Jump to content

Fixed Election Dates


Recommended Posts

Finally, but will it pass ?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday he plans to introduce a bill to set fixed dates for federal elections, as part of a wider movement towards democratic reform.

"Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar," Harper told reporters in Victoria, B.C. "They level the playing field for all parties."

The bill will be introduced next week and proposes to set fixed election dates every four years.

The next election would be set for fall of 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, but will it pass ?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday he plans to introduce a bill to set fixed dates for federal elections, as part of a wider movement towards democratic reform.

"Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar," Harper told reporters in Victoria, B.C. "They level the playing field for all parties."

The bill will be introduced next week and proposes to set fixed election dates every four years.

The next election would be set for fall of 2009.

Harper is saying he won't call an election until the fall of 2009. If there is to be an election earlier than that it will be up to Parliament. How could the opposition not vote for it unless they believe that political opportunism is more important than the peoples business. I am really happy with the fixed dates in BC. It means we don't have to go through an election before the government has run its term unless all the parties have decided it will be so and all the parties have to take responsibility for the fact, not just the governing party.

Considering his strength in the polls, I am pleasantly surprised that he would commit himself to such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Warwick Green
Finally, but will it pass ?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday he plans to introduce a bill to set fixed dates for federal elections, as part of a wider movement towards democratic reform.

"Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar," Harper told reporters in Victoria, B.C. "They level the playing field for all parties."

The bill will be introduced next week and proposes to set fixed election dates every four years.

The next election would be set for fall of 2009.

I like it too. The opposition can still bring down the government and force an election (and face possible public wrath) but we would be spared a whole pile of "will he, won't he" speculation about the PM calling a snap election.

Shrewed politics for a minority government. Almost daring the opposition to call an election.

The public will like it too. Hard to see the Oppos voting it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only people who won't like it are those who think its okay to call a snap election based on how high the gov't is in the polls. I'm guessing the liberals won't like it, but it sure wouldn't look good on them during the next election campaign.

If McGuinty can bring in fixed election terms provincially it would be great to see a permanent election office with one returning officer in charge. The returning office would be hired based on merit, not given the job as a patronage appointment. Training of election staff would be able start earlier hopefully resulting in better quality. Enumerating could also be ongoing and data bases kept up to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Warwick Green
I think the only people who won't like it are those who think its okay to call a snap election based on how high the gov't is in the polls. I'm guessing the liberals won't like it, but it sure wouldn't look good on them during the next election campaign.

If McGuinty can bring in fixed election terms provincially it would be great to see a permanent election office with one returning officer in charge. The returning office would be hired based on merit, not given the job as a patronage appointment. Training of election staff would be able start earlier hopefully resulting in better quality. Enumerating could also be ongoing and data bases kept up to date.

I can't see Harper losing on this either way. Sure Jolly Jack might want it tied to a review of the electoral process (which Harper would agree with since it's not likley to go anywhere) but if the Oppos vote down fixed election dates they just woudn't dare force an election before the four years.

Billy Graham is apprehensive, as he should be, since if the bill passes it will be more awkward for the Opps to decide one day just to bring down the government. But, given the second-raters running for the Lib leadership, I would think they would want as much time as possible to get the party election-ready.

The bill -- supposedly coming on Monday -- will also have provision for an elected Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible, in our system to really fix election dates, and you can be certain that if an issue that seemed to require an early election, likely to favour the government came up, an exception would be made. Furthermore, it is not particularly, a good idea.

It is true, whatever the circumstance, the opposition could force an election, regardless of what the government desired. Such an election, would usually be forced in regard to an 'issue' which the opposition judged to be sufficiently offensive to the voters, to ensure their victory over the government. In such a case, if the opposition were correct in their assessment, they would win, and it is doubtful that many would vote against them simply because they forced an election. Of course, if the opposition were wrong, and the issue were not an important one, they would be defeated, and many would say it was because they forced an election, and the people didn't want that. That would be an incorrect assessment.

It is impossible for the house of commons to effect a change in the Senate, to make it elected, or anything else. That is not the way the system works, it is a constitutional matter, and not up to them. It would be a bad idea in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Warwick Green
It is impossible for the house of commons to effect a change in the Senate, to make it elected, or anything else. That is not the way the system works, it is a constitutional matter, and not up to them. It would be a bad idea in any case.

The PM has complete control over Senate appointments. He can't change the numbers for each province but he could enter into an arrangement to change the selection process, if he wished - like recognizing elected Alberta senators, as an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time that fixed election dates might not work is with a minority gov't, with a majority gov't it would work, unless for some reason the governing party voted against its own financial bills or somehow engineered its own defeat. It won't effect this minority gov't but would any future majority gov't. A fixed date could take away a government's ability to call an election because of a legislative impasse.

