Is it time for a election to be called?

[PIK]

On 9/3/2018 at 4:42 PM, taxme said:

Canadians appear to get themselves always into trouble because of allowing any political party to have a majority. A minority government would probably be good for Canada and Canadians because then the politicians could not get away with screwing around with the taxpayer's tax dollars anymore and pushing their programs and agendas that Canadians do not want or need or never asked for. Just saying.  

I don't like minority governments. And anyways why have elections when a unelected judge can just shut down the country whenever they feel like it.

[JamesHackerMP]

On 9/3/2018 at 4:57 PM, taxme said:

Why have elections at all in Canada anymore. All we seem to get are more Trudeau's all the time. There must be something better that we can come up with that would make life much easier for the taxpayer's in Canada, eh? One thing that I would like to see happen in Canada though is to have the right to Citizen Initiated Referendums and the Right to Recall like they have in Switzerland. that would pretty much take the power away from politicians who only know how to screw things up and give the power back to we the people. 

Of course for that to happen it would take every Canadian to demand that this gets implemented. This would be one way of where the people would have the power given back to them and for them to be able to get the say on issues like immigration and take that power away from the politicians who have been screwing up our immigration system for several decades now.

C'mon people think about this concept and let's demand it from our politicians who always show that they only have contempt for we the people. We all should know by now that there will never be one politician who will ever ask for this because they like and enjoy playing dictators and ruling over all of our lives.

Anyone here in favor of Citizen Initiated Referendums and the right to Recall to be implemented in Canada?  Yes/no in favor? 

I know I'm not Canadian, but in my own country at least I have never been in favor of federal level referenda, if that's what you mean. The peoples' votes in a referendum are far too easily "managed" or swayed by political interests and insiders. Politicians in other countries (like France under de Gaulle) like to refer laws to referedum that they know will pass the way they want it to before the voting starts. In a representative democracy, national referenda are often smoke-and-mirrors. Just ask the good people of California. Canada isn't as populous as the US but I'll go out on a limb and guess it has a federal structure for good reason. (And California has roughly the same population as Canada, over 30 million). Canada doesn't have the problem with special interests in politics that the US has, but referenda in a large population opens the door for them to manage the result.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

....Canada doesn't have the problem with special interests in politics that the US has, but referenda in a large population opens the door for them to manage the result.

 

I'm not Canadian either, but Canada does have special interest politics.   It even has what has been named...'Charter Politics' to appease such groups.

[taxme]

5 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I know I'm not Canadian, but in my own country at least I have never been in favor of federal level referenda, if that's what you mean. The peoples' votes in a referendum are far too easily "managed" or swayed by political interests and insiders. Politicians in other countries (like France under de Gaulle) like to refer laws to referedum that they know will pass the way they want it to before the voting starts. In a representative democracy, national referenda are often smoke-and-mirrors. Just ask the good people of California. Canada isn't as populous as the US but I'll go out on a limb and guess it has a federal structure for good reason. (And California has roughly the same population as Canada, over 30 million). Canada doesn't have the problem with special interests in politics that the US has, but referenda in a large population opens the door for them to manage the result.

It appears to be working well for the people of Switzerland. Referendums are still in use over there.   Referendums are good and do help the people to have some control and say as to what the government may try to force on the people that will be of no benefit to the people at all. 

Canada has plenty of special interest minority groups who pretty much get to control the politics of Canada and who do get to rule over the majority with their many programs and agendas that will be forced on the majority of Canadians that will be of no benefit to the majority of Canadians.   

Edited September 12, 2018 by taxme

[JamesHackerMP]

On 9/11/2018 at 8:50 PM, taxme said:

It appears to be working well for the people of Switzerland. Referendums are still in use over there.   Referendums are good and do help the people to have some control and say as to what the government may try to force on the people that will be of no benefit to the people at all. 

Canada has plenty of special interest minority groups who pretty much get to control the politics of Canada and who do get to rule over the majority with their many programs and agendas that will be forced on the majority of Canadians that will be of no benefit to the majority of Canadians.   

Doesn't surprise me. People have this romantic view that a democracy (representative system with universal suffrage, etc.) is supposed to be the pure will of the people, and that special interests aren't supposed to control the votes in a democracy. Reality is much different. Even democracies have a "democratic elite", people with more power than their fellow voters. It's not too dissimilar from a corporate shareholders' meeting, wherein every mom and pop shareholder has the right to vote his or her proxy, but the people with the real power are executives of the mutual fund companies or board members (i.e., the people who own a crap-ton of shares). Anyone who holds the idea that if a country doesn't reflect the pure will of the constituents then it's not a real democracy is living in fantasy-land. Democracy is an incredibly flawed form of government. (yeah, yeah I know someone will now say "except for all the others".)

