Why don't we have political threads for countries other than the US?

[John DiFool]

I'd at least expect it for the British elections-but I didn't even realize that Blair has been out for almost a full year now, as his successor doesn't even seem to get any ink on this side of the pond.

Is it just because the population density of non-US Dopers is too low, apathy on the part of you non-Yanks, or because the American presidential elections have much greater international import than those from other countries?

[samclem]

I truly think 90% of the reason is it's a US based/dominated board.

And, in keeping with that premise-- 90% of most Americans, whether they belong to this board or not, have little more than a passing interest in political affairs of countries outside the US. And, I"m probably being conservative on my estimate.

[Leaffan]

Well, ya. We do in fact discuss politics in other countries, but it is an overwhelmingly US-centric messageboard. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

[Jodi]

Is it just because the population density of non-US Dopers is too low, apathy on the part of you non-Yanks, or because the American presidential elections have much greater international import than those from other countries?

Personally, I think it's that non-USians just aren't as tiresome about their political processes. They don't seem to think that caring about something means you have to obsess about it or discuss it ad nauseam.

[Mighty_Girl]

Our politics, despite our bananarepublicanity, is quite predictable. Of course we had a good dose of crazy a few years back when we elected the stupidest president ever to walk this earth (I'll call him Crazie). He was ran out of town on a rail.

So a little story:

A few weeks back we had elections again, the incumbent (who came to power after beating Crazie) against two more clowns. One of those clowns was from Crazie's party. Since Crazie is wildly unpopular they kept him away from the press, but somehow he made it to the campaign trail.

When some journalist asked Crazie if his campaigning wouldn't actually hurt Clown no. 2's chance, Crazie erupted, saying that if the voters didn't want to vote for for Clown no. 2 they could go fuck themselves (or words to that effect).

Good times. Good times.

Anyways. Now that the local electoral circus picked up the tent and closed I have to turn to the US election for my daily dose of crazy.

[RickJay]

We've had some fairly good Canadian political threads, especially around election time.

[Simplicio]

I think there are a decent number of non-US political threads considering the board is hosted in the US. There was just one about the Irish vote on the EU treaty/constitution thingy, for example.

[Quartz]

We've just had a couple of threads about David Davis, former U.K. Shadow Home Secretary.

[Dervorin]

Plus, there wasn't an election between Blair and Brown. Not much to discuss there.

[Antonius Block]

Personally, I think it's that non-USians just aren't as tiresome about their political processes. They don't seem to think that caring about something means you have to obsess about it or discuss it ad nauseam.In addition, most other countries don't take over a year between the candidates throwing their hats in the ring and the swearing-in of the new political leader. The lengthy electoral campaigns for POTUS pretty much guarantee endless threads on the subject.

[E-Sabbath]

We just had one about the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty. And we had a good one on the Mayor of London...

[Martha Medea]

And we never, ever discuss the Middle East. Far too boring and uncontroversial. ;)

[Mangetout]

I truly think 90% of the reason is it's a US based/dominated board.I'm not sure I agree with your figure (although do I think it's probably fairly high), furthermore, I think a significant proportion of the remaining percentage is that American politics is such a bloody circus. Sheesh. It takes you how long and how much fuss to elect a new president?

[samclem]

Sheesh. It takes you how long and how much fuss to elect a new president?
Four years--or,Did you mean with court decisions thrown in? :)

[Desert Nomad]

I think it it because the US makes a huge production out of the process. In Dubai politics is either hidden or simply boring (but still reported on). e.g.

"His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister and Vice President of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai today received a phone call from Badel Ndanga Ndinga, Minister of Industry, Mines, & Technological Development of the Republic of Cameroon in which they discussed matters of mutual concern."

[Spoons]

In addition, most other countries don't take over a year between the candidates throwing their hats in the ring and the swearing-in of the new political leader. The lengthy electoral campaigns for POTUS pretty much guarantee endless threads on the subject.To build on this point a bit, many other countries don't have fixed election dates that act as deadlines, allowing for a year-plus buildup of election activity. In Canada, for example, the constitution mandates an election every five years, but doesn't specify a date--so an election can occur at any time during that period. Usually, they occur every four years, but can go the entire five, or sometimes less than four years in certain circumstances. Even though the media's political pundits may report "it looks like there may be an election on the horizon," there are generally only six to ten weeks between that kind of news and the actual election. Things happen very fast at that point, and there isn't much time to get into the number of discussions that we see with the much-longer US presidential election process.

