally, to defeat a government under such circumstances would be frequent, and Harper might finally admit that he had little hope of governing under those circumstances, and might decide to resign, despite having a technical plurality of two or three seats.

It's not that much better for the other parties. If the roles are reversed and it is the NDP or Liberals who have this tiny plurality, they will stay have to face the same problems; Ministers away on business, MPs sick or otherwise not in the House for votes. It would mean having to control the order paper absolutely so nothing that it even smells like a confidence vote ever happens by surprise. It would mean key votes would require all MPs to be in the House, so the whips would be very busy at times, particularly over supply bills like the budget.

That's why I think, no matter who actually ends up governing, there will be some sort of a confidence and supply agreement. The government will need some sort of guarantee that critical votes pass, otherwise every government MP will have to camp out on the Hill while the House is in session. Some sort of an agreement would give the government a little breathing room. So, not a coalition, but certainly some sort of insurance policy to make sure a government doesn't fall, even by accident.

[ToadBrother]

Yes. And the definition of excellent democracy is any system that allows transition of power without shooting.

It is the definition of a functional democracy. I have little notion of what an "excellent" democracy would look like, but it sounds Utopian, and thus I sincerely doubt that such a governing system could be built or sustained.

I'll stick with one that governs reasonably well, with relatively predictable results. In government, democracy is a major consideration, but it is not the only consideration.

[Queenmandy85]

We used to have a 'pairing' system. If you as a member of the governing party need to be away, I, as a member of an opposition party agree not to vote in your absence. It was a Liberal who forgot he was paired that brought down Arthur Meighen's Government. Is this pairing system no long used?

[ToadBrother]

We used to have a 'pairing' system. If you as a member of the governing party need to be away, I, as a member of an opposition party agree not to vote in your absence. It was a Liberal who forgot he was paired that brought down Arthur Meighen's Government. Is this pairing system no long used?

It still does, or did in 2006 to 2011, but how would that work in a near three way tie in the House?

[Smallc]

President of Canada would likely cost upwards of half a million dollars in salary alone and perform the same ceremonial functions as the Queen.

I'm not sure the GG is any less expensive, in fairness.

[Triple M]

If the 2nd and 3rd parties have the same amount of seats than which party gets to form the official opposition?? Also if the opposition is asked to form a government than which party gets the first shot??

[ToadBrother]

I'm not sure the GG is any less expensive, in fairness.

Just a quick look at the 2014 financial report, it looks like the office of the Governor General received about $31 million from Parliament.

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=242

The French Presidency cost French taxpayers about $186 million in the same period, though that's probably an unfair comparison as the French president's duties are far greater. There's some talk that in total the US presidency costs US taxpayers over a billion dollars a year, but I'm dubious of that figure myself

[Smallc]

The French Presidency cost French taxpayers about $186 million in the same period, though that's probably an unfair comparison as the French president's duties are far greater.

That's a different system though. I'd like to see the cost of say, the Italian President.

[Smallc]

Oh, wow:

The office of President Giorgio Napolitano was set to be a relative bargain this year at €228 million, equal to 2012.

http://www.thelocal.it/20131217/italian-politics-costs-taxpayers-a-year

[ToadBrother]

If the 2nd and 3rd parties have the same amount of seats than which party gets to form the official opposition?? Also if the opposition is asked to form a government than which party gets the first shot??

In constitutional terms, the party that gets the first shot is the incumbent. As to who forms the opposition if both parties are equal, that's an awfully good question. I'm actually not read up on the Official Opposition convention. I have a feeling that one could apply the incumbent convention there as well. For instance, if the Tories were to win a minority, but the NDP and Liberals were tied, I imagine that NDP would again be invited to form the official opposition. If, say the Liberals won, but the NDP and Tories were tied for second, I'm not sure. In technical terms, though the term isn't used in Canada, the Official Opposition are Her Majesty's Official Opposition, which does denote that in the case of a tie for second, the Governor General would probably invite one of the two to become the Official Opposition, but how he would decide that I cannot say.

