tommg6 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Should we have an federal election every four years kinda like how the Americans do it? Would it better for us to adopt that style? or not? Or everything is ok at it is? Quote
wyly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 timing is best as it is, the American system can result in a lame duck presidency, something to avoid...but we should change our FPTP (everyone's favourite election topic ) to a PR electoral system.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Topaz Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 I thought Harper rmade it Oct 9th, every 4 years, which would be Oct 9 th 2015. Did he change his mind again? Quote
login Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Should we have an federal election every four years kinda like how the Americans do it? Would it better for us to adopt that style? or not? Or everything is ok at it is? No, nonconfidence is important to get rid of crappy governments. Also the PM can be removed at any time they arn't elected. The PM is in no way the same as the president. US presidents have vastly mroe power because they can independently issue executive orders that have massive power. The GIC is technically still required to be approved by the governor general. The PM is a powerful advisor, they are NOT an executive. The GG is at law the CEO while the PM is a general manager of sorts, the Queen is the President. Ministers are department supervisors, the operations are run by deputy ministers who are the department managers. Ministers in that sense report to the PM, and the PM reports to the government in the legislature as required. Ministers meanwhile act on powers given to them by the legislature or under the act that establishes their department. The US system is vastly different than the Canadian system. Because the President is the head of the executive branch of the US government, meanwhile the legislatures in the US are completely seperate from the executive. By law in Canada ministers are not allowed to sit in the commons but they do (the law which requires them to be issued a fine is ignored, it dates back to the turn of the 20th century when the lower houses in the Westminister system overthrew the superiority of the upper houses. Technically ministers should be from the senate, not the commons (this was execised in the early Canadian parliaments via the executive council system). The PM should also be from the senate, if following the house of lords comparison of the westminister system. Essentially the way they do it is totally wrong. Even doing it wrong it is not in any way like the US system because there are diffinitive seperations between the legislative and executive in the US system, while in Canada the supposed executive intrudes on the commons (they are only suppose to be there when called to the commons bar at the request of the commons.) Although I recognize they do it wrong, and the public is oblivious and complaicent to that fact, it is disgusting to hear people compare the Canadian system to the US system, it isn't the same. The PM sits at the leisure of the GG, although I recognize the KingBing affair, the nature of partisan politics and how non representative the Conservatives are of Canadian society and social views (being a minority of the population and popular vote but holding a majority in the commons), the ability to appoint a suitable PM should still be exercised by the GG, much like anyone can request the Queen for Redress with Privy Council having special status. Edited December 7, 2012 by login Quote
Fletch 27 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 PR fails every time.. Look at history. What we have now works. Quote
jbg Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Should we have an federal election every four years kinda like how the Americans do it? Would it better for us to adopt that style? or not? Or everything is ok at it is? timing is best as it is, the American system can result in a lame duck presidency, something to avoid...but we should change our FPTP (everyone's favourite election topic ) to a PR electoral system.... Neither is great. The U.S. system winds up with endless campaigns. The lack of a fixed date used to give the PM the power to call snap elections with the opposition off guard.PR isn't great. It winds up creating faceless coalitions that are totally unaccountable. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
login Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Neither is great. The U.S. system winds up with endless campaigns. The lack of a fixed date used to give the PM the power to call snap elections with the opposition off guard. PR isn't great. It winds up creating faceless coalitions that are totally unaccountable. you forgot the part where the electoral college decides not the US public... Quote
Bryan Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 I thought Harper rmade it Oct 9th, every 4 years, which would be Oct 9 th 2015. Did he change his mind again? No, that is still the law. Maximum of fours years for minorities, exactly four years for majorities. Quote
August1991 Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Should we have an federal election every four years kinda like how the Americans do it? Would it better for us to adopt that style? or not? Or everything is ok at it is?How could we do this?I thought Harper rmade it Oct 9th, every 4 years, which would be Oct 9 th 2015. Did he change his mind again?By tradition, we have general elections every five years or so. Harper (apparently) shorthened this tradition by a year, and fixed a date.But does this really change anything? If Harper (or any PM) decides to provoke a crisis before the four year limit, and lose a House vote, the government (majority/minority) will fall. Then, it will be the GG to decide whether to dissolve parliament or ask another MP to organize a new government. The four year rule will be irrelevant. If Harper (or any PM) with a majority in Parliament decides to go beyond the four years, who will stop him? I reckon that a GG and/or Supreme Court would not sign/approve a PM/Cabinet decision after 4 years in power unless there were special circumstances. IMV, this 4 year rule is meaningless. It's pandering to a base who, once upon a time, hated re-elected federal Liberals always in power. Quote
