Fixed election dates

[FiveParadox]

Re: Fixed Election Dates

Finder[/i]]Karlin, I'm sure if we used the whole thing where you could by-pass an election over a war. All soembody like Harper would have to do is increase the number of people we have in Afghanistan, to 20k or more and there you have it, Harper could be king of Canada, because hell, we are at war and people like Fiveparadox and others think just because we are at war we don't need elections.

Ok I'm realistic, if we are invaded by lets say, the Nazi's or something and they have Newfound land already, yeah, I think it's pretty striaght forward we are not going to have elections.

Right off the bat here, I would appreciate it if members could come up with their own arguments to further their points, instead of attempting to suggest that I am somehow anti-democratic. I have a great respect for our democracy, and I consider it to be a key component of the Westminster system of responsible government (of which I am an advocate). My character is not in question — the topic of pre-determined election dates, on the other hand, is.

To the member above, I think perhaps you have misunderstood my sentiment in relation to invoking Section 4(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982; this right of the House of Commons, or any other legislature, should never be used except in the most severe of circumstances. The section states that it is to be used exclusively in the event of "real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection" — the current mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, with no serious threat to the security of Canada at this time, would not satisfy, in my opinion, this prerequisite.

 

[Finder]

"real or apprehended war"
Could be used in this circumstance, if the PM wished to be dragonian enough to use it. Paradox the system you rely on so much only works if the Primminister is someone who truly believes in democratic values. There are so many abuses which can be used in our system it is sad and you just named one off without a blink or second thought to how it could be used against the people.

No I totally believe in the American or even French Republican systems before our own. Nothing would be wrong with the westminsiter system in Canada if we reformed it. There are Westminster systems currently which work with checks and balances, fixed elections and so on, but Canadians chose for now to just complain about how bad our politicians are and not to push them to fix our system. Which doesn't surprise me with the increase in voter apathy in the last 20 years.


Edit:
and on the note that you believe I think your undemocratic... why then do you think the government should have the power to hold off on elections? To me this is a simple democratic princible that a government shouldn't be allowed to manipulate elections. I see your point about wars and indeed if you are invaded then well it's kind of hard to have an election but really read something like 1984 and see how war is used to control the public, or even in a nation which already has fixed elections you can see how war is still used as a tool during the last american election. Think what Bush could have done if there was no fixed elections.

 

[FiveParadox]

Finder[/i]]"real or apprehended war"
Could be used in this circumstance, if the PM wished to be dragonian enough to use it. Paradox the system you rely on so much only works if the Primminister is someone who truly believes in democratic values. There are so many abuses which can be used in our system it is sad and you just named one off without a blink or second thought to how it could be used against the people.

Whether or not a Parliament of Canada is extended is not an exclusive prerogative of the Prime Minister of Canada. The House of Commons would have to approve of the extension by a two-thirds vote, and the Governor General of Canada would have to be convinced that the situation is of such severity that elections would be contrary to the interests of Canada at the time. There are chances for abuse in our system, if one looks only at the written framework; however, the unwritten conventions that govern the institution prevent these abuses from occurring.

Finder[/i]]No I totally believe in the American or even French Republican systems before our own. Nothing would be wrong with the westminsiter system in Canada if we reformed it. There are Westminster systems currently which work with checks and balances, fixed elections and so on, but Canadians chose for now to just complain about how bad our politicians are and not to push them to fix our system. Which doesn't surprise me with the increase in voter apathy in the last 20 years.

I oppose, whole-heartedly, republic-style institutions for Canada. You may say that our system in Canada is undemocratic; however, this isn't true. Only one prime minister, in the entire history of Canada, has ever extended a Parliament, and this was for a mere matter of months — not years. I would think it to be interesting that some members would suggest that if Canada was being invaded or the government overthrown, we should nonetheless shut down Parliament and go into an election once that once-every-four day comes around.

