election day
- Thread starter spaminator
- Start date
Hawking the freak show. That's why I get along OK here. Experience.
Do-over election a bad idea
Canadians want the government and opposition parties to work together to get a new trade deal with the U.S. done
Author of the article
ostmedia News
Published Oct 25, 2025 • Last updated 13 hours ago • 2 minute read
An elector casts a ballot in the 2025 federal election.
An elector casts a ballot in the 2025 federal election.
The Mark Carney Liberals have suggested of late that the reckless opposition parties – meaning the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois – might be crazy enough to defeat the budget the Prime Minister will deliver Nov. 4.
That would trigger a federal election.
Why the Carney Liberals have chosen this tactic is hard to understand, since all they have to do is bribe what little remains of the NDP caucus, which they’ve been doing for years whenever it came to passing their budgets in a minority parliament.
The math is simple.
The Liberals have 169 seats, three short of a majority of 172.
All they have to do is throw a bone to the NDP, which has seven MPs and did so poorly in the recent election that it no longer has official party status.
The idea the NDP wants an election when what little resources it has is being directed to its ongoing leadership race is absurd.
Pollster Frank Graves, of EKOS Research, on Friday released his latest survey showing most Canadians don’t want an election and would blame the party or parties they perceived caused it, whether in opposition or the government.
(While Graves is unpopular among many Conservatives, he was the first to detect the surge toward Carney and the Liberals during the federal election race earlier this year.)
Given Carney’s pre-budget warnings that this is going to be an austerity budget requiring sacrifice, it’s hard to imagine the Liberals are secretly dying to provoke an election to run on it.
Ditto the Conservatives who will hold a review of party leader Pierre Poilievre’s election performance in January – to either endorse his leadership, or, if his support is too low, trigger another Conservative leadership race.
Costly election doesn’t make sense
Finally, sending Canadians to the polls in a dreary late fall/winter election costing taxpayers close to $600 million while they’re in the middle of a cost-of-living and affordability crisis doesn’t make any sense.
Voters already gave Carney and the Liberals a mandate to govern and to make a new trade deal with the U.S., within the confines of a minority government.
That means they want the government and opposition parties to work together to get the deal done.
Politicians in all parties would be wise to consider that.
torontosun.com
Canadians want the government and opposition parties to work together to get a new trade deal with the U.S. done
Author of the article
ostmedia NewsPublished Oct 25, 2025 • Last updated 13 hours ago • 2 minute read
An elector casts a ballot in the 2025 federal election.
An elector casts a ballot in the 2025 federal election.
The Mark Carney Liberals have suggested of late that the reckless opposition parties – meaning the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois – might be crazy enough to defeat the budget the Prime Minister will deliver Nov. 4.
That would trigger a federal election.
Why the Carney Liberals have chosen this tactic is hard to understand, since all they have to do is bribe what little remains of the NDP caucus, which they’ve been doing for years whenever it came to passing their budgets in a minority parliament.
The math is simple.
The Liberals have 169 seats, three short of a majority of 172.
All they have to do is throw a bone to the NDP, which has seven MPs and did so poorly in the recent election that it no longer has official party status.
The idea the NDP wants an election when what little resources it has is being directed to its ongoing leadership race is absurd.
Pollster Frank Graves, of EKOS Research, on Friday released his latest survey showing most Canadians don’t want an election and would blame the party or parties they perceived caused it, whether in opposition or the government.
(While Graves is unpopular among many Conservatives, he was the first to detect the surge toward Carney and the Liberals during the federal election race earlier this year.)
Given Carney’s pre-budget warnings that this is going to be an austerity budget requiring sacrifice, it’s hard to imagine the Liberals are secretly dying to provoke an election to run on it.
Ditto the Conservatives who will hold a review of party leader Pierre Poilievre’s election performance in January – to either endorse his leadership, or, if his support is too low, trigger another Conservative leadership race.
Costly election doesn’t make sense
Finally, sending Canadians to the polls in a dreary late fall/winter election costing taxpayers close to $600 million while they’re in the middle of a cost-of-living and affordability crisis doesn’t make any sense.
