Fixed Election Dates

[[email protected]]

Should we have fixed election dates provincially?

[Saturn]

Should we have fixed election dates provincially?

Yes. In Ontario we already do.

[Mad_Michael]

Should we have fixed election dates provincially?

No.

Such 'fixed' dates are an abomination under the Westminster model of parliamentary government.

[[email protected]]

Should we have fixed election dates provincially?

No.

Such 'fixed' dates are an abomination under the Westminster model of parliamentary government.

Why?

[geoffrey]

Why?

Your really struggling with your comprehension of how our system works. Confidence of the house is required for our system to have ANY reasonable democratic value. Once that confidence is gone, then an election is in order. Setting a fixed date is either:

a ) pointless, as the PM can call an election anytime anyways or engineering their own defeat.

b ) if you force an election on that day regardless of the past 4 years, we'd get a whole lot of nothing in between a non-confidence motion and the election day.

In a majority situation, the dates are generally close to 4 years. That's good enough.

[[email protected]]

Why?

Your really struggling with your comprehension of how our system works. Confidence of the house is required for our system to have ANY reasonable democratic value.

We propose dumping the whole 'confidence' idea and electing the Premier/PM directly where they serve as head of the civil service. Both the house and the PM would operate on a fixed election cycle.

[Wilber]

Have had them in BC since 2001. Half way through the second mandate using a fixed date.

[Mad_Michael]

Why?

Your really struggling with your comprehension of how our system works. Confidence of the house is required for our system to have ANY reasonable democratic value.

We propose dumping the whole 'confidence' idea and electing the Premier/PM directly where they serve as head of the civil service. Both the house and the PM would operate on a fixed election cycle.

So, in other words you propose getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature and there is no responsibility at all?

No thank you!

[ScottSA]

So, in other words you propose getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature and there is no responsibility at all?

No thank you!

I'm not taking sides on this one, but that's not an argument. That's the same kind of anti-American demagoguery practised by the NDP and Liberals for the last few decades. Sooner or later they may realize that mocking a country that has out-successed Canada by virtually every conceivable measure is not a particularly convincing argument, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Oh, and by the way, since when is fixing election dates tantamount to "getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature"? That's an extremely flammable strawman.

[Wilber]

Oh, and by the way, since when is fixing election dates tantamount to "getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature"? That's an extremely flammable strawman.

True enough. Of course it won't prevent a minority government from having to call an election if it looses the confidence of Parliament but it will prevent any government from calling one for no other reason than political opportunism which is the case most of the time.

Games will be played and minorities may be able to engineer their own defeat at times but it would be more difficult to screw around with the system using fixed dates.

[M.Dancer]

Oh, and by the way, since when is fixing election dates tantamount to "getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature"? That's an extremely flammable strawman.

True enough. Of course it won't prevent a minority government from having to call an election if it looses the confidence of Parliament but it will prevent any government from calling one for no other reason than political opportunism which is the case most of the time.

Games will be played and minorities may be able to engineer their own defeat at times but it would be more difficult to screw around with the system using fixed dates.

Yeah I don't know. It does prevent a governement from going to the polls on an important issue. What say if the gov't felt it needed a mandate to fight global warming? Would that be a reasonable excuse to call an election?

[Wilber]

Yeah I don't know. It does prevent a governement from going to the polls on an important issue. What say if the gov't felt it needed a mandate to fight global warming? Would that be a reasonable excuse to call an election?

Unless it is a loss of confidence, governments always call elections on the premise that they need a mandate for something. The real reason is almost always that they feel it is the most opportune time to advance or hold on to their own political fortunes. It is never because they need a mandate on a specific issue regardless of what they say.

[ScottSA]

Holding aloft the idea of a popular mandate is one way to look at it, but at least as often, the election is called because the government thinks it has a chance to increase its standing.

[geoffrey]

We propose dumping the whole 'confidence' idea and electing the Premier/PM directly where they serve as head of the civil service. Both the house and the PM would operate on a fixed election cycle.

Well that's completely different. In that system, fixed dates are needed. In the current system, it can't work.

[Wilber]

We propose dumping the whole 'confidence' idea and electing the Premier/PM directly where they serve as head of the civil service. Both the house and the PM would operate on a fixed election cycle.

Well that's completely different. In that system, fixed dates are needed. In the current system, it can't work.

Why not? It is working so far in BC. There hasn't been any speculation on an early election since it was brought in six years ago because we know the exact day of the next election.

[geoffrey]

Why not? It is working so far in BC. There hasn't been any speculation on an early election since it was brought in six years ago because we know the exact day of the next election.

In BC with a majority government, it's one thing.