Finder[/i]]Edit:
and on the note that you believe I think your undemocratic... why then do you think the government should have the power to hold off on elections? To me this is a simple democratic princible that a government shouldn't be allowed to manipulate elections. I see your point about wars and indeed if you are invaded then well it's kind of hard to have an election but really read something like 1984 and see how war is used to control the public, or even in a nation which already has fixed elections you can see how war is still used as a tool during the last american election. Think what Bush could have done if there was no fixed elections.

What do you mean, "hold off on elections?" Are you referring to the Section 15 right to extend Parliament during a war, or are you referring to setting an election date, in general? If you're referring to the clause, then see above. If you're referring to setting the date in general, our system requires that the Government of Canada have the right to refresh the House of Commons where the need arises. If there is deadlock in the Houses, or problems with our institutions or certain issues, we shouldn't have the Government be forced to continue in office for another three or four years, just because people want predictable election dates.

 

[bluealberta]

I would support fixed election dates, and would also support fixed terms for the prime minister. I know this sounds like the American system, but so what?

Wars should have nothing to do with it, and if a minority government falls, as could happen, then the election should be held within a specific number of days from the date the government falls.

The main benefit, as I see it, would be that everyone would know when the election is, thus getting rid of the old excuses about not having a mid winter election because, well, because it's winter, or not having a summer election because people are on vacation, or not having a mid to late spring election because the agricultural community is too busy to vote (never could buy that one, coming from an ag background, but that's another story).

Personally, I would not mind an October/November date, preferably on off years from the American presidential elections. I also think that the Senate should be an elected body with fixed election dates as well, on off years from the prime minister elections. I would support term limits for senators, but probably for an extended period, say, 10 years.

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with fixed elections, brings about a bit of certainty to the situation, and may actually mean a government will have to govern for the entire term.

Having said all that, I am not opposed to leaving it as is, except for the PM term limit. I think we all saw the negative results of that with Jean Chretien and Adscam. Not to say it would not happen under a term limit, but IMO, would be much less likely.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Prime Minister Restricted Term

One of the members above expressed interest in a term restriction for prime ministers; I am curious, however, as to whether he intended for that restriction to be on the prime minister in particular (the Member of Parliament), or the party? I would assume the Member of Parliament, of course. In my opinion, a restriction on the term of prime ministers is unnecessary; the abuses that occurred, such as those under the leadership of The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, P.C., are the exceptions rather than the rule, in my opinion.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: Prime Minister Restricted Term

One of the members above expressed interest in a term restriction for prime ministers; I am curious, however, as to whether he intended for that restriction to be on the prime minister in particular (the Member of Parliament), or the party? I would assume the Member of Parliament, of course. In my opinion, a restriction on the term of prime ministers is unnecessary; the abuses that occurred, such as those under the leadership of The Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, P.C., are the exceptions rather than the rule, in my opinion.

It was me, Five, who suggest term restrictions, for the PM only. The party, of course, could stay in power for as long as the electorate wants. Chretien is the poster boy for this suggestion to us Conservatives. IMO, if a PM gets a second term, the chances of governing for the country are much better given that the PM will not be back for a third term, thus allowing for at least the potential of better governing. Too often now, elections are called at the whim of a PM for various reasons. Think about it. However unlikely, Harper could call for an election two weeks prior to the Liberal leadership convention, thus putting the LIbs into even more turmoil........say, thats not a bad idea!!!! Just kidding, but that could be an extreme example of calling an election for purely partisan reasons. Too often the election is called for the good of the governing party instead of for the good of the country.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Prime Minister Restricted Term

bluealberta[/i]]It was me, Five, who suggest term restrictions, for the PM only. The party, of course, could stay in power for as long as the electorate wants. Chretien is the poster boy for this suggestion to us Conservatives. IMO, if a PM gets a second term, the chances of governing for the country are much better given that the PM will not be back for a third term, thus allowing for at least the potential of better governing. Too often now, elections are called at the whim of a PM for various reasons. Think about it. However unlikely, Harper could call for an election two weeks prior to the Liberal leadership convention, thus putting the LIbs into even more turmoil........say, thats not a bad idea!!!! Just kidding, but that could be an extreme example of calling an election for purely partisan reasons. Too often the election is called for the good of the governing party instead of for the good of the country.