Switzerland is a little different, and a much smaller country. However--though this may seem unrelated--this is a country which didn't let women vote in its federal (and most local) elections, until 1973.

But anyway, I didn't mean to get off topic. We were talking about the Canadian government calling an election. Can the government actually pick the date of an election before the four year deadline is up?

Edited September 13, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[turningrite]

2 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

But anyway, as far as your country (Canada) can the government actually pick the date of an election before the four year deadline is up?

Yes, it can.

[JamesHackerMP]

Even without a no-confidence motion? or the loss by the government of an important vote?

Someone from the UK I was chatting with chastised us silly, backward Americans for not having a "mature" government wherein the head of state and head of government were separated. I'm beginning to realize that there is no such thing when it comes to democratic governments. But that's probably a debate for another thread.

Edited September 13, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[taxme]

16 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Doesn't surprise me. People have this romantic view that a democracy (representative system with universal suffrage, etc.) is supposed to be the pure will of the people, and that special interests aren't supposed to control the votes in a democracy. Reality is much different. Even democracies have a "democratic elite", people with more power than their fellow voters. It's not too dissimilar from a corporate shareholders' meeting, wherein every mom and pop shareholder has the right to vote his or her proxy, but the people with the real power are executives of the mutual fund companies or board members (i.e., the people who own a crap-ton of shares). Anyone who holds the idea that if a country doesn't reflect the pure will of the constituents then it's not a real democracy is living in fantasy-land. Democracy is an incredibly flawed form of government. (yeah, yeah I know someone will now say "except for all the others".)

Switzerland is a little different, and a much smaller country. However--though this may seem unrelated--this is a country which didn't let women vote in its federal (and most local) elections, until 1973.

But anyway, I didn't mean to get off topic. We were talking about the Canadian government calling an election. Can the government actually pick the date of an election before the four year deadline is up?

At least the people of Switzerland do have the opportunity to say no to their politicians if those politicians are trying to put thru something that the people feel is not wanted or needed. That is true democracy. In this case, it is the people who get to run the show and not the politicians who think that they should be the boss. 

Yes, the government can call for another election anytime during their term if they want too. 

[Wilber]

18 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

 

But anyway, I didn't mean to get off topic. We were talking about the Canadian government calling an election. Can the government actually pick the date of an election before the four year deadline is up?

Sort of. A government would have to change the existing law, which it could, or an election could be forced by a non confidence vote.

[JamesHackerMP]

On 9/13/2018 at 5:34 PM, Wilber said:

Sort of. A government would have to change the existing law, which it could, or an election could be forced by a non confidence vote.

OK, so that requires, what, a simple majority? (>50%)

[Wilber]

44 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

OK, so that requires, what, a simple majority? (>50%)

Yup.

[PIK]

 

Prime Minister Harper ignored his own fixed date legislation when he called a snap election shortly after the legislation was passed. Like I said, it's viewed more as a guideline. (Reference Capt. Hector Barbossa)

And chretien called one for no reason ,except he was dared to do it. Wasted millions on that one.

[turningrite]

 

And chretien called one for no reason ,except he was dared to do it. Wasted millions on that one.

PIK: You're correct. People often misinterpret fixed election date legislation as somehow limiting the ability of sitting governments to manipulate election timing when these laws are primarily symbolic.

[JamesHackerMP]

How can the law setting a fixed date for an election be primarily symbolic? Do you mean because parliament can simply ignore it? or they have to pass another law overturning it....then call the election?

[Queenmandy85]

Prime Minister Harper introduced the fixed election date and then called a snap election a little later without changing the law. The problem with a fixed election date is it tends to extend the unofficial campaign. If the PM wishes to call a snap election for nefarious reasons, the Governor General can always (in the words of Capt. Hector Barbossa) decline to acquiesce  to their request.(King-Byng).

[JamesHackerMP]

I still can't believe you have to go four years without an election. We've clipped the wings of presidents by putting in a new Congress that can do a 180 (if the party majority changes) because we have a new Congress (or re elect the old ones) every two years. Though I think Australia has a happy medium between the two: they have a three-year parliament.

How many times has the GG ever refused to allow an early election?