Right now though in Ottawa, we have a fixed date upon the passing of C-16 today in the Senate(Link to Bill)... which I'm unsure if that happened... the third Monday of October 2009. Will that ever happen? Not a snowballs chance in hell.

So why waste our time pretending?

--

Funny Harper's comments on the topic:

He said he was willing to give up a prerogative traditionally enjoyed by sitting prime ministers.

"I read the polls saying if I called an election now we would win a majority. The same polls also say no one wants an election now, and no one does want an unnecessary election. So unless we're defeated or prevented from governing we want to keep moving forward to make this minority parliament work over the next 3½ years."

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/26/...ote-060526.html

Hmmm....

[Wilber]

Right now though in Ottawa, we have a fixed date upon the passing of C-16 today in the Senate(Link to Bill)... which I'm unsure if that happened... the third Monday of October 2009. Will that ever happen? Not a snowballs chance in hell.

Most probably not with a minority government but they are the exception and of course a government cannot function if it doesn't have the confidence of Parliament, so an election would have to be called. I am in favour of them for no other reason than they prevent governments from calling elections based purely on political advantage, particularly majority governments who have no other interest than padding or maintaining their majority.

[Mad_Michael]

So, in other words you propose getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature and there is no responsibility at all?

No thank you!

I'm not taking sides on this one, but that's not an argument. That's the same kind of anti-American demagoguery practised by the NDP and Liberals for the last few decades. Sooner or later they may realize that mocking a country that has out-successed Canada by virtually every conceivable measure is not a particularly convincing argument, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Oh, and by the way, since when is fixing election dates tantamount to "getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature"? That's an extremely flammable strawman.

Get a grip.

Preferring the Westminster model over the split American system is a valid principle based upon the character of electoral responsibility accorded to each system.

In the Westminster model, there is formal electoral responsibility for all government functions. If you object to anything, responsibility for that policy is clear cut.

In the American system where the executive is split from the legislature, there is no formal electoral responsibility for government policy. For example, if the US Federal government spends like a drunken sailor, who ought the voter hold responsible for this? The President or Congress? Both are able to deny responsibility by pointing at the other.

P.S. Normally I don't bother to reply to those who make baseless accusations and insults. I'm not likely to bother replying to you in future on this basis.

[[email protected]]

So, in other words you propose getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature and there is no responsibility at all?

No thank you!

I'm not taking sides on this one, but that's not an argument. That's the same kind of anti-American demagoguery practised by the NDP and Liberals for the last few decades. Sooner or later they may realize that mocking a country that has out-successed Canada by virtually every conceivable measure is not a particularly convincing argument, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Oh, and by the way, since when is fixing election dates tantamount to "getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature"? That's an extremely flammable strawman.

Get a grip.

Preferring the Westminster model over the split American system is a valid principle based upon the character of electoral responsibility accorded to each system.

In the Westminster model, there is formal electoral responsibility for all government functions. If you object to anything, responsibility for that policy is clear cut.

In the American system where the executive is split from the legislature, there is no formal electoral responsibility for government policy. For example, if the US Federal government spends like a drunken sailor, who ought the voter hold responsible for this? The President or Congress? Both are able to deny responsibility by pointing at the other.

P.S. Normally I don't bother to reply to those who make baseless accusations and insults. I'm not likely to bother replying to you in future on this basis.

First, what we are proposing is not a 'presidential' system. There is no president, there is still a premier and the cabinet managing the government. It is not a republican system since the Queen is still the head of state. And it is not an 'American' system, it is the traditional English model of a separate legislature to restrain and check the monarchy.

In this separation model there is clear responsibility. The government formulates policy suggestions and the house deliberates and either agrees or declines the proposal. Responsibility is clear, in cases where there is compromise and/or consensual decision making then it is possible for either side to point fingers but that's the nature of governance sometimes; a team effort, and then it is up to the voters to decide who did what. Given the media and disclosure most times the answer will be straight forward.

It is only because the PM/premier is an elected dictator that makes he/she an easy target for unpopular measures. To cling to a poor governance system to facilitate facile finger pointing is irrational.

[Mad_Michael]

First, what we are proposing is not a 'presidential' system. There is no president, there is still a premier and the cabinet managing the government. It is not a republican system since the Queen is still the head of state. And it is not an 'American' system, it is the traditional English model of a separate legislature to restrain and check the monarchy.

In this separation model there is clear responsibility. The government formulates policy suggestions and the house deliberates and either agrees or declines the proposal. Responsibility is clear, in cases where there is compromise and/or consensual decision making then it is possible for either side to point fingers but that's the nature of governance sometimes; a team effort, and then it is up to the voters to decide who did what. Given the media and disclosure most times the answer will be straight forward.