I would agree with the suggestion that some elections in the past have been precipitated on quite a partisan basis; however, I think that there are less "drastic" methods of resolving these issues, than to enforce a fixed election date for the House of Commons. As for implementing term restrictions on prime ministers, I think that there is perhaps a more appropriate, and less cumbersome, way to achieve the same effect.

Within the first four years of a Parliament of Canada, the Governor General should only dissolve Parliament on the united advice of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (this would ensure that the governing party cannot force an election for partisan purposes). Between the fourth and fifth year, the Prime Minister could choose a date for dissolution.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: Prime Minister Restricted Term

bluealberta[/i]]It was me, Five, who suggest term restrictions, for the PM only. The party, of course, could stay in power for as long as the electorate wants. Chretien is the poster boy for this suggestion to us Conservatives. IMO, if a PM gets a second term, the chances of governing for the country are much better given that the PM will not be back for a third term, thus allowing for at least the potential of better governing. Too often now, elections are called at the whim of a PM for various reasons. Think about it. However unlikely, Harper could call for an election two weeks prior to the Liberal leadership convention, thus putting the LIbs into even more turmoil........say, thats not a bad idea!!!! Just kidding, but that could be an extreme example of calling an election for purely partisan reasons. Too often the election is called for the good of the governing party instead of for the good of the country.

I would agree with the suggestion that some elections in the past have been precipitated on quite a partisan basis; however, I think that there are less "drastic" methods of resolving these issues, than to enforce a fixed election date for the House of Commons. As for implementing term restrictions on prime ministers, I think that there is perhaps a more appropriate, and less cumbersome, way to achieve the same effect.

Within the first four years of a Parliament of Canada, the Governor General should only dissolve Parliament on the united advice of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (this would ensure that the governing party cannot force an election for partisan purposes). Between the fourth and fifth year, the Prime Minister could choose a date for dissolution.

I thought about this for a while, because it seemed like a good idea. Then it hit me. The odds of both leaders agreeing would be slim, because the governing party would never suggest an election when they are down in the polls, and the opposition leader would never agree to an election when the governing party is up in the polls. Well, never may be a bit extreme, but you get the point. As a result, virtually every election would come between the fourth and fifth year of a mandate, and would allow the governing party to manipulate the system to ensure they are up in the polls when they call the election.

So, no, I cannot agree with this, and would prefer a fixed election date. Then all parties would have to be ready at the same time.

Edited to add: In a minority government situation, if a government was brought down before the fixed election date, then the mandate of the winning party would still only last until the original fixed election date. For instance, assume that per the last election, if election dates were fixed, the next election would be January 23, 2010. However, should the government fall, for whatever reason, and another election was held on, say, September 1, 2007, the winner of this election would still have to go to the polls on January 23, 2010. IMO, all parties would have to work together to ensure that the electorate was not subject to election fatigue, and any party, or combination of parties, that brought down a minority government before the fixed election date, may feel the wrath of the electorate.

 

[FiveParadox]

I don't agree with that suggestion, with due respect, bluealberta.

If the Governor General would only accept the advice of a Prime Minister alone during the fifth year of the mandate, then that would give relative certainty as to election dates, unless a very important cause for election came up (since only important causes would likely get the united support of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to head into an election). This would give us, roughly-speaking, four-to-five year Governments, and less if something important comes up. I would think this to be a relative compromise.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Fixed election dates

I don't agree with that suggestion, with due respect, bluealberta.