NDP Nystrom put forward a similar bill in 2004, so the NDP should support it I don't see much of a downside to it at all.

Senate Reform is a larger issue, but IMHO its overdue, baby steps here, one step at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick press review on the optics of this issue.

Bill Graham, interim leader of the Liberal party, said his party will review the idea to see if it's appropriate for Canada's democratic system.
Toronto Star

That sentence is a killer. Who is setting the agenda, and who is following it? The federal Liberals, so obsessed by image, look completely out of the loop.

----

Federal elections are expensive and difficult to organize, so the party that knows in advance when one will be called can mobilize ahead of the others. But Mr. Harper said he is willing to forgo that advantage.

The polls say that the Conservative Party would win a majority if an election were called today, he said.

"The same polls say no one wants an election. . . . So unless we are defeated or prevented from governing, we want to keep moving forward and making this minority Parliament work over the next 3½ years."

G & M

Harper admits to taking polls into consideration when making a decision! Imagine!

----

IMHO, we have fixed election dates now but the term is five years. This legislation will reduce it to four. In a parliamentary system, I don't know if it's possible to prevent a PM from holding a snap election using one guise or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible for the house of commons to effect a change in the Senate, to make it elected, or anything else. That is not the way the system works, it is a constitutional matter, and not up to them. It would be a bad idea in any case.
The BNA Act only specifies certain criteria a Senator must meet and how many Senators each province will have. It says nothing about how Senators are selected.

The 1982 Amending formula states:

42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):

(B) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons; and

(B) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of the provinces.

Constitution

Presumably, Harper has spoken to seven provincial premiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Warwick Green
The BNA Act only specifies certain criteria a Senator must meet and how many Senators each province will have. It says nothing about how Senators are selected.

The government is therefore able to change the selection process without consitutional amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed election dates are a big joke. It's about the easiest way to make it look like we are getting reform, but in reality, it doesn't do anything.

It's simple enough for a government to setup a motion that will surely be defeated on confidence, we've seen it many times in our political history.

Fixed election dates don't do a thing in a parlimentary system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed election dates are a big joke. It's about the easiest way to make it look like we are getting reform, but in reality, it doesn't do anything.

It's simple enough for a government to setup a motion that will surely be defeated on confidence, we've seen it many times in our political history.

Fixed election dates don't do a thing in a parlimentary system.

Sure it does, it stops the government from manpulating times that they are doing good in office and calling a snap election to only be re elected again. With this reform it will stop that BS and if a party is doing bad on the fourth year an election is called no matter what and they cannot do anything about it.

It is a lo better than our current system of the PM chosing when the election is or every 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Warwick Green

Fixed election dates are a big joke. It's about the easiest way to make it look like we are getting reform, but in reality, it doesn't do anything.

It's simple enough for a government to setup a motion that will surely be defeated on confidence, we've seen it many times in our political history.

Fixed election dates don't do a thing in a parlimentary system.

Sure it does, it stops the government from manpulating times that they are doing good in office and calling a snap election to only be re elected again. With this reform it will stop that BS and if a party is doing bad on the fourth year an election is called no matter what and they cannot do anything about it.

It is a lo better than our current system of the PM chosing when the election is or every 5 years.

I agree with you. Harper now should now say. "I will not call an election until the fall of 2009. However I can't stop the opposition from passing a non-confidence motion and forcing an election". That way he puts it in the Oppos hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed election dates are a big joke. It's about the easiest way to make it look like we are getting reform, but in reality, it doesn't do anything.

It's simple enough for a government to setup a motion that will surely be defeated on confidence, we've seen it many times in our political history.

Fixed election dates don't do a thing in a parlimentary system.

Sure it does, it stops the government from manpulating times that they are doing good in office and calling a snap election to only be re elected again. With this reform it will stop that BS and if a party is doing bad on the fourth year an election is called no matter what and they cannot do anything about it.

It is a lo better than our current system of the PM chosing when the election is or every 5 years.

I agree with you. Harper now should now say. "I will not call an election until the fall of 2009. However I can't stop the opposition from passing a non-confidence motion and forcing an election". That way he puts it in the Oppos hands.

By presenting a bill calling for fixed election dates, isn't that just what he is doing. He would have to go against his own legislation to do otherwise. Isn't he saying we are going to govern and if the opposition wants to throw all impending legislation in the dumpster, put the country's business on hold for several months and spend millions of tax dollars on an election, so be it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fixed election dates won't work in a minority government situation, since obviously the opposition can bring down the government anytime.