[ToadBrother]

That's a different system though. I'd like to see the cost of say, the Italian President.

According to http://www.thelocal.it/20131217/italian-politics-costs-taxpayers-a-year, the Italian President cost taxpayers €228 million in 2012, or about $343 million Canadian dollars. I do wonder how that is calculated, and suspect that the Italian President's budget also oversees a number of official residences and other facilities that probably dwarf the Governor General's costs.

[Triple M]

If the election is that close than 2 or even all 3 need to work together for the first year at minimum. 2016 might be a fragile year and I hope all parties can be less petty especially Harper

[ToadBrother]

If the election is that close than 2 or even all 3 need to work together for the first year at minimum. 2016 might be a fragile year and I hope all parties can be less petty especially Harper

Two will certainly have to work together. That's why I think some sort of confidence and supply agreement will be necessary, if the minority government and its next-nearest opponent have very close numbers to each other.

[ReeferMadness]

Look, it's not my fault that people don't care to understand.

I understand it perfectly. At least one other person in this thread does, along with several other people on this site. If you don't, it's your responsibility to learn.

In 2008, the Conservatives were able to exploit Canadians' ignorance of their own political system to gain a political advantage. This isn't some theoretical argument. Canadians actually believe that coalition governments, which are perfectly acceptable according to our system of governance, are somehow illegitimate. So, while you tell yourself if up to each person to educate himself or herself, the ignorance of the people is preventing the system from working properly.

And consider this. It's bad enough that most of the important decisions are made by Harper and the PMO. The election on October 19 will be conducted by an agency headed by an Harper appointee. If there is any lack of clarity as to who should govern, the decision will be made by another Harper appointee, not according to rules that are constitutionally agreed but by parliamentary convention that dates back hundreds of years. And if the opposition doesn't agree, where do they go? To an elderly monarch in another country? Or maybe to a supreme court where 7 of the 9 members are also Harper appointees?

If Stalin designed the rules of democracy, I can imagine they wouldn't be much different.

[eyeball]

The Mansbridge interview was about forming government. He wouldn't try to form government if the CPC didn't have the most seats. Which honestly goes without saying.

Edit: The reason for saying that is so that he could go back to that moment if the opposition tries to form a coalition and once again argue that it's not democratic and that "the party with the most seats governs." That's not how our system works though.

You really have to wonder if the system wasn't deliberately designed to confuse people with - "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance you can always baffle them with horse apples".

[ReeferMadness]

Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean the the rest of us share your confusion.

I don't know whether you're playing dumb or if you and smallc and others around here are really that ignorant of the facts. There are studies that show that most Canadians don't even have a basic understanding of how their system works. I've posted them several times in the past and I'm not going to look them up again. In 2008, Harper was able to exploit that lack of understanding to his advantage. I don't think that it's an exaggeration to suggest that our unnecessarily convoluted and archaic system is a material part of the reason that Harper is still in power today.

So go ahead and bury your head deeper in the sand. If you pretend everything is fine, then it is.

[Evening Star]

I don't know whether you're playing dumb or if you and smallc and others around here are really that ignorant of the facts. There are studies that show that most Canadians don't even have a basic understanding of how their system works. I've posted them several times in the past and I'm not going to look them up again. In 2008, Harper was able to exploit that lack of understanding to his advantage. I don't think that it's an exaggeration to suggest that our unnecessarily convoluted and archaic system is a material part of the reason that Harper is still in power today.

If this is true, then why is it the case? Doesn't everyone take a basic civics class in Grade 10?

[ToadBrother]

I don't know whether you're playing dumb or if you and smallc and others around here are really that ignorant of the facts. There are studies that show that most Canadians don't even have a basic understanding of how their system works. I've posted them several times in the past and I'm not going to look them up again. In 2008, Harper was able to exploit that lack of understanding to his advantage. I don't think that it's an exaggeration to suggest that our unnecessarily convoluted and archaic system is a material part of the reason that Harper is still in power today.