If the Governor General would only accept the advice of a Prime Minister alone during the fifth year of the mandate, then that would give relative certainty as to election dates, unless a very important cause for election came up (since only important causes would likely get the united support of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to head into an election). This would give us, roughly-speaking, four-to-five year Governments, and less if something important comes up. I would think this to be a relative compromise.

But then you have made a quasi fixed election date, have you not? Personally, I think four years is just right. So, while it may be a compromise, I think that a fixed election date makes more sense, IMNTBHO!!!

BTW, I followed your lead at the other place and bowed out for a while. I may PM you to discuss this.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Fixed Election Dates

Here is the way that I think that elections should be done; this is a method that I think would provide for appropriate elections, with less chance for partisanship in election timing, while leaving room for exigent or unforeseen circumstances, which should be a consideration in whatever system we decide to move toward in the future (if our system is indeed changed from the current election selection method).

After the Speech from the Throne, the next order of business for the consideration of the House of Commons is to move to adopt a day for the next election; once a motion has been passed by the House of Commons for setting the date of the next election (which is open to amendment from opposition parties, and cannot be set before four years from the date of the opening of that Parliament of Canada).

On the advice of the Speaker of the House of Commons, who would be charged with informing the Governor General of Canada of the intentions of the House, Her Excellency would proclaim the date of the next dissolution and the next election, and the Parliament would continue until those dates occur, at which point the appropriate actions would be taken to carry out the dissolution and the election.

However, this would not compromise the right of the Commons to extend a Parliament through the use of Section 15; in such a situation, Her Excellency would rescind her proclaimation and stand by for further advice from the House of Commons in relation to the timing of the next election. Her Excellency's reserve powers to change an election date, or to prorogue or dissolve the House under an emergency, would not be affected.

 

[Finder]

Fiveparadox, the Westminster system is based on Republican princibles of checks and balances.. However we do not live in a working westminster system. The Westminster system like that of a republican system is based on at least there levels of checks and balances. One of the landed nobles, another of the commons or merchents and another of the executive (king/queen). Each checks and balances each other in one way or another. In Canada we do not have a westminster style of government, only a facade of one. I'd rather have westminster then what we have now. So you may dump on the Republican system but know at least the west minster system is based on the older republican system it was born from.

 

[FiveParadox]

... just like you to pick up one one [perhaps] erroneous statement, and to ignore the rest of what I have mentioned completely.

 

[Finder]

Fiveparadox, if you'd like a good yet slightly heavy read (trust me its worth it) read both Titus Livy's Early History of Rome, and N.Machiavelli Discourses on Titus Livy's Early history of Rome... Pretty much the Westminster system was based on the late republic early Empire phaze of the Roman government.

 

[FiveParadox]

And yet would those books render everything I've said in relation to my proposed compromise(s) for fixed election dates to be irrelevent? I would think not. I would be interested in knowing what you think of my suggestions.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Fixed election dates

And yet would those books render everything I've said in relation to my proposed compromise(s) for fixed election dates to be irrelevent? I would think not. I would be interested in knowing what you think of my suggestions.

I never said that. I simple mentioned how they fully explain the republican system in which the westminster system is based on. BTW I've not read you proposals on fixed elections, those responces were from your last responce to mine.

 

[Finder]

By the way I didn't see a term limit in your proposal?

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Term Restrictions

Oh! Thank you, Finder, I had intended to throw that in there. However, it would be another four-paragraph explanation, so I am going to write that tomorrow; I don't feel particularly up to writing another essay, haha — I feel sort of nauseous, I had a very aggressive chemo session today. So, remind me tomorrow if I post somewhere else before posting here, okay?

 

[Finder]

"aggressive chemo session" whats that? lol

sorry if you feel I'm being aggressive?

 

[FiveParadox]

No, aggressive chemo session, I had chemotherapy today, and it's referred to as "aggressive" because it was a longer-than-usual session, and the radiation dosage was increased quite a lot.