[Anaamika]

I'd love to hear somethin about Indian politics (as in the country of India) but I don't know enough to start interesting threads. Xash being the only Indian-living-in-India doper I know, maybe he could start some threads.

I'd also like to hear more about Brit politics. I do try to understand what's going on over there but it would be different not to mention easier if I could have more current discussions and news.

And yes, our election process is a bloody circus.

[Anaamika]

To build on this point a bit, many other countries don't have fixed election dates that act as deadlines, allowing for a year-plus buildup of election activity. In Canada, for example, the constitution mandates an election every five years, but doesn't specify a date--so an election can occur at any time during that period. Usually, they occur every four years, but can go the entire five, or sometimes less than four years in certain circumstances. Even though the media's political pundits may report "it looks like there may be an election on the horizon," there are generally only six to ten weeks between that kind of news and the actual election. Things happen very fast at that point, and there isn't much time to get into the number of discussions that we see with the much-longer US presidential election process.
Well, see, that is really interesting. How do you decide when there is an election? Who says it? Do people just get tired of their jobs, or does the public decide?

[Laughing Lagomorph]

...Now that the local electoral circus picked up the tent and closed I have to turn to the US election for my daily dose of crazy.

Say, I guess that's one US achievement that is cited as an example by other countries...we lead the world in production of Political Crazy.

[glee]

As others have said, there are some threads about other countries politics.

But it's US dominated because:

- it's a US board (and a jolly good one :) )
- the US makes decisions that affect a lot of other countries
- the US election process is far longer than other countries
- the US media is very active
- the US is very 'divided' over many politicial positions

[Freddy the Pig]

Well, see, that is really interesting. How do you decide when there is an election? Who says it? Do people just get tired of their jobs, or does the public decide?The incumbent government decides. The Prime Minister asks for a dissolution of Parliament, which is invariably granted, and the election follows a few weeks later. It's a perk of incumbency that the American administration doesn't have.

[Anaamika]

The incumbent government decides. The Prime Minister asks for a dissolution of Parliament, which is invariably granted, and the election follows a few weeks later. It's a perk of incumbency that the American administration doesn't have.
Wait, so does the PM come under this, too? When the PM asks for a dissolution, the entire Parliament gets re-voted? How does the PM decide when it's time?

Man, maybe I should go look this up, rather than asking you to explain every little intricacy. Do you have any good links? I am fascinated - never even heard of this.

[jayjay]

Wait, so does the PM come under this, too? When the PM asks for a dissolution, the entire Parliament gets re-voted? How does the PM decide when it's time?

American here, but I do know this!

The Prime Minister is actually a member of Parliament in a parliamentary system, rather than being an independent executive office. The PM is an MP, in other words. So the PM will generally call an election at an advantageous time for his party...say it's been four years since the last election, and the majority party (or the leading party in a coalition government) has just passed an extremely popular law in the face of opposition from the other party. The PM will likely call for elections immediately after that law is passed, because the timing is advantageous to his party.

[Anaamika]

Looking it up on Wiki now. Thanks, jayajay! Now, see, it would be awesome if someone would start a thread on such things. But nooooooo, it's all "Obama does this" and "McCain does that".

[Tom Tildrum]

In addition, most other countries don't take over a year between the candidates throwing their hats in the ring and the swearing-in of the new political leader....
Belgium just took six months between elections and the formation of a government.

[Ximenean]

So the PM will generally call an election at an advantageous time for his party...say it's been four years since the last election, and the majority party (or the leading party in a coalition government) has just passed an extremely popular law in the face of opposition from the other party. The PM will likely call for elections immediately after that law is passed, because the timing is advantageous to his party.
Early in the fifth year is considered a reasonable time to call an election. Much later than that and it looks bad, like the government is clinging on to power, because historically that has been the case with late-called elections. So generally a government that is doing OK will call the election after four years and a bit. But there is a gearing up for elections that starts at least a year beforehand, and by convention there are only certain Thursdays on which an election can fall, so we do tend to have an idea of when the election will be some months in advance. It's not like everything just tootles along normally and then WHAM, four weeks of electioneering.

[BrainGlutton]

Why don't we have political threads for countries other than the US?

