PayrickLondon’s comment about an open primary reminded me: one point that can come up is whether party rules allow a challenge to an incumbent MP for the party nomination.
So far as I know, in Canada all parties require sitting MPs to seek the party’s nomination to stand in an upcoming election, and thus a sitting MP can be challenged by another party member for the nomination.
However, I have a vague recollection that in Britain, the Labour Party automatically gave the nomination to sitting MPs, so they could not be challenged. Am I remembering correctly PatrickLondon?
I haven’t the details to hand, but “reselection” was a big issue in the Labour Party in the 80s, with the left wanting an automatic process of reselection (in the hope of unseating old timeservers and rightwingers) and the right opposing it. There are rumblings about re-opening the debate now that so many of the parliamentary party are so openly disgruntled at - and rumoured to be plotting to overturn - the wider party members’ choice of Jeremy Corbyn as the leader.
I have no idea how the Tory party does it, but I don’t think they’d formally re-open the whole process of application, interview, shortlisting and election if there’s a sitting MP they’re reasonably content with. Equally, I’d imagine the prospect of a vote of no confidence in a constituency party meeting might concentrate an errant MP’s mind a bit.
Sounds like local constituency associations in the UK have greater control over the nomination process than is the case in Canada. As far as I know, the parties here allow anyone to put their name in for nomination before each election. Normally, a sitting MP won’t be challenged in that way, but there have been cases where it happens.
For example, Rob Anders was a long-time Reform/Alliance/Conservative MP in Alberta, holding his seat in five general elections from 1997 to 2011. However, he was a controversial MP and was challenged for the nomination in four elections. He was finally defeated for the nomination before the most recent election. He moved to a different riding and tried again, but was not nominated, ending his parliamentary career.
And the national party organisation. I think all the main parties insist that people who want to be candidates for parliament have to be vetted by the national party organisation and put on the approved list before they can start applying to local parties for any nominations. I don’t know exactly what each party’s procedure is in relation to sitting MPs. I don’t think they’re normally required to go through a re-selection procedure against new applicants for each election, but obviously a local party that’s really unhappy with a sitting MP could put through a vote of no confidence at any time and would be utterly stupid to delay re-selecting if that is a serious prospect.
Most of the posters seem to hail from countries with 2-3 main parties. How does this work when there are 4 or more parties and coalition government is typical? Do party members shuffle between different parties?
Political parties in the Philippines are extremely weak. Politics is dominated by personalities rather than party affiliation. Very often, a politician will declare their candidacy then go shopping for a party to sponsor them. This is true for all levels of elected office, from municipal council all the way up to the President.
I just wanted to add some details to Northern Piper’s description of the Canadian electoral system that might surprise Americans–as it surprised me. First, there is no real tradition of a an MP having to live in his riding (consituency) or even in the same province. I recall being astonished that someone from Montreal ran for a seat in Ottawa. Second, although it is rarely used, the fact that the party leader must sign your papers and is free to substitute another candidate means that it is almost unheard of for an MP to vote against his party leader unless the it has been explicitly called a “vote of conscience”. The result is that the prime minister is guaranteed that any legislation he proposes will pass parliament. They also have to pass the senate, but since the PM appoints the senators, who have to retire at 75, that is generally a minor obstacle. Thus the PM is a virtual dictator until the next election. Finally, the PM and his cabinet (all of whom are sitting MPs) are the executive branch.
The head of state is the Queen and her presentative is called the Governor General. He could, in theory, override the government, but not if he values his life. The current GG is an idiot. I know him personally and I assert that.
Before 1972, US partiers chose their Presidential candidates in the summer before the November 4 election, occuring every 4 years. The decisions were hashed out in, “Smoke-filled rooms”. If I’m understanding things properly, this doesn’t happen in the countries above. The party leader runs for the top office, and everyone knows who the party leader is until they are ousted as in the previous post.
Do any other democracies have their parties choose their nominees in sync with the electoral cycle like the US used to?
I think the French presidential nominations are more closely tied to the election cycle.
There is a world of difference on this point between parliamentary and presidential systems. In the parliamentary system, the leader is often elected well in advance of the election. If the new leader is already in the House, they want to demonstrate their leadership skills right away and get the public used to them in a government function.
There are plenty of smoke filled rooms and political shenanigans in parliamentary democracies e.g. when Gillard replaced Rudd in June 2010 and Rudd replaced Gillard in June 2013. Both changes in leadership were done at virtually the last possible day that a change was possible.
The key difference is fixed terms.
If the election date was known in Australia there would be smoke filled rooms and candles burning midnight oil in much the same style as pre '72 USA
One important factor is the rules governing the timing of elections. It always used to be the case that the law in the UK only specified the maximum length of a parliament (i.e., the time between general elections). Custom and convention governed a Prime Minister’s calculation as to whether an election should be called earlier than the full term of five years, but it was always theoretically possible that an election could occur at any time; and since the old adage was that “the Queen’s government must be carried on” (i.e., there must always be ministers and parliament in place), everything was set up to enable all this to happen.
The law has now changed to make it well-nigh impossible for a PM to call a “snap” general election early, but there are no signs of much else changing in the political system as a result. There will always be a PM and a Leader of the Opposition, and always the prospect of unseating one or the other if their party perceives them to be failing or “damaged goods” or otherwise a liability to the party’s prospects at the next election.
One other consequence of the assumption that an election could occur at any time (and local elections occur on a different timetable and cycle anyway, of course): the local authority is legally obliged to ensure there is a permanent register of electors, updated every year.
I think it may still be the case that you are legally obliged to register if you are eligible to vote, though I’m not aware of anyone being penalised for not doing so (other than not being able to vote, of course). Certainly there’s a worry that too many people don’t bother or don’t realise they have to register until it’s too late for any given election, hence adverts like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W–C4XWPCYE
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3514050/010-knesset_possible-netanyahu_1024.0.png){kind=link}
