Should Canada adopt the American style fixed date federal elections?

[Smallc]

it's a flawed democracy that's what....

No, in fact it's not. Democracy is about more than just voting.

[-TSS-]

I'm not quite sure whether the idea of "holy" election dates is a good one. Imagine a situation where the government lost its majority in parliament but there could not be early elections.

On the other hand, I can't support the idea that the government could call an election whenever it wishes, saying that when the opinion polls look good.

[login]

Um... Cite, please.

It dates back to convetion from around 1902.

The basis of executive power is constitutionally derived

http://laws-lois.jus...nst/page-3.html

None the less I'll try to find the fine for you but it is in a mound of now over a century old documents.

The ministers of the crown act 1937 didn't happen in Canada.

In the UK the issue was clarified via the act but it didn't exist in Canada. The standing law in Canada disallows members of the commons to take their seats if they act as ministers of the crown. It has to do with a conflict of interest existing.

Here is more info on the ministers of the crown act

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1090297

However I'll find the exact point when I do... that states the fine. It is a daily fine.

The issue is actually addressed in the conventions of the British house of commons for legal resignation of ones seat in the commons

http://en.wikipedia....ouse_of_Commons

It is from the Place Act 1707 and earlier dating to the Act of Settlment. (note it is contitutional)

Note that the fine comes from this point... but it is a legal complexity, rest assured it has never been resolved in Canada, since the British didn't resolve it until after the Statute of Westminster so it is still on the books.

If I recall correctly while in the 1919 changes taking an office of profit did not require resignation there was still a fine for sitting in the house of commons while also being a paid minister of the crown (which cabinet minsiters are...)

Canada hasn't addressed the issue, here is how Austrailia has dealt with it

http://parlinfo.aph....y/prspub/3Z910"

This fine is something like 500 sterling for each day in sitting, but it essentially is due to the conflict of interest between representing a riding and also being sworn to act for the crown, as well as deriving direct pecuniary interest as a member of the crown effecting any voting on government legislation.

The senate can't vote on pecuniary bills and definately take no action effecting self financial interest.

IT also goes back to the fact members of the upper house arn't suppose to appear in the lower house unless summoned before the bar, and th emonarch is only suppose to appear in the upper house not the lower house.

The convetions actually make sense since representing your riding and the crown is a clear conflict of interest.

It is real.

Note that also

In 2002, O'Donohue launched a court action that argued the Act of Settlement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the case was dismissed by the court. It found that, as the Act of Settlement is part of the Canadian constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as another part of the same constitution, does not have supremacy over it.

http://www.tonyodono...settlement.html

It comes from this part: "

That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons;"

source

http://www.tonyodonohue.ca/act_of_settlement_document.html

ACT OF SETTLMENT PART OF CANADA'S CONSTITUTION!

Edited December 9, 2012 by login

[wyly]

No, in fact it's not. Democracy is about more than just voting.

say what?...voting is the heart of democracy, without voting you can not have a democracy...equality of vote is essential to a healthy democratic system....

[Smallc]

Again, that isn't all there is to democracy, even if it's a portion of it. A functioning democracy must have stability and a system by which to transfer power. Voting is only part of the equation.

[wyly]

Again, that isn't all there is to democracy, even if it's a portion of it. A functioning democracy must have stability and a system by which to transfer power. Voting is only part of the equation.

yikes! that's really scary in this day that someone still does know what democracy is...one man, one vote, without that there is no democracy....the entire concept of democracy revolves around equality of the vote... Edited December 9, 2012 by wyly

[Smallc]

And hey, we have that, so....

[Wilber]

I'm not quite sure whether the idea of "holy" election dates is a good one. Imagine a situation where the government lost its majority in parliament but there could not be early elections.

On the other hand, I can't support the idea that the government could call an election whenever it wishes, saying that when the opinion polls look good.

That's why fixed dates could only apply to majority governments, otherwise you are just handing complete control of forcing an election to the opposition. We have already seen this scenario with the present government. While I think Harper was right in bringing in such legislation, binding a minority government to it was just foolish unless all parties are bound by it.

[jbg]

yikes! that's really scary in this day that someone still does know what democracy is...one man, one vote, without that there is no democracy....the entire concept of democracy revolves around equality of the vote...

But democracy should not be "one man, one vote, one time."

[jbg]

That's why fixed dates could only apply to majority governments, otherwise you are just handing complete control of forcing an election to the opposition. We have already seen this scenario with the present government. While I think Harper was right in bringing in such legislation, binding a minority government to it was just foolish unless all parties are bound by it.

Actually Harper wasn't "bound" by it apparently. Remember the October 2008 election or is that beyond historical memory?

[wyly]

But democracy should not be "one man, one vote, one time."

? are you referring to direct democracy? assuming you are, direct democracy is the ideal but it becomes very unwieldy in large societies, so then we need the next best thing, representational democracy.... in a representational democracy PR is more inclusive and closer to the direct democracy ideal than FPTP ...

[jbg]

? are you referring to direct democracy? assuming you are, direct democracy is the ideal but it becomes very unwieldy in large societies, so then we need the next best thing, representational democracy.... in a representational democracy PR is more inclusive and closer to the direct democracy ideal than FPTP ...