Sometimes we do. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=471539)

[GorillaMan]

Early in the fifth year is considered a reasonable time to call an election. Much later than that and it looks bad, like the government is clinging on to power, because historically that has been the case with late-called elections. So generally a government that is doing OK will call the election after four years and a bit. But there is a gearing up for elections that starts at least a year beforehand, and by convention there are only certain Thursdays on which an election can fall, so we do tend to have an idea of when the election will be some months in advance. It's not like everything just tootles along normally and then WHAM, four weeks of electioneering.
They also tend to only be at certain times of the year. Not mid-winter, both because Christmas gets in the way and because of the risk of disruption from bad weather on election day. Not during the summer, when everybody just wants to have a break instead. So by elimination, they're mostly in the spring or autumn.

[rowrrbazzle]

There are other countries? :confused:

:D

[Boyo Jim]

There are other countries? :confused:

:D

No, rest assured, there are some islands like Europe off the coast somewhere, and our Canadian Geese sanctuary to the north. And I understand we maintain some kind of non-union labor pool to the south. On the other side of the world is a factory called China, where our dinnerware is made.

[Scissorjack]

American here, but I do know this!

The Prime Minister is actually a member of Parliament in a parliamentary system, rather than being an independent executive office.

Your American system is actually pretty aberrant, in that executive power is vested in the head of state: most countries split the offices, with the leader of the party garnering the most votes as the head of government and thus the holder of executive office, but a separate - either elected or hereditary - head of state. Americans are fond of denouncing the British Crown as an unjust anachronism, but if you compare the actual functions of the offices, the Queen is in effect a hereditary President whereas the US President is an elected King.

[Anaamika]

Oh, OK, so here's a question - after five years there has to be an election? What happens if the current government doesn't want? What policies are in place to force it to happen?

[Cunctator]

Oh, OK, so here's a question - after five years there has to be an election? What happens if the current government doesn't want? What policies are in place to force it to happen?The current government doesn't really have a choice. There will be some sort of constitutional/legal provision that automatically dissolves the parliament after a certain period of years. In Australia the Constitution requires that a House of Representatives last no more than three years:Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General.The Governor-General is given the power to issue writs for an election:The Governor-General in Council may cause writs to be issued for general elections of members of the House of Representatives. After the first general election, the writs shall be issued within ten days from the expiry of a House of Representatives or from the proclamation of a dissolution thereof.From what Spoons says I imagine the process in Canada is pretty much the same.

[PaulParkhead]

Oh, OK, so here's a question - after five years there has to be an election? What happens if the current government doesn't want? What policies are in place to force it to happen?

I guess the UK system is similar to those of Canada, Australia and so on. There must be an election at least every five years. The power to dissolve Parliament rests with the Queen. The PM makes a request to the Queen, and convention dictates that such a request is always granted.

If a government attempted to avoid calling an election, I imagine the Queen could just dissolve Parliament anyway. She is also Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

I'm still reading through this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom) but it seems to be a decent introduction to the basic structure of British politics.

[Spoons]

The current government doesn't really have a choice. There will be some sort of constitutional/legal provision that automatically dissolves the parliament after a certain period of years. In Australia the Constitution requires that a House of Representatives last no more than three years:The Governor-General is given the power to issue writs for an election:From what Spoons says I imagine the process in Canada is pretty much the same.Pretty much, yes. A House of Commons can last five years, but should that time expire and the Government doesn't want to leave, the Governor-General (GG) dissolves Parliament, and calls an election.

Most often, the PM picks an advantageous time to call an election, and asks the GG to dissolve Parliament and "drop the writ"--that is, to call an election. But there are a few other times when an election might occur:

-- When the Government does something so absolutely idiotic, or passes a law that is extremely unpopular, that civil unrest might ensue. In this case, the GG can step in without the PM asking, dissolve Parliament, and drop the writ. This has never happened in Canadian history, but I believe it has in Australian history. Aussie Dopers?

-- When the Government is what we call a "minority government," and loses a vote of confidence in the House. I should explain. Let's say there are 100 seats in the House (it's a nice round number). There are three parties, A, B, and C. In an election, Party A wins 40 seats. Parties B and C each win 30 seats. Technically, Party A, winning more seats than any other party, wins the election and forms the government. But compared to the number of seats that are not Party A's, Party A is a minority in the House. If Parties B or C decided to vote against Party A on a confidence vote, Party A's government would end and another election would occur. This did happen relatively recently in Canadian history, when Joe Clark's Progressive Conservative party, which had formed a minority government, was defeated on a vote of confidence late in 1979. An election was called for early 1980, and Pierre Trudeau's Liberal party won.

This is a very simple overview, and other countries with parliamentary systems may differ in details. Anyway, Anaamika, hope this helps a bit.