Voters already gave Carney and the Liberals a mandate to govern and to make a new trade deal with the U.S., within the confines of a minority government.
That means they want the government and opposition parties to work together to get the deal done.
Politicians in all parties would be wise to consider that.
EDITORIAL: Do-over election a bad idea
The Liberals have suggested the reckless opposition parties may be crazy enough to defeat the budget the PM will deliver Nov. 4. Read more.
Ontario looks to do away with fixed election dates
New rules reverse changes made 20 years ago by Dalton McGuinty, Ontario governments can now last as long as five years
Author of the article:Bryan Passifiume
Published Oct 27, 2025 • Last updated 17 hours ago • 1 minute read
Ontario is hoping to get rid of fixed dates for provincial elections.
Ontario is hoping to get rid of fixed dates for provincial elections.
OTTAWA — Vowing to do away with “American-style” elections, Ontario is hoping to do away with fixed dates for provincial elections.
Legislation introduced into Queen’s Park on Monday will also strengthen political donation and funding rules, said Attorney General Doug Downey.
“The proposed reforms will return Ontario to an electoral process that served our province well for nearly a century and a half, prior to the imposition of American-style fixed election dates,” Downey said in a statement.
“With these reforms, governments will be better positioned to respond to changing circumstances and external threats, including by seeking a fresh mandate from the people of Ontario when it’s needed.”
Former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty
Former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty introduced fixed election dates in 2004.
Ontario governments can now last as long as constitutionally mandated five years
Fixed election dates were introduced in 2004 under former Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, described at the time as a means to “strengthen” democracy in Ontario.
Under those rules, elections would be held on the first Thursday in October every four years — Monday’s changes mean Ontario would revert to the constitutionally-mandated term limit of five years.
During Doug Ford’s time as premier, Ontario hasn’t gone more than three years without an election — after securing his majority in over Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals in June 2018, the province went to the polls in June 2022, and again in Feb. 2025.
Under the current rules, the next election would have to have been held no later than October 2029.
The new rules, which have yet to pass muster in the Ontario Legislature, also increases maximum donation amounts for political parties from $3,5000 to $5,000 — effective next year — as well as provide new tools for the Chief Electoral Officer to enforce advertising rules for third-parties.
bpassifiume@postmedia.com
X: @bryanpassifiume
news.ontario.ca
torontosun.com
New rules reverse changes made 20 years ago by Dalton McGuinty, Ontario governments can now last as long as five years
Author of the article:Bryan Passifiume
Published Oct 27, 2025 • Last updated 17 hours ago • 1 minute read
Ontario is hoping to get rid of fixed dates for provincial elections.
Ontario is hoping to get rid of fixed dates for provincial elections.
OTTAWA — Vowing to do away with “American-style” elections, Ontario is hoping to do away with fixed dates for provincial elections.
Legislation introduced into Queen’s Park on Monday will also strengthen political donation and funding rules, said Attorney General Doug Downey.
“The proposed reforms will return Ontario to an electoral process that served our province well for nearly a century and a half, prior to the imposition of American-style fixed election dates,” Downey said in a statement.
“With these reforms, governments will be better positioned to respond to changing circumstances and external threats, including by seeking a fresh mandate from the people of Ontario when it’s needed.”
Former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty
Former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty introduced fixed election dates in 2004.
Ontario governments can now last as long as constitutionally mandated five years
Fixed election dates were introduced in 2004 under former Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, described at the time as a means to “strengthen” democracy in Ontario.
Under those rules, elections would be held on the first Thursday in October every four years — Monday’s changes mean Ontario would revert to the constitutionally-mandated term limit of five years.
During Doug Ford’s time as premier, Ontario hasn’t gone more than three years without an election — after securing his majority in over Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals in June 2018, the province went to the polls in June 2022, and again in Feb. 2025.
Under the current rules, the next election would have to have been held no later than October 2029.