It may work in a majority government, but hypothetically even in a majority situation, some members of the governing party may decided to vote with the opposition on an issue of confidence (though probably not likely). Though I suppose if it were done on purpose they would have to face the electorate.

Finally, I think it would be hypocritical for harper to criticize the opposition for bringing down the government early, afterall he tried pretty hard to bring the liberals down back in 2005. Then again harper is known for his hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Warwick Green
Fixed election dates won't work in a minority government situation, since obviously the opposition can bring down the government anytime.

It may work in a majority government, but hypothetically even in a majority situation, some members of the governing party may decided to vote with the opposition on an issue of confidence (though probably not likely). Though I suppose if it were done on purpose they would have to face the electorate.

Finally, I think it would be hypocritical for harper to criticize the opposition for bringing down the government early, afterall he tried pretty hard to bring the liberals down back in 2005. Then again harper is known for his hypocrisy.

Harper has some wiggle room being a new governement - and popular, at least for now. It's not like the tired out grits who many people wanted to turf. Of course he can't guarantee that there won't be an election between now and the fall of 2009 - just that he won't be the one seen as causing it, which is all he wants to do anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This Prime Minister wants to put elected people in the Senate, so I'm looking for a way to consult the population through an electoral process on the choices we should make for the Senate," he said. "That's something the federal government can do acting on its own. Obviously, if there was a will of the provinces to assist in that process, we'd find a way to use them, but our view is that the federal government, acting alone, has the capacity to create an elected Senate."
G & M

So this is how Harper plans to have an elected Senate without having to go through the process of a constitutional amendment. As PM, he'll "appoint" Senators (there are eight vacancies now) after "consulting" the population through an election. That will work now but any future PM will only have Harpers' precedent as an obligation to do the same.

We've been down this road before. Mulroney appointed Stan Waters to the Senate after an election in Alberta in 1990. Chretien and Martin then reverted to the usual practice, ignoring the result of so-called "Senate elections" in Alberta.

Setting a term limit for a senator does not require the approval of the provinces, although other changes, like altering the composition of the Senate, require the support of at least seven provinces that comprise 50 per cent of the population.
I like the eight year term limit. It's an improvement over what we've got now.
"I think the only way you're going to get change is one step at a time," Mr. Harper told The Globe and Mail and CTV News in an interview. "If we try and change everything, we're going to change nothing. I say let's make some improvements one step at a time and try and find consensus."
I have to agree. Harper is very much an English-Canadian.

Lastly:

It was the Prime Minister's first interview with The Globe and Mail since the winter election campaign.
Paul Wells is on about this too. I thought the G&M was boycotting PMO interview lists and such?

And:

Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale dismissed the ideas as politicking. "Quite frankly, what you have got here, I think, is a series of hot-button, poll-driven, knee-jerk, ad hoc measures," he said.
The Liberal Party is getting more and more pathetic everyday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The idea that Canada has no fixed election dates is odd. The system *does* have fixed election dates. From the date of a new election, a timetable clicks down to when a new election must be held.

What the Canadian system allows for is for the government to call an election when it suits them. However, it also allows for the opposition to call a vote of non-confidence and bring about an election as well.

Harper might regret a fixed election date of 2009. The system in Canada was never set up as a "checks and balances" system. It was set up as "responsible" government. And for responsible government to work, it means that the confidence of Parliament must be maintained. Harper might find Parliament is at an impasse and the opposition won't call a vote of non-confidence but simply let the bells ring for vote calls. It will paralyze Parliament. Normally, the prime minister could take the issue to the electorate and possibly win.

There are just as many problems of fixed dates. I don't think it is as simple as many would like to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Canada has no fixed election dates is odd. The system *does* have fixed election dates. From the date of a new election, a timetable clicks down to when a new election must be held.

What the Canadian system allows for is for the government to call an election when it suits them. However, it also allows for the opposition to call a vote of non-confidence and bring about an election as well.

Harper might regret a fixed election date of 2009. The system in Canada was never set up as a "checks and balances" system. It was set up as "responsible" government. And for responsible government to work, it means that the confidence of Parliament must be maintained. Harper might find Parliament is at an impasse and the opposition won't call a vote of non-confidence but simply let the bells ring for vote calls. It will paralyze Parliament. Normally, the prime minister could take the issue to the electorate and possibly win.

There are just as many problems of fixed dates. I don't think it is as simple as many would like to think.

It's true Harper may regret it but so what? He works for us, not the other way around.

Working well here in BC so far and I hope the system stays. Of course a loss of confidence could trigger an election at any time but I am all in favour of a system that prevents a government from throwing all the nations business in the dumpster and puts it through the inconvenience and an expense of an election, just because a party which holds a majority sees an opportunity to press a political advantage. That in my opinion is irresponsible government.