[Leaffan]

You know Spoons, I - as a Canadian - read and understood everything you wrote. But I'm guessing to those unfamiliar with the process it sounded like a Monty Python skit!

[mnemosyne]

IIRC, a Canadian government can lose confidence by losing a confidence vote as mentioned above (such as voting on the federal budget or the Throne Speech), but there is also a "simple" Motion of Non-confidence, in which the Opposition can declare that they have lost confidence in the ability of the leading party to govern. If it passes, then the government either has to resign or ask for an election call.

I did a mock parliament in Grade 9, and we tried to have a vote of non-confidence against the "Liberals" on the first day, but the teacher told us we couldn't, because they deserved a chance to do better and learn how it was done. Us "traitors" in the Bloc Québecois got a lot of criticism from the other students because of it, but the Reforms were on our side! (did I mention this was 1995-1996? The Québec Referendum had just ended...lots of "taking it too seriously" going on... good times, good times!)

[Kiwi Fruit]

-- When the Government is what we call a "minority government," and loses a vote of confidence in the House. I should explain. Let's say there are 100 seats in the House (it's a nice round number). There are three parties, A, B, and C. In an election, Party A wins 40 seats. Parties B and C each win 30 seats. Technically, Party A, winning more seats than any other party, wins the election and forms the government. But compared to the number of seats that are not Party A's, Party A is a minority in the House. If Parties B or C decided to vote against Party A on a confidence vote, Party A's government would end and another election would occur.
I believe that the Governor-General could ask the leader of another party to form a government rather than dissolving parliament in the no-confidence vote situation. If that gets turned down, then the GG would issue the writs.

[Cunctator]

If a government lost a no confidence motion in Australia, the PM would be expected to resign his commission immediately. As Kiwi Fruit notes, the Governor-General would first try to find someone else who could command a majority in the House of Representatives to lead a new government. Failing that, writs would be issued for a general election.

-- When the Government does something so absolutely idiotic, or passes a law that is extremely unpopular, that civil unrest might ensue. In this case, the GG can step in without the PM asking, dissolve Parliament, and drop the writ. This has never happened in Canadian history, but I believe it has in Australian history. Aussie Dopers?Not quite. In 1975 the Whitlam Labor government, while unpopular, wasn't trying to pass any extreme legislation. It was seeking to pass the normal 'supply' bills that allow the government to spend taxpayers' money.

The government had a majority in the lower house (House of Representatives). However it lacked a majority in the upper house (Senate), where the opposition had the numbers. Under the Constitution the Australian Senate basically has equal powers to those of the House of Representatives. It can refuse to pass any legislation, even appropriation bills, for as long as it wants. This is in contrast to the situation in the UK, where the People's Budget crisis of 1911 led to the passing of the Parliament Act , which severely reduced the ability of the House of Lords to block money bills. I don't know about the Canadian situation. However given that the Senate there is appointed, and not elected as in Australia, I expect that the Canadian Senate's ability to block money bills is probably not as strong as the Australian Senate's.

There are additional constitutional provisions to allow the deadlock between the two houses to be settled. The problem is that these provisions (a double dissolution of both houses of parliament and a further election) require six months or so to play out. And in 1975, the government did not have 6 months' funding up its sleeve. So the the battle lines were drawn. The government relied on its majority in the House and decided to sit out the crisis. It was confident that the opposition would fold under pressure at the last minute and pass the supply bills, especially as there was growing community concern at the '"deviousness" and "not according to political convention" nature of the opposition's tactics.

The opposition took the line that a government that could not get basic legislation like supply bills passed was no longer in a position to govern. It pointed to the Constitution, and the strong powers given to the Senate. It argued that those powers existed for a reason and that therefore it was not "against convention" to effectively hold the government to ransom, even if no opposition had done so before. The opposition also relied on the unpopularity of the government and the general economic malaise to win support for its actions.

Nobody knows what would have happened had the situation been allowed to continue. Even now historians and legal and political scholars argue heatedly about which side would have cracked first. In the end the Governor-General stepped in, using his reserve powers as representative of the Crown. He:
- sacked the PM Whitlam, who still had a majority in the House; and then
- commissioned the opposition leader Fraser as PM - who did not have a majority in the House - on condition that the first thing that Fraser did as PM would be to ask for a double dissolution.

The subsequent election campaign was emotive and divisive and passions still run hot on the subject even today. Whitlam and the Labor party basically ran a "we wuz robbed" campaign, calling on voters to return them to power and uphold a government's constitutional right to retain power as long as it could command a majority in the House. The Liberal party under Fraser ran a campaign focussing on the ineptitude of the Labor government and all of the scandals it had suffered.