It is only because the PM/premier is an elected dictator that makes he/she an easy target for unpopular measures. To cling to a poor governance system to facilitate facile finger pointing is irrational.

Does the executive hold that position by confidence of the legislature (in which case the executive is linked directly to the legislature) or by popular election (in which case the executive is entirely separate from the legislature). The choice is simple. The first is the Westminster model, the second is the Presidential model.

[BornAlbertan]

The Westminster parliamentary model is an archaic institution which was designed to accomodate the monarchy within a democratic society. That in and of itself is an oxymoron. A democracy...in which a BIRTHRIGHT determines the head of state.

The Windsors are nothing now but relics from midieval governance in which the common man was uneducated and unable to make choices for the betterment of society. Our education system inherently proves the Westminster model to be archane.

The monarchy should be abolished.

Fixed election dates should be established with provisions for "recalls"

And a representation model like the Electorate College in the US should be adopted.

Democracy in Canada does NOT exist. It is an illusion and it is proven every election in Canada. Always have the winning party with less than 50% because of the number of parties. It alllows for th governing party to artificially extending its mandate (calling an election when times are good) or allows for parties to gang up to create instability when times are bad (thus not allowing an elected chosen by the people government to complete their mandate). You never vote for a man, but rather a "party". I never got a chance to vote for Stephen Harper, Paul Martin or Jack Layton. The Westminster model is one that provides for inefficient politics and it has no place in a country as geographical, ethnically, politically or economically diverse as Canada.

I could go on but why...just like my breath, our style of governance is a waste; nothing will change.

[[email protected]]

First, what we are proposing is not a 'presidential' system. There is no president, there is still a premier and the cabinet managing the government. It is not a republican system since the Queen is still the head of state. And it is not an 'American' system, it is the traditional English model of a separate legislature to restrain and check the monarchy.

In this separation model there is clear responsibility. The government formulates policy suggestions and the house deliberates and either agrees or declines the proposal. Responsibility is clear, in cases where there is compromise and/or consensual decision making then it is possible for either side to point fingers but that's the nature of governance sometimes; a team effort, and then it is up to the voters to decide who did what. Given the media and disclosure most times the answer will be straight forward.

It is only because the PM/premier is an elected dictator that makes he/she an easy target for unpopular measures. To cling to a poor governance system to facilitate facile finger pointing is irrational.

Does the executive hold that position by confidence of the legislature (in which case the executive is linked directly to the legislature) or by popular election (in which case the executive is entirely separate from the legislature). The choice is simple. The first is the Westminster model, the second is the Presidential model.

There can and should be a mechanism for removing the PM/P either by the house or by citizen recall. Thresholds should be quite high here, it should be very rare - like a Nixon event. If the house wishes to express non confidence then simply pass a resolution of no confidence.

Why pick the Westminster model which does not allow actual debate?

[BornAlbertan]

Why pick the Westminster model which does not allow actual debate?

The choice wasn't about debate...it was about loyalties. And I personally would prefer a government of action than debate.

[Mad_Michael]

There can and should be a mechanism for removing the PM/P either by the house or by citizen recall. Thresholds should be quite high here, it should be very rare - like a Nixon event. If the house wishes to express non confidence then simply pass a resolution of no confidence.

Why pick the Westminster model which does not allow actual debate?

Once again, citizen recall is based on the fiction that an elected representative is beholden to represent the particular bias of one's own constituents on a vote-by-vote basis. This is absurd. Representatives are elected to represent the voter for a term of office, not to be a clerk for every fickle voter.

And under the present system, the House can simply pass a resolution of no confidence against the Government if it so chooses. PM MacKenzie King actually had a slim majority but lost the confidence of the House in 1925.

In my humble opinion, the Westminster model is about the only political institution in Canada that actually works quite well. Indeed, we've had a couple of new parties created and entered Parliament within the last twenty years. That is a sign of the health and vitality of the system.

Indeed, I would be happy to argue (if that were the topic) that it isn't so much that the Westminster model is particularly good, rather it is a matter that US Presidential model is deeply flawed. I can't imagine anyone wanting such a poor functioning system adopted here.

[[email protected]]

Why pick the Westminster model which does not allow actual debate?

The choice wasn't about debate...it was about loyalties. And I personally would prefer a government of action than debate.

If you think that debate should take a backseat to 'action' perhaps your ultimate governance model is to be found under fascism or monarchy.

Without debate how do you know the 'action' is appropriate?

There is no reason you can't have adequate debate along with action, you just have to design the process correctly.