# Canadian Election Results **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2008, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981 "2008-10-15T00:53:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/101 "2008-10-16T01:10:09Z")
> [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](#): > > From the Democracy Watch website - [Ruling on the Motion filed by Democracy Watch…](http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsOct0308.html) As the press release states, there are legal questions raised by the call for the past election. Thanks for the link. It will be interesting to see what the Federal Court has to say. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/102 "2008-10-16T01:12:17Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > 1. Harper passed nothing. Commons passed a law. It was a law drafted by Harper’s government. What point are you trying to make here, exactly? > [@](#): > > 1. In what way was the law uncontrovertably unconstitutional? Or is it merely your opinion that the bill was unconstitutional? An Act of Parliament can’t change how elections are called. The law could no more force elections every four years than a motion of no confidence passed by Congress could force a US presidential election. Look, if that law had any legal force then Harper couldn’t have called the election. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/103 "2008-10-16T01:17:58Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Had the financial crisis not come along when it did, Harper would have won a solid majority. He was the victim of bad luck more than anything else. Bad luck? Harper called the election when he did to avoid electoral fallout from the financial crisis! ---
**Author:** ![K364](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k364/32/5_2.png) [@K364](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/K364)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/104 "2008-10-16T01:37:19Z")
Here’s an interesting analysis of how Harper messed up his chance for a majority and why he is his own worst enemy - [link](http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081014/election2008_harper_081014/20081015?s_name=election2008&no_ads=) ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/105 "2008-10-16T02:15:33Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Bad luck? Harper called the election when he did to avoid electoral fallout from the financial crisis! Good lord this started in IMHO? No wonder I couldn’t find it earlier. Anyway - **Rysto** be fair. The economic storm shifted into high gear 2 weeks ago. Before that it looked like something far less. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/106 "2008-10-16T02:52:17Z")
I don’t think Rysto is being at all unfair - we’ve known for several months that there was going to be a serious economic downturn. I don’t think any of us thought it was going to be this bad, but I remember several of us saying, [in a thread before the election was called](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=481071), that part of why Harper was publicly saying how “dysfunctional” parliament was had to do with how he knew the crisis was coming and he didn’t want to wear the horns for it. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/107 "2008-10-16T03:00:30Z")
Damn it, it was T[he Race is On!](http://boardstest.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=482185) and I quoted myself in the above post. Ten yard penalty and second down. What can I say? I didn’t get much sleep last night… ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/108 "2008-10-16T03:45:52Z")
I never said Harper didn’t think there would be a downturn I’m saying he didn’t (and neither did anyone else) think the problem would consume $700 billion US for various bank bailouts, 2 major investment banks dead, AIG nationalized, a combined multinational interest rate rate cut and the sporadic nationalization of various banks by various governments across NA and Europe. Hell, if I’m a minority leader and I see that coming I’d hold on tight because the opposition would never want to **win** that set of problems. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/109 "2008-10-16T04:30:09Z")
> [@Savannah](#): > > though I still hold a bitter grudge against the Liberals for not doing more during the “leaky condo crisis” I’m curious - what did you expect the federal government to do? consumer protection is generally a matter of provincial jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/110 "2008-10-16T05:23:49Z")
We’ve dealt with the “illegal election call” issue before, including, IIRC, when the “fixed election date” legislation was first passed. If you [read the legislation](http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2475836&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24#1), it’s very clear - in summary, elections will be held on a fixed date every 4 years (sect 56.2), unless the Governor General decides to call one at some other time (sect 56.1). Constitutionally, the GG calls the election, and there is no restriction other than the 5-year limit on the GG, which Section 56.1 acknowledges, although rigid convention requires that she/he do so only upon the advice of the PM. In other words, the PM could call an election at any time under this legislation (including delaying more than 4 years) just the same as before it was passed. The election call was perfectly legal, and extremely hypocritical, given the big fuss Harper made about passing the legislation. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/111 "2008-10-16T06:44:02Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > One of the commentators last night made an interesting comment about the Liberals and how their base is shrinking. Out West it is mostly Conservative with the NDP having as much chance as winning the leftovers as a Liberal. The Bloc is taking over in Quebec and limiting the Liberal base there. In Ontario, the Conservatives are eating away at what was traditional Liberal territory. So, as the population levels grow in the West and power shifts there, what are Liberal plans for the future? Do they just fade away? I remember that when Brian Mulrooney was in power , there was a point when the libs were basically self destructing and the NDP was crowing that it was the opposition party, once the Kim Campbell govt self destructed, we got the little guy from some place in quebec for almost three terms ,and then Paul Martin. They will be back , sooner or later. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Mahna\_Mahna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47c2d/32.png) [@Mahna\_Mahna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahna_Mahna)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/112 "2008-10-16T13:54:21Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Oh, yes, he’s hiding his eyes from the camera. He’s shifty, doncha know. You can just tell by looking at his kind. All the right-thinking people can just _smell_ the shiftiness. Facts don’t matter when you’ve got such heightened powers of perception. See, it’s a funny thing about humans, but while our ears are listening to the words coming out of someone’s mouth, our eyes are picking up subtext from their body language. You may be evolved enough to vote on cold hard facts, but most of the population will vote based on emotion and gut feeling. Harper’s indirect glance says “closed”, and utterly defeats the “open and approachable” message that the fireside chat in a casual sweater is meant to convey. And just to prove this isn’t just the anti-Stevie show, I’d like to add that I felt the same way about the fact that Layton kept his hand in his pocket in all the NDP ads (though he at least managed to look straight at the camera), Elizabeth May felt the need to stare out the train window while talking in Green party ads, and Dion was all but invisible in the Liberal ads. Fail all around. Once again, my original complaint is that NONE of the leaders managed to convey the right image in this campaign. I didn’t single out Harper until Leaffan insisted that I was wrong in dismissing his leadership potential. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2008, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/113 "2008-10-16T17:10:25Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > \ > Gee, you think it might have been the huge financial meltdown that hit in the last couple of weeks of the campaign? The miracle is that an incumbent government not only survived the storm but increased in strength. Governments around the world are getting hammered in popularity because the crapstorm hit on their watch. > > Had the financial crisis not come along when it did, Harper would have won a solid majority. He was the victim of bad luck more than anything else. My biggest criticism of Harper and the Conservative party in this last election is that Harper’s campaign manager needs to be taken out back and shot for gross incompetence. What a bumbling, stumbling campaign from a sitting Prime Minister who should have been making this campaign all about his strengths - he’s a friggin’ economist, for God’s sake, in the middle of the worst economic crises most people alive have ever seen! Let everyone else make the election about the environment; he should have been playing to his strengths the whole time. He should have gone in knowing that the US economy could melt down at any time (I managed to anticipate the stock plummeting - surely people in the know are better informed than I am), and made that his campaign. I honestly don’t know what his problem is - that he doesn’t listen to any of his advisors, or that his advisors are idiots. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/114 "2008-10-17T04:43:18Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Quebec, Portneuf-Jacques Cartier, Andre Arthur has again won (narrow victory over the BQ candidate) as an independent. He’s some sort of talk radio host, perhaps one of our Quebec Dopers can explain his appeal. Can’t say I really _understand_ the appeal of André Arthur, but there is apparently a segment of the population of Quebec City’s suburbs who likes what he has to say, enough to elect him in 2006 and re-elect him now. I’ve heard it said that Quebec City is like a big village: I guess it means that outside of the core of public servants in the centre town, people tend to have a “small town” mentality and dislike these public servants, the government, Montreal, etc. Quebec City is a conservative place where these kinds of political or semi-political shock jocks enjoy a rather large following (and where the Conservative party does well, of course). This said, I don’t think André Arthur is any worse as MP than any similar rural or suburban Conservative MP anywhere in Canada, so I don’t think it’s stupid to elect him. I wouldn’t have voted for him, but I’m sure he’s doing a decent job. > [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](#): > > I can’t begin to tell you how depressed I am. I’m not. A Conservative minority was the result I was hoping for. Sure, with 143 or so MPs they’re a bit close to a majority for comfort, but for now I think we’re going to have a quite decent government. As an added bonus, my father voted this time, and was actually interested in the election, even watching the debates (I, on the other hand, wasn’t able to catch them). So as far as I’m concerned, our democracy is in great shape, if even he shows interest in the electoral process. > [@PastAllReason](#): > > After all, even a majority government can be brought down in a non-confidence motion if the majority is slim enough and the Whip did not ensure all members would be present to vote. Fair enough to say that the fixed-date legislation does not have applicability in the event of a non-confidence motion. I don’t think anyone would argue that. Without making changes to the constitution, there is no way to make this law applicable to motions of no confidence. But without making changes to the constitution, there is no way to remove the Governor General’s power to dissolve the House. We can argue that what Harper did went against the spirit of his law, but it certainly wasn’t illegal. We knew from the start that this law didn’t have any teeth. (This is why unlike **Rysto** I don’t think the law is unconstitutional: it doesn’t do enough to possibly violate the constitution.) > [@Frank](#): > > Because Quebec enjoys throwing monkey wrenches into the works. We don’t “enjoy” anything, we do like everyone else and vote according to our interests. And if the rest of Canada voted in block for Harper, we couldn’t do anything to stop him from getting a majority, so I guess that all of Canada is responsible for the breakdown of the old political system. There’s a point, **Frank** , where you can’t blame us for all the universe’s problems anymore. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/115 "2008-10-17T13:40:51Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > I guess it means that outside of the core of public servants in the centre town, people tend to have a “small town” mentality and dislike these public servants, the government, Montreal, etc. Quebec City is a conservative place where these kinds of political or semi-political shock jocks enjoy a rather large following (and where the Conservative party does well, of course). > [@](#): > > This said, I don’t think André Arthur is any worse as MP than any similar rural or suburban Conservative MP anywhere in Canada, so I don’t think it’s stupid to elect him. I wouldn’t have voted for him, but I’m sure he’s doing a decent job. > [@](#): > > I’m not. A Conservative minority was the result I was hoping for. Sure, with 143 or so MPs they’re a bit close to a majority for comfort, but for now I think we’re going to have a quite decent government. > [@](#): > > We don’t “enjoy” anything, we do like everyone else and vote according to our interests. And if the rest of Canada voted in block for Harper, we couldn’t do anything to stop him from getting a majority, so I guess that all of Canada is responsible for the breakdown of the old political system. There’s a point, **Frank** , where you can’t blame us for all the universe’s problems anymore. 😛 Breakdown of the old political system? What old political system? Isn’t it the same political system as it was before? Maybe a little less graft and corruption since the Liberals have been out of power, but I assume that isn’t what you are pining for. Btw, the digs about rural and suburban voters aren’t really necessary. Frankly, those urban voters who think that shutting down industries like the oil sands, which keep them in jobs, are the ones I feel sorry for. How can they sleep at night after voting for putting people out of work? ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/116 "2008-10-17T14:10:50Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > (This is why unlike **Rysto** I don’t think the law is unconstitutional: it doesn’t do enough to possibly violate the constitution.) Some one please correct me if I’m wrong, but the only way that an election can be called that I’m aware of is the GG dissolving parliament. The law says that elections must be held every 4 years, but I don’t see how the House can pass a law that compels the GG to do anything. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/117 "2008-10-17T23:46:27Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Some one please correct me if I’m wrong, but the only way that an election can be called that I’m aware of is the GG dissolving parliament. The law says that elections must be held every 4 years, but I don’t see how the House can pass a law that compels the GG to do anything. The law explicitly says it does not constrain the GG’s ability to dissolve Parliament. It basically amounted to a pledge by Harper to call the next election on the specified date (which he then broke), but there is absolutely no legal force to this pledge. It’s not unconstitutional; it’s just legally insignificant. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/118 "2008-10-18T00:37:46Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > The law explicitly says it does not constrain the GG’s ability to dissolve Parliament. It basically amounted to a pledge by Harper to call the next election on the specified date (which he then broke), but there is absolutely no legal force to this pledge. It’s not unconstitutional; it’s just legally insignificant. Perhaps this is just a matter of definition. From my perspective, there’s a law on the books which says that there must be an election every four years. However, as we’ve all agreed, that law has no legal effect. A PM could ignore the law and serve a full five years if he wanted. Why does it have no legal effect? Because the Constitution does not allow for a Bill to force an election. In my view, that means that the Bill is unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/119 "2008-10-18T01:21:22Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Perhaps this is just a matter of definition. From my perspective, there’s a law on the books which says that there must be an election every four years. However, as we’ve all agreed, that law has no legal effect. A PM could ignore the law and serve a full five years if he wanted. Why does it have no legal effect? Because the Constitution does not allow for a Bill to force an election. In my view, that means that the Bill is unconstitutional. Well, 1. It’s a law, not a bill, 2. It would only be unconstitutional if it contravened the Constitution. It doesn’t. I’m not sure how much clearer this point can be made, but there’s no section of the Constitution Act that this bill violates. It takes no power away from the Governor-General to call elections, and 3. If, by your own admission, it has no legal effect, how can it be unconstitutional anyway? A law is deemed unconstitutional because of its effect. ---
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2008, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981/120 "2008-10-18T01:35:09Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > Perhaps this is just a matter of definition. From my perspective, there’s a law on the books which says that there must be an election every four years. However, as we’ve all agreed, that law has no legal effect. A PM could ignore the law and serve a full five years if he wanted. Why does it have no legal effect? Because the Constitution does not allow for a Bill to force an election. In my view, that means that the Bill is unconstitutional. It has no legal effect because it is explicitly written to have no legal effect. The GG retains the right he/she always had to dissolve parliament, and nothing in the act stops the PM from asking the GG to exercise that authority. I suppose the GG **theoretically** could point to that law and say “No - you said 4 years; I’m holding you to it”, but nobody in their right mind would ever expect that to happen. Now IF section 56.1(1) wasn’t in the law, THEN it would be unconstitutional (and still of no effect). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-election-results/467981.md?page=7)