The final result was an overwhelming victory, in both houses, for the Liberals under Fraser. In the end the voters went for the economy over the constitutional/politial niceties.

[Mighty_Girl]

Say, I guess that's one US achievement that is cited as an example by other countries...we lead the world in production of Political Crazy.You don't say. When it comes to electoral circuses the USA is fucking Cirque du Soleil. :)

Now if only you could get your congresspeople to settle political issues with fisticuffs, like other civilized nations, everything would be just perfect.

[Dervorin]

I'd love to hear somethin about Indian politics (as in the country of India) but I don't know enough to start interesting threads. Xash being the only Indian-living-in-India doper I know, maybe he could start some threads.

I'd also like to hear more about Brit politics. I do try to understand what's going on over there but it would be different not to mention easier if I could have more current discussions and news.

And yes, our election process is a bloody circus.
Although I'm an Indian-living-in-England doper, I do follow Indian politics quite closely, from the nostalgic keeping-in-touch-with-home perspective. I'm just not sure there would be enough people who would have either the background or the interest to discuss this. Indian politics can be interesting at times, enormously frustrating at others.

But let's see; I'm sure there will be an interesting story or two soon enough.

[Wendell Wagner]

John DiFool writes:

> I'd at least expect it for the British elections-but I didn't even realize that Blair
> has been out for almost a full year now, as his successor doesn't even seem to
> get any ink on this side of the pond.

Do you read newspapers or news magazines? Reading just the SDMB is a terrible way to get the news.

[Caught@Work]

We're Aussies and we really don't give a crap.

[Spoons]

The final result was an overwhelming victory, in both houses, for the Liberals under Fraser. In the end the voters went for the economy over the constitutional/politial niceties.Thanks for the clear explanation. As you can imagine, I had heard of this event, but not in very much detail--for example, if our Government does something contentious, there are occasionally calls from various quarters for the GG to exercise her powers "like they did in Australia." Naturally, little explanation of just what happened in the runup to the event in Australia is given. Your explanation helped a great deal--again, many thanks.

[Anaamika]

Thank you all for the descriptions of Canadian parliament and Aussie history. Next question: where in the process is the Canadian Parliament now?

We had some mock government things in our high school too...I had a pretty good, if tough, teacher, that put us through some great things. However, we never learned about parliaments, or very little anyway.

Although I'm an Indian-living-in-England doper, I do follow Indian politics quite closely, from the nostalgic keeping-in-touch-with-home perspective. I'm just not sure there would be enough people who would have either the background or the interest to discuss this. Indian politics can be interesting at times, enormously frustrating at others.

But let's see; I'm sure there will be an interesting story or two soon enough.
I try, but it's different to follow it on your own, then it is to discuss with someone. Try me next time with a thread, provided it doesn't sink like a stone by the time I get to it!

Do you read newspapers or news magazines? Reading just the SDMB is a terrible way to get the news

I do...but I am not coming here to "get the news". I am coming here to get a broader perspective on things I don't fully understand. You see, if I try to learn more, sometimes I don't even know the right questions to ask. Here I often learn different aspects of what I already knew, stuff I didn't know, what other people think of it, and also questions to ask to further my knowledge.

[matt_mcl]

Thank you all for the descriptions of Canadian parliament and Aussie history. Next question: where in the process is the Canadian Parliament now?

It's a weird situation: despite having the slenderest plurality of any government ever, the current Conservative government has (I think) hung on longer than any other minority government in the past. It's currently being kept in power by the Liberals, who are saddled with an unpopular leader and don't want to have an election right now*, and who are therefore either supporting the government, or voting against the government in such small numbers that the government can pass its bills.

Nobody is quite sure when the election will be. We are approaching the end of the spring session this week, so the government could fall on a bill this autumn, or else in the spring of 2009 (possibly the budget).

However, due to a fixed election bill that was passed by the present government, if the government doesn't fall, it is to be dissolved in October 2009.

*For reasons that escape me. What, they think that propping up the Tories, for fear of whom most of their voters chose them in the first place, will make them more popular?

[Orual]

You know Spoons, I - as a Canadian - read and understood everything you wrote. But I'm guessing to those unfamiliar with the process it sounded like a Monty Python skit!

You ain't just whistling Dixie. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU)

What I don't get is the whole "Shadow Minister" thing. The name sounds to me like they deal with nefarious secret governmental goings-on, but I'm sure that's not the case.