We elect a government to do a job for a certain length of time as long as it can maintain the confidence of Parliament. It should do the job it was elected to do for the full time it was hired rather than screwing with the system for no other reason than the pursuit of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Canada has no fixed election dates is odd. The system *does* have fixed election dates. From the date of a new election, a timetable clicks down to when a new election must be held.
I agree with you, more or less.

The current system is that parliament cannot go longer than five years. Harper would make two changes: reduce the maximum length of parliament from five to four years and fix a specific election date in advance.

Reducing the length of parliament might work but the specific election date won't. Any future PM who wants to call a snap election will find a way. Harper's legislation just makes it a little more difficult to do. Overall, the idea is to curb the power of the government so I suppose it's a good idea.

A minor question. If our next election is by chance on 10 Feb 2007 and a majority government is elected, does that mean the locked-in subsequent election date will be 10 Feb 2011? That is, are we stuck with winter elections forever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Canada has no fixed election dates is odd. The system *does* have fixed election dates. From the date of a new election, a timetable clicks down to when a new election must be held.

What the Canadian system allows for is for the government to call an election when it suits them. However, it also allows for the opposition to call a vote of non-confidence and bring about an election as well.

Harper might regret a fixed election date of 2009. The system in Canada was never set up as a "checks and balances" system. It was set up as "responsible" government. And for responsible government to work, it means that the confidence of Parliament must be maintained. Harper might find Parliament is at an impasse and the opposition won't call a vote of non-confidence but simply let the bells ring for vote calls. It will paralyze Parliament. Normally, the prime minister could take the issue to the electorate and possibly win.

There are just as many problems of fixed dates. I don't think it is as simple as many would like to think.

It's true Harper may regret it but so what? He works for us, not the other way around.

Working well here in BC so far and I hope the system stays. Of course a loss of confidence could trigger an election at any time but I am all in favour of a system that prevents a government from throwing all the nations business in the dumpster and puts it through the inconvenience and an expense of an election, just because a party which holds a majority sees an opportunity to press a political advantage. That in my opinion is irresponsible government.

We elect a government to do a job for a certain length of time as long as it can maintain the confidence of Parliament. It should do the job it was elected to do for the full time it was hired rather than screwing with the system for no other reason than the pursuit of power.

But you see my point is that a shrewd opposition could thwart Parliamenent and *not* call a vote of non-confidence and grind Parliament to a halt. A government would then be stuck till the next election because they've trapped themselves into the fixed election date.

It is quite possible that we might see this soon in BC. Some commentators have already predicted it as a tactic for opposition parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Canada has no fixed election dates is odd. The system *does* have fixed election dates. From the date of a new election, a timetable clicks down to when a new election must be held.

I agree with you, more or less.

The current system is that parliament cannot go longer than five years. Harper would make two changes: reduce the maximum length of parliament from five to four years and fix a specific election date in advance.

Reducing the length of parliament might work but the specific election date won't. Any future PM who wants to call a snap election will find a way. Harper's legislation just makes it a little more difficult to do. Overall, the idea is to curb the power of the government so I suppose it's a good idea.

A minor question. If our next election is by chance on 10 Feb 2007 and a majority government is elected, does that mean the locked-in subsequent election date will be 10 Feb 2011? That is, are we stuck with winter elections forever?

This is the other sucky thing about the legislation is that if a minority government is brought down in dead of winter, we could have several elections in dead of winter if the time is fixed.

I agree that a reducing the election call to every four years is doable. What shouldn't happen is that a prime minister should not have to be held captive to election timing while the opposition can call it any time they want (at least in a minority situation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you see my point is that a shrewd opposition could thwart Parliamenent and *not* call a vote of non-confidence and grind Parliament to a halt.
A supply bill is a non-confidence vote so a government need only present one and lose.

I don't think this change makes for fixed-date elections; it just changes the rules of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you see my point is that a shrewd opposition could thwart Parliamenent and *not* call a vote of non-confidence and grind Parliament to a halt.

A supply bill is a non-confidence vote so a government need only present one and lose.

I don't think this change makes for fixed-date elections; it just changes the rules of the game.

If the opposition shows up to vote. They can thwart Parliament by letting the bells ring. It was used most recently in Manitoba in the last months. It's an old tactic that could work even more effectively if an election date is fixed.

Imagine it done in Ottawa. The opposiition just stays away from Parliamentary votes and lets the bells ring day and night. The govenment can't lose because there is never any vote on confidence. No minority initiated election. Just a ground down Parliament.

And you might magine this reflects poorly on the opposition but history has shown that it is the government that suffers the most during these tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...