So go ahead and bury your head deeper in the sand. If you pretend everything is fine, then it is.

You're not actually attacking the political system, you're attacking the educational system. When people don't understand any concept, one should look at how they're being taught about the concept

[Smallc]

In 2008, the Conservatives were able to exploit Canadians' ignorance of their own political system to gain a political advantage. This isn't some theoretical argument.

I understand the system, but didn't support the coalition for one reason - it owed its life to the Bloc.

Canadians actually believe that coalition governments, which are perfectly acceptable according to our system of governance, are somehow illegitimate.

Which, as you point out, has nothing to do with our system of government.

So, while you tell yourself if up to each person to educate himself or herself, the ignorance of the people is preventing the system from working properly.

And you think this would change with any other system?

And consider this. It's bad enough that most of the important decisions are made by Harper and the PMO.

How would that change with an executive president (who would hold even more power)?

The election on October 19 will be conducted by an agency headed by an Harper appointee.

By an arms length agency charged with ensuring fair elections. Most countries would kill for such a thing. Elections Canada and the structure of it is one of Canada's strengths, not weaknesses.

If there is any lack of clarity as to who should govern, the decision will be made by another Harper appointee, not according to rules that are constitutionally agreed but by parliamentary convention that dates back hundreds of years.

Those rules and conventions are exactly what will govern what happens. The current holder of the office of the Governor General of Canada, appointed by HRH on the advice f the PM after the long work of a council of experts, is a constitutional professor. You think that he actually owes some kind of allegiance to Harper?

And if the opposition doesn't agree, where do they go?

People disagree in a democracy all of the time. It doesn't mean that they should get their way.

To an elderly monarch in another country?

Why would they do that when Johnston will handle it? I'll add to that the lifetime of constitutional knowledge she holds (something a ceremonial president probably wouldn't) as an asset if it ever went that far.

Or maybe to a supreme court where 7 of the 9 members are also Harper appointees?

You mean the people that keep striving down Harper's laws?

If Stalin designed the rules of democracy, I can imagine they wouldn't be much different.

That's because you have nothing to add but hyperbole, as you yourself have admitted, you don't understand our system.

[Smallc]

I don't know whether you're playing dumb or if you and smallc and others around here are really that ignorant of the facts. There are studies that show that most Canadians don't even have a basic understanding of how their system works.

And how would that change with any other system?

[ReeferMadness]

If this is true, then why is it the case? Doesn't everyone take a basic civics class in Grade 10?

Hahahaha

Is that really a serious question??? How much of what you learned in Grade 10 do you remember? I was a good student and I remember practically nothing. I know what I know because of what I read.

It's true mostly because the rules are arcane, archaic and often counter-intuitive. And Canadians get most of their understanding of politics in the same place they get most of their understanding of law - from watching American TV shows.

[ToadBrother]

If this is true, then why is it the case? Doesn't everyone take a basic civics class in Grade 10?

I certainly remember being taught in grade 10 the core concepts about how governments are formed in Canada, with descriptions of possible scenarios ranging from majority government thru minorities, including the basic concepts surrounding coalitions.

At the end of the day, I'm not even sure what the Tories' talk of coups did anyways. The GG prorogued Parliament, as she was bound to do as Harper still had the confidence of Parliament, and when it returned, Ignatieff had made his grand pronouncement "a coalition if necessarily, but not necessarily a coalition", and then made his doomed Faustian bargain to prop up the Tory minority. Maybe the anti-coalition talk played into it, although reading Brian Topp's very fascinating account (How We Almost Gave the Tories the Boot: The Inside Story Behind the Coalition) puts most of the blame on the would-be coalition itself for advertising its intentions BEFORE it had voted the government down.

A number of polls have been done since 2008 showing the Canadian public is not all that allergic to the idea of a coalition, and I've even seen suggestions that the even split in support may be in part due to the desire for a return to a minority government or coalition.