[matt_mcl]

What I don't get is the whole "Shadow Minister" thing. The name sounds to me like they deal with nefarious secret governmental goings-on, but I'm sure that's not the case.

The shadow cabinet is simply the members of an opposition party who are named as that party's spokespeople on the issues of various government departments. For example, NDP MP Olivia Chow is the critic for Citizenship and Immigration, and therefore is the party's chief spokeswoman on issues relating to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and her department.

[Anaamika]

Nobody is quite sure when the election will be. We are approaching the end of the spring session this week, so the government could fall on a bill this autumn, or else in the spring of 2009 (possibly the budget).

However, due to a fixed election bill that was passed by the present government, if the government doesn't fall, it is to be dissolved in October 2009.


See, now that is passing strange. But interesting.

A)Is there any chance that the government, for whatever reason, won't be dissolved then? Anything that could happen between then and now?
B)If this government passed the bill, I guess they kind of shot themselves in the foot if they are also not leaving?
C)If they had not passed the bill...what then? What mechanism would be in place to oust them?

[matt_mcl]

A)Is there any chance that the government, for whatever reason, won't be dissolved then? Anything that could happen between then and now?

I don't know what exceptions the bill provides for. Under the constitution, there must be an election every five years, except in situations of war or insurrection when 2/3 of MPs vote to continue the session. I believe that's happened once, perhaps twice, during the World Wars.

B)If this government passed the bill, I guess they kind of shot themselves in the foot if they are also not leaving?

I don't think the gov't will be reluctant to leave when the fixed date comes up, because that gives them the prestige of leaving exactly when they said they would, rather than having been defeated. Politically, that would be an edge in a general election.

C)If they had not passed the bill...what then? What mechanism would be in place to oust them?

I believe that once the constitutional limit is reached, Parliament is automatically dissolved and an election held. There's not much the gov't can do about that, short of holding an insurrection or something.

[Freddy the Pig]

Well, I see that what I posted in post#21 is out-of-date, as respects Canada. I hadn't been aware that they converted to fixed election dates. So they took the perk of timing the next election away from the incumbent government . . . they can still lose a vote of confidence, but they can't dissolve Parliament on their own initiative near the end of the term. I wonder if we'll ever see the government stage a loss deliberately for the purpose of forcing an election, as happened (allegedly) in Germany a few years ago.

[matt_mcl]

I wonder if we'll ever see the government stage a loss deliberately for the purpose of forcing an election, as happened (allegedly) in Germany a few years ago.

They've already tried it numerous times, but the Liberals have ended up supporting them each time. They've now supported or not defeated the government on something like 40 confidence or supply bills.

[Anaamika]

Ok, so if there is already a law in the constitution (do you capitalize it? Is it a formal document?) to hold an election every five years, what was the purpose of the bill passed by the government? Just to look good?

Also, when the vote comes, how does it work? Say today the gov't says, Ok, we will have an election come November. Press releases are issued, etc. How do they set the formal voting date? Do you have something resembling an electoral college? Or is it all popular vote?

Most fascinating thread, and I admit I should learn more about my Northern neighbor!

[Nava]

Spain has a similar system too; it is unlikely to get much ado here because there isn't a lot of Spaniards around, we know each other's political positions, we don't expect to convince each other of anything, we don't even vote in the same areas, and anyway who the hell cares.

In Spain the election date is set when the government announces the dissolution of Parliament and the next election. Different Regions have their own Parliamentary Elections at different times, but in general we try to avoid having too many election dates. All city councils for a Region are elected on the same date; if there's national or regional elections due at more or less the same time, all these elections are held together.



Switzerland's system is direct democracy: lots of things which in a place with representative democracy would be decided by those representatives (city councils, MPs, government) have to be decided through a vote. I'm told there's a canton which organizes things so they just have a single canton-wide meeting every year where they vote on every issue for that year by count of hands; in larger ones there may be votes going on every week. When I was living in Basel there was a pretty heated (for Swiss standards) campaign on whether the local Casino would be allowed to get permission to modernize their building or not.

[Leaffan]

Ok, so if there is already a law in the constitution (do you capitalize it? Is it a formal document?) to hold an election every five years, what was the purpose of the bill passed by the government? Just to look good?

Also, when the vote comes, how does it work? Say today the gov't says, Ok, we will have an election come November. Press releases are issued, etc. How do they set the formal voting date? Do you have something resembling an electoral college? Or is it all popular vote?

