Should Canada adopt the American style fixed date federal elections?

[Fletch 27]

that doesn't make the government less stable but it would indicate greater integrity of office...

Berlusconi... Ozzes integrity

[jbg]

you forgot the part where the electoral college decides not the US public...

That was supposed to be the case originally. As a matter of tradition and practice that is not the case.

The joker in the deck, though, is state legislatures. They usually have the responsibility for ratifying that state's Secretary of State's certification of the winner. In Florida in 2000 the legislature made it clear that if the difference in votes were miniscule it would send Republican electors to the "College." The Supreme Court, being wary of the resulting constitutional crisis, punted and halted the recounts with the Republicans then ahead. The Court did not want the spectacle of its ruling being disobeyed.

[wyly]

And that, as they say, is that.

and Germany has had 8...and that, as they say, is that...slam dunk

[jbg]

How could we do this?

By tradition, we have general elections every five years or so. Harper (apparently) shorthened this tradition by a year, and fixed a date.

Can you name one majority mandate, other than the Mulroney 1988 mandate that ran materially beyond the four (4) year period? The answer is you can't because there aren't any (I haven't looked at Borden's WW I mandate or King's WW II mandate so maybe I am wrong).

The four (4) year period is quite standard for majority mandates in both Canada and the U.K. Certain PM's such as Chretien made an art form of triggering earlier elections. Both of the elections Chretien advised the Governor General to call were short of the four (4) years: (1) April 1997, or about seven months short; and (2) November 2000, or about six months short. Paul Martin called the June 28, 2004 election early but it is somewhat standard for a PM taking over the end of an elected PM's mandate to call an election almost immediately in order to establish his/her own legitimacy. John Napier Turner also did this.

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.

Ask Gough Whitlam the answer to that quesiton. Edited December 7, 2012 by jbg

[jbg]

...how popular do you think Merkels bailing out of greece was with the german populace?

Agreed, and contradicting TimG's point, however, Merkel recognized that if her government fell the people would get...drum roll...another coalition.

[g_bambino]

that doesn't make the government less stable...

Frequent change is stability? Methinks you should check your dictionary again.

but it would indicate greater integrity of office and internal party politics...

Sorry, I don't see that as immediately evident.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited December 7, 2012 by g_bambino

[Wilber]

I like the idea of fixed dates but only in the case of majority governments. Historically, the only reason majorities have called elections is to pursue a political advantage and serve their own interests, not the country's. Fixed dates in the case of minority governments could result in the same kind of mess we are seeing right now in the US.

[Smallc]

Fixed dates already exist at the maximum end. There's just no real minimum, despite the legislation.

[Fletch 27]

We should leave Harpers term open indefinatly... well, at least till a competant opposition can be found... 8 years? more?

[Smallc]

[bleeding heart]

We should leave Harpers term open indefinatly... well, at least till a competant opposition can be found... 8 years? more?

Why not just make it permanent? Democracy is dangerous when we've already found the Perfect Leader.

[Fletch 27]

Harper can improve... I have a number of items on his list that i disagree on... For now however, there seems to be no-one even close to his professionalism and business accumen.. Lots of hot-air and inexperience in the opposition, thats all..

Im ok giving Harper 8+ years till someone better comes around

[g_bambino]

We should leave Harpers term open indefinatly...

It is open indefinitely. There's no limit on the amount of time someone can serve as prime minister.

[Fletch 27]

Thats what i said! as opposed to shortening it as ome would propose...

[jbg]

We should leave Harpers term open indefinatly... well, at least till a competant opposition can be found... 8 years? more?

Think Britain's "Long Parliament." Hint, it didn't work out too well (link).

[-TSS-]

I think the advantage of the government to decide the date of the eelction gives it too much a headway and it becomes unfair. Elections should be on fixed dates instead of being called at the whims of governments.

[jbg]

I think the advantage of the government to decide the date of the eelction gives it too much a headway and it becomes unfair. Elections should be on fixed dates instead of being called at the whims of governments.

Generally I agree but you better get to love election ads and speeches. In the U.S. the campaign for the November 2008 election effectively started in January 2007. Ditto for 2012.

[wyly]

Frequent change is stability? Methinks you should check your dictionary again.

Sorry, I don't see that as immediately evident.

[ed.: c/e]

methinks you'll look under every rock desperate to find the tiniest most meaningless shred of evidence in to prop up your futile defense of fptp...fptp it's a stupid and flawed system, undemocratic and unpopular around the globe

[wyly]

Agreed, and contradicting TimG's point, however, Merkel recognized that if her government fell the people would get...drum roll...another coalition.

and merkel's coalition is stable, there is no reason why a coalition should be an more unstable than a what er have now...our cpc is a coalition of two parties...

angela Merkel-

"We have guided Germany out of the crisis stronger than Germany entered the crisis," she said to a cheering audience.