The new rules, which have yet to pass muster in the Ontario Legislature, also increases maximum donation amounts for political parties from $3,5000 to $5,000 — effective next year — as well as provide new tools for the Chief Electoral Officer to enforce advertising rules for third-parties.
bpassifiume@postmedia.com
X: @bryanpassifiume
Ontario Newsroom
news.ontario.ca
Ontario looks to do away with fixed election dates
New rules reverse changes made 20 years ago by Dalton McGuinty, Ontario governments can now last as long as five years
Judge rejects Bloc candidate seeking new election after one-vote loss
Justice Eric Dufour says the postal code error does not constitute an irregularity as defined under federal electoral law
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Published Oct 27, 2025 • 1 minute read
MONTREAL — A Superior Court judge has rejected the Bloc Quebecois’s request for a new election in the Montreal-area riding won by the Liberals in April by a single vote.
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagne, the Bloc candidate, had challenged the result in the Terrebonne riding after a Bloc voter revealed that her special ballot was returned to her because of an error in the address on the envelope provided by Elections Canada.
In a ruling today, Justice Eric Dufour says the postal code error does not constitute an irregularity as defined under federal electoral law.
Dufour says the human administrative error was committed inadvertently and without any malicious or fraudulent intent and did not impact the integrity of the electoral system.
The judge says expanding the definition of election irregularity to include administrative errors would open the door to numerous contestations.
Dufour writes that annulling an election in a riding should only occur in the most serious of cases.
The Liberals won a minority government in the April general election, with Liberal Tatiana Auguste winning Terrebonne by one ballot.
torontosun.com
Justice Eric Dufour says the postal code error does not constitute an irregularity as defined under federal electoral law
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Published Oct 27, 2025 • 1 minute read
MONTREAL — A Superior Court judge has rejected the Bloc Quebecois’s request for a new election in the Montreal-area riding won by the Liberals in April by a single vote.
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagne, the Bloc candidate, had challenged the result in the Terrebonne riding after a Bloc voter revealed that her special ballot was returned to her because of an error in the address on the envelope provided by Elections Canada.
In a ruling today, Justice Eric Dufour says the postal code error does not constitute an irregularity as defined under federal electoral law.
Dufour says the human administrative error was committed inadvertently and without any malicious or fraudulent intent and did not impact the integrity of the electoral system.
The judge says expanding the definition of election irregularity to include administrative errors would open the door to numerous contestations.
Dufour writes that annulling an election in a riding should only occur in the most serious of cases.
The Liberals won a minority government in the April general election, with Liberal Tatiana Auguste winning Terrebonne by one ballot.
Judge rejects Bloc candidate seeking new election after one-vote loss
A Bloc voter said her special ballot was returned to her because of an error in the address on the envelope provided by Elections Canada.
Eliminating fixed election dates is the right thing to do
Ontario is going back to our constitutional norms by dropping fixed election dates.
Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Published Oct 28, 2025 • Last updated 1 day ago • 3 minute read
Doug Ford’s decision to do away with fixed election dates every four years isn’t a shocking move, it’s restoring Canadian tradition. It’s his other moves surrounding elections, such as doing away with third-party spending limits prior to elections and keeping per-vote subsidies for political parties that are shocking.
The constitution of Canada has long been clear, legislative sessions for the House of Commons or provincial legislatures are up to five years in length. It’s even spelled out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Sec. 4, under Democratic Rights.
“No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members,” the Charter states.
Of the 44 Parliaments that Ontario has convened since 1867, seven of them have lasted longer than four years, two them lasted more that five – both during wartime. The average length of a Parliament in Ontario since 1867 has been about 3 1/2 years.
The idea of scheduled elections falling at the same time every four years was an American idea imported into Ontario politics in 2005 by then-Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty. When Stephen Harper and the Conservatives formed government the next year federally, they introduced a similar bill in Ottawa.
Given the nature of our Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy, both pieces of legislation had to contain an out clause that allowed the Crown to call an election at any time. Despite this legislation being in effect for 20 years, it’s been ignored at both levels of government with no penalty for the party in power doing the ignoring.
‘FAKE LAW’
Ford was right to call it a “fake law” when questioned by reporters; it’s a political gimmick and nothing else.
So going back to our constitutional norm is clearly the right thing to do; an election must be held within five years of the formation of the Parliament.