g_bambino Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Should we have an federal election every four years kinda like how the Americans do it? Federal elections are mandated to happen at most four years after the last. But you mean fixing the elections at regular four year intervals, "kinda like how the Americans do it". That can't happen; not unless we adopt their system of government. A government that's lost the confidence of the House a year after the last election can't, with any legitimacy, continue on governing for another three years. [ed.: +] Edited December 7, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
Boges Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Nope, can't do it. As long as you fuse the legislative and executives you can't force a parliament to go four years if it's obvious the governing party has lost the confidence of the house. Quote
Black Dog Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 PR fails every time.. Look at history. What we have now works. Yeah, PR is such a failure that it's used by the vast majority of democracies. Quote
Boges Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 PR was a failure in the 2007 referendum. Quote
wyly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Yeah, PR is such a failure that it's used by the vast majority of democracies. a number of eruo PR systems are more stable than ours, having fewer governments and elections than our FPTP, I'd classify that as successful.. Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 By law in Canada ministers are not allowed to sit in the commons... Um... Cite, please. Quote
TimG Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) a number of eruo PR systems are more stable than ours, having fewer governments and elections than our FPTP, I'd classify that as successful..Can you give me a country with a PR system where government spending is not out of control? The real problem with a PR system is it prevents governments from introducing unpopular but necessary measures. Canada has a relatively healthy economy today because Liberal and Conservative governments had the power to do what is right. Edited December 7, 2012 by TimG Quote
wyly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Can you give me a country with a PR system where government spending is not out of control? The real problem with a PR system is it prevents governments from introducing unpopular but necessary measures. Canada has a relatively healthy economy today because Liberal and Conservative governments had the power to do what is right. one tim? here's two... netherlands and germany and both with coalition governments and lower unemployment than canada...(and contrary to what you may claim to be the case PR systems don't have multiple PMs )...how popular do you think Merkels bailing out of greece was with the german populace? Edited December 7, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 from an earlier thread, verifying that PR is as stable if not more stable than FPTP so how many general elections has this PR instability triggered in Italy since WW2, 17....and how many general elections has our oh so much more stable canadian FPTP system resulted in since WW2 ? ...21 .....oopsie! that can't possibly be right... and three more, none of whom have had as many general elections as canada Germany PR/FPTP-17 Netherlands PR-20 Sweden PR-20 Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Boges Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 from an earlier thread, verifying that PR is as stable if not more stable than FPTP so how many general elections has this PR instability triggered in Italy since WW2, 17....and how many general elections has our oh so much more stable canadian FPTP system resulted in since WW2 ? ...21 .....oopsie! that can't possibly be right... and three more, none of whom have had as many general elections as canada Germany PR/FPTP-17 Netherlands PR-20 Sweden PR-20 Those stats are useless unless you also include how many of the governments were minority or coalition governments and how many were outright majorities. Quote
Sleipnir Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 Should we have an federal election every four years kinda like how the Americans do it? Would it better for us to adopt that style? or not? Or everything is ok at it is? No, I think it would keep the government and the opposition on their toes if there was an ever constant threat of an election. By keeping them on their toes, I'm referring to them not appearing lazy. Quote "All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain
Boges Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 BTW the US has federal elections every 2 years. A third of the senate and the entire House will have to face elections in 2014. Quote
g_bambino Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 so how many general elections has this PR instability triggered in Italy since WW2, 17....and how many general elections has our oh so much more stable canadian FPTP system resulted in since WW2 ? ...21 .....oopsie! Changes of government (prime minister) in Canada since the Second World War: 13. In Italy: 41. Quote
wyly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Those stats are useless unless you also include how many of the governments were minority or coalition governments and how many were outright majorities. it makes no difference at all if a PR system can produce a majority then it destroys claims of coalition instability even more so...PR systems are stable, and a PR majority is a legitimate majority unlike what FPTP produces Edited December 7, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted December 7, 2012 Report Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) Changes of government (prime minister) in Canada since the Second World War: 13. In Italy: 41. that doesn't make the government less stable but it would indicate greater integrity of office and internal party politics... Edited December 7, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
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.