Should Canada adopt the American style fixed date federal elections?

[g_bambino]

Under the constitution, there is no possibility of no elections..

Yes, that's already taken care of. And the general rule followed by the governor general is that any request for an election coming within 6 months of the last election will be rejected (unless there's some specific circumstance that requires one).

[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.

Well, there are times when elections act as a referendum of sorts; the parties in parliament disagree on a major political matter and the prime minister wishes to seek the legitimacy of a more direct (or more fresh) democratic approval for his or her position on the issue (was that not what was done before NAFTA was implemented?).

Otherwise, I understand the undesirability of elections being called by the government when polls are showing supposedly strong support for the governing party. But, I really see no alternative that doesn't bring with it the loss of some of the benefits the present modus operandi affords us.

[Wilber]

[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.

Well, there are times when elections act as a referendum of sorts; the parties in parliament disagree on a major political matter and the prime minister wishes to seek the legitimacy of a more direct (or more fresh) democratic approval for his or her position on the issue (was that not what was done before NAFTA was implemented?).

Well if they think they need a referendum on something, hold a referendum. Why complicate the issue with an election. That way the supposed major political matter ends up playing second fiddle to an election. Nope, I don't buy that excuse.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Wilber

[g_bambino]

Well if they think they need a referendum on something, hold a referendum.

Elections are referendums of a sort. They're just less specific than what we actually call a referendum, which requires that all the details pertaining to the matter in question be worked out before being put to the voters along with a clear question asking for a yes or no answer. It isn't always the best course of action.

[Wilber]

Elections are referendums of a sort. They're just less specific than what we actually call a referendum, which requires that all the details pertaining to the matter in question be worked out before being put to the voters along with a clear question asking for a yes or no answer. It isn't always the best course of action.

They are a lot less specific. In order to accept or reject a specific issue, you have to accept or reject a government as well. That's BS.

[jbg]

Yes, that's already taken care of. And the general rule followed by the governor general is that any request for an election coming within 6 months of the last election will be rejected (unless there's some specific circumstance that requires one).

Was Joe Who a/k/a Joe Clark the only such situation since King/Byng?

[g_bambino]

In order to accept or reject a specific issue, you have to accept or reject a government as well. That's BS.

Good thing that wasn't what I was talking about, then.

[g_bambino]

Was Joe Who a/k/a Joe Clark the only such situation since King/Byng?

I really don't know.

[-TSS-]

I support the idea of fixed-date elections up to a point but if there was a vote of no-confidence for the government and no chance of a new majority-government to be formed under the old parliament then having another election is a way out of the quandary. When I say I support fixed-date elections I mean in the normal circumstances when there is a majority-government I wouldn't give the PM the power of element of surprise.

[jbg]

I support the idea of fixed-date elections up to a point but if there was a vote of no-confidence for the government and no chance of a new majority-government to be formed under the old parliament then having another election is a way out of the quandary. When I say I support fixed-date elections I mean in the normal circumstances when there is a majority-government I wouldn't give the PM the power of element of surprise.

Doesn't the fixed-election law do just that?

In our country, I wish to G-d that failure to adopt a government would topple the government. Then again Obama would find a way to work with others if a fiscal matter rejection would send him to the polls.

[Smallc]

Yeah...Obama is the one that isn't working with others. What kind of revisionist universe are you living in?

[g_bambino]

Doesn't the fixed-election law do just that?

Not really, no. It basically leaves the satus-quo intact: in fact, it explicitly states that it in no way alters or affects the governor general's power to call an election (meaning the prime minister can advise an election at any time).

[Boges]

If you're going to have a fused parliament where the the executive and the legislative branches sit in the same house you'll have to allow for an election to be called at any time.

A minority government can and should be held to account if they lose the confidence of the house.

[g_bambino]

If you're going to have a fused parliament where the the executive and the legislative branches sit in the same house you'll have to allow for an election to be called at any time.