Extending the per-vote subsidy, something Ford campaigned on getting rid of is nothing but pure politics. It’s the third time that Ford has extended the taxpayer subsidy to political parties that he once promised to get rid of before he was elected premier.
“I do not believe the government should be taking money from hard-working taxpayers and giving it to political parties,” Ford said in 2018.
He extended the subsidy in the winter of 2021 citing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, then he extended it again in late 2024 as a way to keep the NDP financially viable. That’s the same reasoning he’s using now whether he says it out loud or not.
By keeping the NDP flush with voter cash, even injecting money into the Greens, Ford and his PC Party keep the progressive side of the political scene divided which weakens the Liberals.
Your money, his benefit.
Each party gets an annual allotment of $2.54 per vote based on the results of the previous election. That will see Ford’s Progressive Conservatives will get roughly $5.5 million this year, the Liberals will pocket $3.8 million, the NDP gets $2.4 million, and the Greens just over $600,000.
Per vote subsidies horrible idea
Per-vote subsidies are a horrible idea, but progressive parties love them compared to fundraising, so don’t expect complaints.
Also changing under this system: the maximum allowable donation will increase to $5,000 next year from the current limit of $3,400. This may raise some eyebrows, but if an individual can buy favours from a politician for a mere $5,000, then we have bigger problems.
In response to a Supreme Court decision earlier this year, the government will scrap third-party spending limits and restriction in the pre-writ period leading up to an election. The court had ruled that the restrictions violated the Charter, so the restrictions were effectively null and void anyway.
Limits on third-party spending during the election campaign will remain in place, just as they will for political parties. Third-party spending by groups like the Working Families Coalition helped keep the Liberals in power and the PC Party frustrated for more than a decade in Ontario which is why Ford and his team initially sought to impose restrictions.
With many of the unions that funded that coalition now backing Ford, it’s less of an issue for him.
torontosun.com
Ontario is going back to our constitutional norms by dropping fixed election dates.
Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Published Oct 28, 2025 • Last updated 1 day ago • 3 minute read
Doug Ford’s decision to do away with fixed election dates every four years isn’t a shocking move, it’s restoring Canadian tradition. It’s his other moves surrounding elections, such as doing away with third-party spending limits prior to elections and keeping per-vote subsidies for political parties that are shocking.
The constitution of Canada has long been clear, legislative sessions for the House of Commons or provincial legislatures are up to five years in length. It’s even spelled out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Sec. 4, under Democratic Rights.
“No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members,” the Charter states.
Of the 44 Parliaments that Ontario has convened since 1867, seven of them have lasted longer than four years, two them lasted more that five – both during wartime. The average length of a Parliament in Ontario since 1867 has been about 3 1/2 years.
The idea of scheduled elections falling at the same time every four years was an American idea imported into Ontario politics in 2005 by then-Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty. When Stephen Harper and the Conservatives formed government the next year federally, they introduced a similar bill in Ottawa.
Given the nature of our Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy, both pieces of legislation had to contain an out clause that allowed the Crown to call an election at any time. Despite this legislation being in effect for 20 years, it’s been ignored at both levels of government with no penalty for the party in power doing the ignoring.
‘FAKE LAW’
Ford was right to call it a “fake law” when questioned by reporters; it’s a political gimmick and nothing else.
So going back to our constitutional norm is clearly the right thing to do; an election must be held within five years of the formation of the Parliament.
Extending the per-vote subsidy, something Ford campaigned on getting rid of is nothing but pure politics. It’s the third time that Ford has extended the taxpayer subsidy to political parties that he once promised to get rid of before he was elected premier.
“I do not believe the government should be taking money from hard-working taxpayers and giving it to political parties,” Ford said in 2018.
He extended the subsidy in the winter of 2021 citing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, then he extended it again in late 2024 as a way to keep the NDP financially viable. That’s the same reasoning he’s using now whether he says it out loud or not.
By keeping the NDP flush with voter cash, even injecting money into the Greens, Ford and his PC Party keep the progressive side of the political scene divided which weakens the Liberals.
Your money, his benefit.
