What do Canadian Dopers see as the significance of this bill? I fail to see it as anything more than cosmetic, as we are replacing a fixed term of 5 years (with the possibility of an earlier election at the whim of the government or the opposition) with a new (semi-)fixed date of the third Monday in October of the fourth calendar year after the previous election (with the possibility of an earlier election at the whim of the government or the opposition).
Given that the current process almost never goes for the full 5 years anyway, this seems to be merely be a cosmetic change formalizing the current practice with the significant disadvantage that the politicians can now start campaigning well in advance instead of only starting when the writ is actually issued (as well as a certain “copy the U.S.” feel to it).
I note as well that the comment by the Conservative House Leader that “It eliminates the unfair advantage that a [Prime Minister] has to call an election, so I think it’ll be welcome to Canadians” to be at best misleading and verging on lying, as it doesn’t (and Constitutionally almost certainly can’t) prevent the Prime Minister from calling for an election at any time before the “fixed” date, or prevent the Opposition from forcing an early election through a vote of non-confidence.
The whole thing seems like a bunch of pissing in the wind to me. Like the conservatives are trying to make the point that they’re changing govt’ for the better, while trying to gloss over the floor crossing that was popular with the past govt’ and which they engaged in the 2nd day into their govt.
I have to be honest - as time passes I’m becoming less and less impressed with this govt. (Not that I was ever thrilled - indiferent, probably.)
Comparing the U.K. and the U.S., it seems to me that a variable election date seems to keep the opposition parties more on their toes, and a static election date lengthens the election process.
It doesn’t really address much. If they (Harpie and his buds) really cared about democracy they would make moves toward proportional representation. Even abolishing the senate is more important. This is window dressing. And in the event of future minority parliaments, even an idiot can engineer their own downfall at an opportune time… (sometimes they do it at inopportune times) – this move to fixed elections only addresses a single abuse of majority parliaments. Big Yawn.
I don’t think it even does this. The bill clearly states that there is no change to the GG’s constitutional power to dissolve Parliament, which means that the PM can still call an election anytime he feels that the odds are in his favour. Instead of elections called 3½ years into a 5-year maximum term they will be called 3½ years into a 4-and-a-bit-year maximum term.
I haven’t been paying close attention so it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if I’ve misunderstood, but it was my understanding that it would prevent an election from being called at the whim of the government. The government could still fall (and an election be called early) if a minority government lost a vote of non-confidence, but a majority government would be there for the duration.
My understanding, reinforced by the clause in the new bill that states “56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.”, is that the change does nothing to eliminate the government in power from calling an election at some other time. (The “Governor General’s discretion” is exercised at the “request” of the PM.) I believe that a Constitutional change would be needed to remove this ability.
Harper has announced that the Conservatives don’t intend to actually use the PM’s power to do this, however. :rolleyes:
If it ain’t broke, don’t replace a tidy 30-day election campaign with one lasting ten months or more. I like my American cousins and all, but that doesn’t mean I want to emulate this particularly hellish aspect of their system.
If they maintain that actual campaigning…( but really aren’t all governemnets campaigning for thr next election), be limited to a set number opf weeks I see no problem. Ofcourse I really see no problem with our current system. Aren’t there real issues to deal with?
I really like the idea of fixed election dates. Otherwise, the temptation is just too great for the ruling party to game the system. We might have gotten rid of the Liberals a couple of years earlier and avoided some of the nastier scandals and waste, but they called a snap election to take advantage of opposition disarray. Evidence of the corruption that eventually sank them was already emerging, but the opposition was in no position to exploit it.
You can also ride the business cycle and call elections when times are good, or time elections with other good news that drives the party up in the polls. Likewise, if you have an especially unpopular measure you want passed, you can call an election, get re-elected, then implement your unpopular policy with the knowledge that you have five years to let the electorate forget about it.
Incumbency has enough advantages as it is. Also, I think a long campaign is good for the country, and would help combat voter apathy. People everywhere tend to pay attention to politics only around election time. Snap elections and short campaigns really don’t give the people time to understand the issues, talk about them, and let them sink in. Say what you want about the long election cycle in the U.S., but by the time the voters go to the polls, they’ve been exposed to every aspect of the candidate’s positions, and the candidates have had enough time in the spotlight for their true characters to show.
Canada’s government is far too secretive and hidden. Anything that causes us to shine a little more light on it is a good thing.
I take back everything I ever said about you being a reasonable person.
I don’t think it would help with voter apathy at all. Certainly looking south doesn’t inspire any confidence in that idea.
I personally dislike election campaigns because I have absolutely no patience for the bullshit politicians spew whilst on the campaign trail. All spin, no substance. Of course, I’ve generally made my voting decision long beforehand, based on policies and track records and being the lesser of three evils, and so very little that is said during a campaign has any chance at all of altering my opinion. Since I find the dishonest rhetoric distasteful, and have no need to inform my voting decision with information doled out during the campaign, I want them to be as short as possible.
Maybe, just maybe, if there were longer campaigns but spending was strictly limited to absolutely not a penny more than is spent now, I might reluctantly agree, as we wouldn’t have the bullshit at saturation level the whole time for lack of cash to pay for tv ads.
I think that policy debates are generally far more productive when they occur at substantial remove from campaigns.
Problem is, when the campaign season goes on too long, what you get is voter fatigue. But there’s probably a happy medium that would maximize voter interest and turnout.
As someone who makes his living from people spending ad dollars, I say go for fixed dates. Ka-ching! I loves me 10, 12, 18 months of political ads leading up to the election, which is what happens in the U.S.
As a Canadian citizen who would be forced to watch/fast-forward through those ads, I say this is a horrendous idea.
Chretien was able to keep power through election after election not because he called them when his party was on top, but because he was up against a bunch of schmucks who did not appeal to the public at large. (And after a decade of scandals finished up by Mr. Dithers, they still couldn’t win a majority.) Fixed election dates wouldn’t have changed this at all.
What’s the great thing about random elections? It forces citizens to pay attention to what their politicans do on a daily basis – and that’s what we judge them on at election time. Question Period lets us here what the opposition thinks, and demonstrates how the government treats important issues.