I'm referring to recent farces in Gaza, Egypt, and Pakistan.

[wyly]

I'm referring to recent farces in Gaza, Egypt, and Pakistan.

then I have no clue what point you're trying to make...

[jbg]

then I have no clue what point you're trying to make...

What most people like about democracy is the peaceful and predictable transfer of power, and the consignment of disputes to different forms of nonviolent resolution. Certain matters are resolved by judges or juries. Others by elected legislatures. Others by executives.

And these officials are changed regularly and non-violently. In the countries I mentioned it is rare indeed to have successive successful elections. Almost all of the time the elected government either becomes tyrannical or is displaced by a non-elected government.

Does that help you?

[g_bambino]

it's a flawed democracy that's what....

All democracies are flawed.

[g_bambino]

The standing law in Canada disallows members of the commons to take their seats if they act as ministers of the crown.

And I would like to see this law.

Since the intent of the clause was to limit influence of the sovereign over parliament, the Act of Settlement means by "Office or Place of Profit under the King" an officer representing the monarch with the power to act in the monarch's stead: a governor, lord lieutenant, steward, and the like. Ministers of the Crown advise the sovereign, they don't represent him or her and, as such, are not empowered to perform the monarch's functions (grant royal assent or give effect to orders in council).

[Wilber]

Actually Harper wasn't "bound" by it apparently. Remember the October 2008 election or is that beyond historical memory?

That's my point when it comes to minority governments. He found that by binding himself to it, he had given complete control over the life of his government to the opposition. Not a good plan.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Wilber

[g_bambino]

That's my point when it comes to minority governments. He found that by binding himself to it, he had given complete control over the life of his government to the opposition.

Since the 1700s, the opposition always has had control over the life of a minority government.

[Wilber]

Since the 1700s, the opposition always has had control over the life of a minority government.

Yes, but not sole control. A minority government has also had the ability to call an election before term. That is why it can't work with a minority.

A majority on the other hand has no reason to call an early election other than to pursue a political advantage.

[g_bambino]

Yes, but not sole control. A minority government has also had the ability to call an election before term. That is why it can't work with a minority.

A majority on the other hand has no reason to call an early election other than to pursue a political advantage.

Ah, I think I see what you're saying now.

But, is there anything inherently wrong with going to the electorate less than five years (still the constitutionally set maximum life of a parliament) after the last election? The only things to worry about are there being no elections and there beiing too many too close together.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited December 10, 2012 by g_bambino

[Boges]

Since the 1700s, the opposition always has had control over the life of a minority government.

You should let Dalton McGuinty know this. He's clearly unaware.

[g_bambino]

You should let Dalton McGuinty know this. He's clearly unaware.

I'm sure he's already aware. When the legislature resumes, the government will have to face the opposition and the opposition will have the say on whether or not to allow the government to continue to govern (including potentially advising the dropping of the writs) or not.

[jbg]

Since the 1700s, the opposition always has had control over the life of a minority government.

Meichem didn't have long to enjoy the ability to form a government when King tried to advise the calling of elections. Byng gave Meichem the chance. It didn't last long or work out well for him.

Yes, but not sole control. A minority government has also had the ability to call an election before term. That is why it can't work with a minority.

A majority on the other hand has no reason to call an early election other than to pursue a political advantage.

Under prior custom and eventually Section 3 of the Charter a majority government was limited to five (5) years. Section 3 of the Charter reads:

1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members.

(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

Other than Mulroney's 1988 mandate I do not believe any other majority government went significantly beyond the customary four (4) years. As you implicitly pointed out election intervals shorter than the customary four (4) years are called for political advantage.

In a majority government, where election dates are not fixed, the PM can "advise" the Governor General to call an election at a time good for him or her. Chretien was first elected PM in the November 1993 election (yes, I know it was his party but I'm using shorthand). He called an election, I believe, in April 1997, or about seven (7) months short of the traditional four (4) year length of a mandate. Next time around was November 2000 (at a time when Stockwell Day was surging in the polls), or around six (6) months short. The next time around was less egregious since Martin, by tradition, sought (and did not obtain) his own majority mandate. I recall similar antics on Thatcher's part. So fixed elections, at least applicable to a majority government, solves that problem.

Edited December 10, 2012 by jbg

[Wilber]

Ah, I think I see what you're saying now.

But, is there anything inherently wrong with going to the electorate less than five years (still the constitutionally set maximum life of a parliament) after the last election? The only things to worry about are there being no elections and there beiing too many too close together.

[ed.: c/e]

Under the constitution, there is no possibility of no elections but rather than the constitutional five years, we have settled on four as being more appropriate. I have no problem with that but what reason would there be for a majority government to call an election earlier than four years other than it sees a good oportunity to attempt securing power for a longer time? This is not done because it is in the country's best interest.

[-TSS-]

Fixed dates for parliamentary-elections don't work in parliamentary systems because if the government loses its majority in parliament then what mandate does it have to govern? The fixed dates work for the US Congress-elections because regardless of the seats in Congress the President and his party are the government. If they have a minority then their hands are tied and they can't push through legislation but they still are the government. There is no mechanism of interpellation in the US-system except impeachment but that is then something very serious.