Each party gets an annual allotment of $2.54 per vote based on the results of the previous election. That will see Ford’s Progressive Conservatives will get roughly $5.5 million this year, the Liberals will pocket $3.8 million, the NDP gets $2.4 million, and the Greens just over $600,000.
Per vote subsidies horrible idea
Per-vote subsidies are a horrible idea, but progressive parties love them compared to fundraising, so don’t expect complaints.
Also changing under this system: the maximum allowable donation will increase to $5,000 next year from the current limit of $3,400. This may raise some eyebrows, but if an individual can buy favours from a politician for a mere $5,000, then we have bigger problems.
In response to a Supreme Court decision earlier this year, the government will scrap third-party spending limits and restriction in the pre-writ period leading up to an election. The court had ruled that the restrictions violated the Charter, so the restrictions were effectively null and void anyway.
Limits on third-party spending during the election campaign will remain in place, just as they will for political parties. Third-party spending by groups like the Working Families Coalition helped keep the Liberals in power and the PC Party frustrated for more than a decade in Ontario which is why Ford and his team initially sought to impose restrictions.
With many of the unions that funded that coalition now backing Ford, it’s less of an issue for him.
LILLEY: Eliminating fixed election dates is the right thing to do
It's the other changes Doug Ford is making to election laws that are concerning.
Scrapping fixed election dates in Canada is way to go
In theory, fixed election dates are meant to level playing field between opposition parties and government
Author of the article:Jay Goldberg
Published Nov 06, 2025 • 3 minute read
A man enters a WFCU Centre banquet hall in Windsor, Ont., on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025, to cast an early vote for the provincial election during advance poll voting ahead of Feb. 27 Ontario election.
A man enters a WFCU Centre banquet hall in Windsor, Ont., on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025, to cast an early vote for the provincial election during advance poll voting ahead of Feb. 27 Ontario election.
Fixed election dates have no place in Canadian democracy.
Late last month, Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government introduced legislation to repeal fixed election dates in the province. If passed, it would make Ontario the second province this year, after Nova Scotia, to scrap its fixed election dates experiment.
Ford called Ontario’s fixed election date legislation, passed under the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government in 2005, a “fake law.”
Fixed election dates were a trend in Canadian politics. Provinces began passing such laws in the early 2000s, starting with British Columbia in 2001. At one point, every province and the federal government had them in place.
In theory, fixed election dates are meant to level the playing field between opposition parties and the government. They were designed to eliminate the unfair advantage of calling elections when the opposition was unprepared or bad news was looming.
Fixed election dates might have looked good on paper, but they don’t work in practice. That’s because premiers can still ask the lieutenant governor — the King’s representative in the province — to call an election, and that request is rarely denied.
That’s exactly what happened earlier this year. Ford asked Ontario’s lieutenant governor to call an election and she agreed. The King’s representative hasn’t refused a request for an election in nearly a century. When Ford asked, it was a done deal.
In other words, fixed election date laws have no teeth. There’s nothing to stop a premier or prime minister from calling an early election, despite what the legislation says. Given that reality, why keep up the illusion?
Ford’s move wasn’t unique. Prime Minister Mark Carney called an early election last spring. Former prime ministers Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper both called early elections while fixed date legislation was on the books. The laws didn’t stop any of them.
These laws are also meaningless in minority situations, when elections are triggered by a government defeat in the legislature. Harper’s 2011 election is one such example.
Canada’s Constitution already sets out when elections must happen. As the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.”
In other words, elections must be held within a five-year time frame.
Bringing in fixed election date laws was an attempt to regularize Canadian elections by mimicking the American model. Unlike Canada’s flexible parliamentary system, U.S. elections are set in stone, held every two or four years on fixed dates regardless of political circumstances. But that approach doesn’t jibe with our system of responsible government. In Canada, the incumbent government has always had the prerogative to trigger an election.
With no mechanism to enforce these laws or punish governments that ignore them, fixed election dates are little more than symbolic gestures. There’s no penalty for abandoning them, and history shows politicians won’t hesitate.
Premiers across the country, and the federal government, should follow Ford’s lead. If fixed election date laws don’t work — and clearly, they don’t — there’s no reason to keep them on the books.