A minority government can and should be held to account if they lose the confidence of the house.

That's pretty much right. But, I think what concerns people is the prime minister's ability to advise an election on the grounds that it'd be beneficial to his or her party, rather than because of the government's loss of the Commons' confidence. It's a valid concern, but I very much hesitate to start trying to bind the matter of when to call elections with rigid rules; doing so seems to have a tendency to later cause problems in scenarios the authors of the legislation failed to imagine.

[Boges]

That's pretty much right. But, I think what concerns people is the prime minister's ability to advise an election on the grounds that it'd be beneficial to his or her party, rather than because of the government's loss of the Commons' confidence. It's a valid concern, but I very much hesitate to start trying to bind the matter of when to call elections with rigid rules; doing so seems to have a tendency to later cause problems in scenarios the authors of the legislation failed to imagine.

The last person to do that is Chretien. You didn't see Harper call an election a week after JT was named leader.

The 2008 election was opportunism but you could argue the 2011 election was opportunism on the oppositions side too.

[g_bambino]

You didn't see Harper call an election a week after JT was named leader.

That doesn't mean it won't happen again.

[Boges]

That doesn't mean it won't happen again.

And they stand to be punished by wasting money in such a manner.

[g_bambino]

And they stand to be punished by wasting money in such a manner.

Perhaps. But, those who've done so in the past, their party didn't seem to pay any price in votes.

[jbg]

It's a valid concern, but I very much hesitate to start trying to bind the matter of when to call elections with rigid rules; doing so seems to have a tendency to later cause problems in scenarios the authors of the legislation failed to imagine.

In our country, one of the problems is that the 2016 election campaign is already under way. Hilary resigned as Secretary of State basically to clear the way for her run, for example. That is why we often lose the services of better Cabinet Secretaries in the second term of a President.

[jbg]

Not really, no. It basically leaves the satus-quo intact: in fact, it explicitly states that it in no way alters or affects the governor general's power to call an election (meaning the prime minister can advise an election at any time).

I thought the bill refers primarily to the GG's ability to call an election in the event of a loss of confidence.

[jbg]

Yeah...Obama is the one that isn't working with others. What kind of revisionist universe are you living in?

Not when he pushed through the Affordable Care Act using a parliamentary maneuver designed for budget items. That method, called "reconciliation" is not designed for fundamental changes in the U.S.

[PIK]

The last person to do that is Chretien. You didn't see Harper call an election a week after JT was named leader.

The 2008 election was opportunism but you could argue the 2011 election was opportunism on the oppositions side too.

But 2008 was a waste4 of time, we did not need to have one. But elections is good money spent, so I don't mind.

[g_bambino]

In our country, one of the problems is that the 2016 election campaign is already under way. Hilary resigned as Secretary of State basically to clear the way for her run, for example. That is why we often lose the services of better Cabinet Secretaries in the second term of a President.

Well... It is possible for the same to happen here. The Canada Elections Act sets the maximum life of a parliament at four years (though, the constitution says five). So, politicians can start their campaigning three years in, with one year left to go until an election is bound to happen. The difference seems to be that, even with only a year left in a parliament's maximum lifespan, it remains entirely possible for it to end--and an election be called--at any time before that, a possibility that simply doesn't exist in the States.

[g_bambino]

I thought the bill refers primarily to the GG's ability to call an election in the event of a loss of confidence.

It says: "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion."

[jbg]

But 2008 was a waste4 of time, we did not need to have one. But elections is good money spent, so I don't mind.

Wasn't 2008 triggered by the LPC and NDP gumming up the Parliamentary committees?

[jbg]

The difference seems to be that, even with only a year left in a parliament's maximum lifespan, it remains entirely possible for it to end--and an election be called--at any time before that, a possibility that simply doesn't exist in the States.

Great point.

But what would be the political half-life of a PM that "advised" an election three months early purely to catch the opposition off guard?