In a nod to her struggling coalition Free Democratic Party partners, she said "in these times no coalition could lead our country better."

"This government is the most successful government since reunification," she said.

[Smallc]

And the governance of Canada has been extremely successful as well. So what?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Generally I agree but you better get to love election ads and speeches. In the U.S. the campaign for the November 2008 election effectively started in January 2007. Ditto for 2012.

The price you pay for democracy. Can we elect the Prime Minister here too if that wouldn't be too much to ask for....

[Smallc]

The price you pay for democracy. Can we elect the Prime Minister here too if that wouldn't be too much to ask for....

That really doesn't work in our system of government.

[jbg]

The price you pay for democracy. Can we elect the Prime Minister here too if that wouldn't be too much to ask for....

You misunderstand me.

My point is that if the election date is not fixed, it is harder to have a perpetual running campaign since the target is moving. If the election is every four years, and the first Tuesday of November that isn't November 1, there is an irresistible urge to start the campaign progressively earlier.

Fixed election dates do solve the problem of snap elections called at favorable times. Thatcher and Chretien made that an art form. 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.

In the U.S., however, we have always had fixed elections. That gives a fixed target to aim at. Until 1968 this wasn't much of a problem. In that year, Eugene McCarthy came close enough to winning the (then early) New Hampshire primary that everyone had heretofore ignored to force Lyndon Johnson to exit the Presidential race. In 1972 the candidates were stomping their snow boots in New Hampshire for about two (2) months before the March primary.

Jimmy Carter, who could not expect to do well in New Hampshire given his Georgia roots, then fastened on the Iowa caucuses (more similar to Canada's EDA [i think that's the right term for riding caucus] meeting), which were in, I believe, early February 1976. His lead there gave him enough momentum to survive a humdrum New Hampshire result to go on to victory. At that point, Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida started playing tag to be "first". Thus, the campaigning has started earlier and earlier.

The almost absolute First Amendment the length of a campaign is beyond government regulation. I suppose that Elections Canada, on the other hand, can find ways to prevent the next campaign from starting during the Spring of 2014 (for the upcoming May 2015 elections since you now have a majority government within the fixed election law). So maybe Canada will lead the way towards a happy medium.

I still don't know that there is a fix or happy medium between the manipulable "snap" elections and the perpetual campaign inherent in "fixed" elections.

Edited December 7, 2012 by jbg

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You misunderstand me.

My point is that if the election date is not fixed, it is harder to have a perpetual running campaign since the target is moving. If the election is every four years, and the first Tuesday of November that isn't November 1, there is an irresistible urge to start the campaign progressively earlier.

Fixed election dates do solve the problem of snap elections called at favorable times. Thatcher and Chretien made that an art form. 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.

In the U.S., however, we have always had fixed elections. That gives a fixed target to aim at. Until 1968 this wasn't much of a problem. In that year, Eugene McCarthy came close enough to winning the (then early) New Hampshire primary that everyone had heretofore ignored to force Lyndon Johnson to exit the Presidential race. In 1972 the candidates were stomping their snow boots in New Hampshire for about two (2) months before the March primary.

Jimmy Carter, who could not expect to do well in New Hampshire given his Georgia roots, then fastened on the Iowa caucuses (more similar to Canada's EDA [i think that's the right term for riding caucus] meeting), which were in, I believe, early February 1976. His lead there gave him enough momentum to survive a humdrum New Hampshire result to go on to victory. At that point, Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida started playing tag to be "first". Thus, the campaigning has started earlier and earlier.

The almost absolute First Amendment the length of a campaign is beyond government regulation. I suppose that Elections Canada, on the other hand, can find ways to prevent the next campaign from starting during the Spring of 2014 (for the upcoming May 2015 elections since you now have a majority government within the fixed election law). So maybe Canada will lead the way towards a happy medium.

I still don't know that there is a fix or happy medium between the manipulable "snap" elections and the perpetual campaign inherent in "fixed" elections.

Oh I understand....its just that we have never had the idea that an election would resolve a few issues either. That is how the public gets an agenda by having fixed election dates. The public agenda up here is manufactured by partisan opinion and manipulated to function as a political tool of office. Power is heavily concentrated in the Prime Ministers office not by constitutional right but instead at the hands of those in power, plain and simple. Fixed election dates will cramp that style, and we already have the means on the books now so I guess I am in favour of it.

In Canada we actually need this law. The fact that we create an eternal election mode political model is the price we must pay. The next step should be take a page off the Aussie book and make democratic participation mandatory under federal law. Public participation in the democratic process should not be optional. Use it or lose it applies in this case.

[wyly]

And the governance of Canada has been extremely successful as well. So what?

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

China's democracy is successful as well as that a reason to copy it?...

we need more/better democracy not less...better representation of PR is more democratic than FPTP...