If anything, these laws empower incumbents. Opposition parties plan around a set election date, but the government can call an election whenever it sees an advantage. That undermines the fairness these laws were supposed to promote.
Without fixed election date legislation in place, at least everyone knows to stay alert, that an election could happen at any time. That’s more honest than pretending the rules are binding when they aren’t.
It’s time to scrap fixed election date legislation and return to Westminster-style democratic norms. Keeping these laws only fuels public cynicism and confuses voters. Canada’s failed experiment should end now.
— Jay Goldberg is a fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
torontosun.com
In theory, fixed election dates are meant to level playing field between opposition parties and government
Author of the article:Jay Goldberg
Published Nov 06, 2025 • 3 minute read
A man enters a WFCU Centre banquet hall in Windsor, Ont., on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025, to cast an early vote for the provincial election during advance poll voting ahead of Feb. 27 Ontario election.
A man enters a WFCU Centre banquet hall in Windsor, Ont., on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025, to cast an early vote for the provincial election during advance poll voting ahead of Feb. 27 Ontario election.
Fixed election dates have no place in Canadian democracy.
Late last month, Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government introduced legislation to repeal fixed election dates in the province. If passed, it would make Ontario the second province this year, after Nova Scotia, to scrap its fixed election dates experiment.
Ford called Ontario’s fixed election date legislation, passed under the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government in 2005, a “fake law.”
Fixed election dates were a trend in Canadian politics. Provinces began passing such laws in the early 2000s, starting with British Columbia in 2001. At one point, every province and the federal government had them in place.
In theory, fixed election dates are meant to level the playing field between opposition parties and the government. They were designed to eliminate the unfair advantage of calling elections when the opposition was unprepared or bad news was looming.
Fixed election dates might have looked good on paper, but they don’t work in practice. That’s because premiers can still ask the lieutenant governor — the King’s representative in the province — to call an election, and that request is rarely denied.
That’s exactly what happened earlier this year. Ford asked Ontario’s lieutenant governor to call an election and she agreed. The King’s representative hasn’t refused a request for an election in nearly a century. When Ford asked, it was a done deal.
In other words, fixed election date laws have no teeth. There’s nothing to stop a premier or prime minister from calling an early election, despite what the legislation says. Given that reality, why keep up the illusion?
Ford’s move wasn’t unique. Prime Minister Mark Carney called an early election last spring. Former prime ministers Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper both called early elections while fixed date legislation was on the books. The laws didn’t stop any of them.
These laws are also meaningless in minority situations, when elections are triggered by a government defeat in the legislature. Harper’s 2011 election is one such example.
Canada’s Constitution already sets out when elections must happen. As the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.”
In other words, elections must be held within a five-year time frame.
Bringing in fixed election date laws was an attempt to regularize Canadian elections by mimicking the American model. Unlike Canada’s flexible parliamentary system, U.S. elections are set in stone, held every two or four years on fixed dates regardless of political circumstances. But that approach doesn’t jibe with our system of responsible government. In Canada, the incumbent government has always had the prerogative to trigger an election.
With no mechanism to enforce these laws or punish governments that ignore them, fixed election dates are little more than symbolic gestures. There’s no penalty for abandoning them, and history shows politicians won’t hesitate.
Premiers across the country, and the federal government, should follow Ford’s lead. If fixed election date laws don’t work — and clearly, they don’t — there’s no reason to keep them on the books.
If anything, these laws empower incumbents. Opposition parties plan around a set election date, but the government can call an election whenever it sees an advantage. That undermines the fairness these laws were supposed to promote.
Without fixed election date legislation in place, at least everyone knows to stay alert, that an election could happen at any time. That’s more honest than pretending the rules are binding when they aren’t.
It’s time to scrap fixed election date legislation and return to Westminster-style democratic norms. Keeping these laws only fuels public cynicism and confuses voters. Canada’s failed experiment should end now.
— Jay Goldberg is a fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
JAY GOLDBERG: Scrapping fixed election dates in Canada is way to go
Fixed election dates have no place in Canadian democracy. In theory, they dates are meant to level the political playing field. Read more.