Most fascinating thread, and I admit I should learn more about my Northern neighbor!
A formal election must be called sometime within 5 years. usually the governing party will pick a date sometime in this period based on what their perception of winning will be. The new bill sets a firm date at 4 year intervals taking immediate popularity out of the equation.

Elections Canada sets the actual date.

Each province is divided up geographically into ridings. You vote for the party in your riding who you believe will best represent your needs. Each riding gets decided by popular vote, so if party A gets 45%, party B gets 30%, and party C gets 25% (simplified) then the candidate for party A wins the riding, and a seat in the House of Commons.

The party who wins more seats than any other party is asked to form the next government. The leader of that party typically becomes the Prime Minister. So, we don't vote directly for the P.M. We vote for Members of Parliament.

If the governing party wins more seats than all the other parties added together then it's a majority government who can rule and pass bills with no opposition. If the governing party holds fewer seats than the other parties combined then theoretically the other parties can bond together and vote down bills, thereby triggering an election. (Simplified again.)

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

This did happen relatively recently in Canadian history, when Joe Clark's Progressive Conservative party, which had formed a minority government, was defeated on a vote of confidence late in 1979. An election was called for early 1980, and Pierre Trudeau's Liberal party won.
It happened even more recently than this. Paul Martin's Liberal government lost a vote of confidence in December 2005, and the Conservatives under Stephen Harper won the January 2006 elections.

Anaamika, the fixed elections bill passed by the current federal parliament basically says that elections shall be held some time in October (second week I think; it probably even specified which day) no later than four years after the preceding election. Since the last election happened, as I've said, in January 2006, the next one should happen in October 2009. But this law did not actually change the constitution (Harper seems to be trying to do a lot of changes to Canada's electoral system without actually amending the constitution, but that's another story), so constitutionally speaking parliamentary terms still last five years, and it doesn't seem to have removed the prime minister's power to ask for a dissolution. So Harper could still ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament and hold elections in, say, spring 2009, but unless he loses a confidence vote, he won't do it because it would look bad politically. That's why he seems to be trying to set up his defeat on a confidence vote, but the Liberals won't allow it.

[Leaffan]

It happened even more recently than this. Paul Martin's Liberal government lost a vote of confidence in December 2005, and the Conservatives under Stephen Harper won the January 2006 elections.

Anaamika, the fixed elections bill passed by the current federal parliament basically says that elections shall be held some time in October (second week I think; it probably even specified which day) no later than four years after the preceding election. Since the last election happened, as I've said, in January 2006, the next one should happen in October 2009. But this law did not actually change the constitution (Harper seems to be trying to do a lot of changes to Canada's electoral system without actually amending the constitution, but that's another story), so constitutionally speaking parliamentary terms still last five years, and it doesn't seem to have removed the prime minister's power to ask for a dissolution. So Harper could still ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament and hold elections in, say, spring 2009, but unless he loses a confidence vote, he won't do it because it would look bad politically. That's why he seems to be trying to set up his defeat on a confidence vote, but the Liberals won't allow it.
From here: (http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=faq&document=faqelec&lang=e&textonly=false#elec0)

Since May 2007, the Canada Elections Act requires that a general election be held on a fixed date: the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following the previous general election.

[Bookkeeper]

However, the "fixed date elections" act for Canadian elections specifically references the fact that it in no way interferes with the Governor General's constitutional right to dissolve Parliament and call an election, so it's mainly a meaningless PR law, since the PM could still choose to or be forced to call an election earlier, and most governments don't go the full 5 years anyway, for reasons already explained. The current Conservative government, as the ones that passed the law with much "government reform" fanfare, don't want to voluntarily call an election and expose the lack of substance to this "reform", but have had no luck in being "forced" to do so.

(There is some concern that it might be an unconstitutional interference with the 5-year limit set in the Constitution, and it's not all that restrictive anyway, as any government that wanted to wait more than 4 years before calling an election could simply revoke the act and go back to the original 5-year limit.)

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I don't start threads about Canadian politics because I'm too embarassed.

Not too embarrassed to post this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjBGhG_j6C0) , though. Nor this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM4dPj_i2Ro)

[Spoons]

Ok, so if there is already a law in the constitution (do you capitalize it? Is it a formal document?)....Here's a link (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/index.html) to the entire Canadian Constitution. Have a look.

[PaulParkhead]

Ok, so if there is already a law in the constitution (do you capitalize it? Is it a formal document?) to hold an election every five years, what was the purpose of the bill passed by the government? Just to look good?

Also, when the vote comes, how does it work? Say today the gov't says, Ok, we will have an election come November. Press releases are issued, etc. How do they set the formal voting date? Do you have something resembling an electoral college? Or is it all popular vote?

Most fascinating thread, and I admit I should learn more about my Northern neighbor!

The UK is similar to Canada and Australia, but certainly not identical. Here the constitution is not a formal document. This leads some to claim, erroneously, that the UK has no constitution at all. It does, but it is a collection of common law and statutes.

Elections are always held on a Thursday, and by convention only a few Thursdays in spring and autumn are really available. In practice, the actual date of the election, once it is obvious one is imminent, tends to be pretty easy to figure.

There isn't anything like an electoral college. It's not necessary since neither the head of state (the Queen) or the head of government (Prime Minister) is directly elected. In each constituency (around 650 in all), a member of Parliament is elected by popular vote. The leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament is asked by the Queen to form a government, and thus becomes PM.

In practice, we know in advance who the PM will be, or at least, the possible PMs. In the next election, to be held before June 2010, it will likely be a choice between Gordon Brown (if he can hold on as PM until then) or the Conservative leader David Cameron.

[mnemosyne]

Also, when the vote comes, how does it work? Say today the gov't says, Ok, we will have an election come November. Press releases are issued, etc. How do they set the formal voting date?


There has to be at least 36 days from when the election is called to the day of the vote, and that is typically the standard. I'm pretty sure election law forbids candidates from putting up public signs etc prior to the election call, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

This is an interesting FAQ from the 2006 election: http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/voterstoolkit/faqs.html#q8


You might find this interesting (Monty Python sketch? Maybe!):
If a federal party wins a majority in a general election, but its leader does not win his or her seat, does the leader still become prime minister?

The party leader could become prime minister if the Governor General agrees to that happening, but would not be allowed onto the floor of the House of Commons because he or she is not a member of Parliament. That leader would likely ask one of the victorious MPs from the party to resign and create a vacancy so that the leader could run for that seat in a byelection as soon as possible.
Interestingly, the office of prime minister was not described or created in any Canadian legislation, though it has been recognized and referred to in legislation after the fact. So what happens in this kind of case has been determined by custom, not any regulation or law. And custom has determined that the Canadian prime minister does not have to be an MP in order to assume the title. (...)

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Some Canadian prime ministers actually weren't members of the House of Commons (they were members of the Senate), but I believe the last time it happened was in the 19th century.

The Liberal Party of Quebec won the 1985 provincial elections, but their leader Robert Bourassa actually lost his seat in the riding of Bertrand. He still became premier, but had to get elected as soon as possible in a by-election in a safe riding (Saint-Laurent).

[Cunctator]

Elections are always held on a Thursday, and by convention only a few Thursdays in spring and autumn are really available. In practice, the actual date of the election, once it is obvious one is imminent, tends to be pretty easy to figure.Interesting. Our elections have to be held on a Saturday. They can occur at any time of the year, although it's more common for them to be held in the October-December period.

[Wendell Wagner]

Anaamika writes:

> Do you have something resembling an electoral college?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college

It appears to me from this article that the U.S. is the only country that uses an electoral college to elect its president. (Some countries use it for other positions in their government.) This is an important point to note. This is an example of something that no other country uses, and it's usually difficult even to explain to people from other countries how it works.

[Bookkeeper]

Some Canadian prime ministers actually weren't members of the House of Commons (they were members of the Senate), but I believe the last time it happened was in the 19th century.

The Liberal Party of Quebec won the 1985 provincial elections, but their leader Robert Bourassa actually lost his seat in the riding of Bertrand. He still became premier, but had to get elected as soon as possible in a by-election in a safe riding (Saint-Laurent).
Two of our best-knowm PM's, Sir John A. MacDonald and William Lyon Mackenzie King, although they repeatedly led their parties to electoral victory and both served 6 terms as PM, had trouble in actually getting elected as MPs. Both lost their own seats and had to run in a by-election in a "safe" seat at least once, and both ran for election in several different ridings during their careers.

[Anaamika]

Anaamika writes:

> Do you have something resembling an electoral college?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college

It appears to me from this article that the U.S. is the only country that uses an electoral college to elect its president. (Some countries use it for other positions in their government.) This is an important point to note. This is an example of something that no other country uses, and it's usually difficult even to explain to people from other countries how it works.
It honestly doesn't make any sense to me anymore either, but that's a topic for another thread.