What we’re saying is that many Americans regard the assertion that someone or some entity is non-partisan as a polite fiction.
Most of the time, in both the US and Canada, the electoral system moves with sufficient momentum that one person’s views are not dispositive, and there’s no reason to look beyond the bare assertion that one is non-partisan. But if an election is sufficiently close or otherwise troubled that its result somehow turns upon one person’s decision, to assess the fairness of that person’s decision, those of us who are suspicious of nonpartisanship are going to want to look beyond what the person says and evaluate his actions: To whom does he or she contribute; to what organizations does he or she belong; what has he or she written in the past.
Along these lines, there is at least one Doper who has repeatedly asserted that his political views are truly independent and middle of the road. Other Dopers, in my experience, frequently mock this assertion.
sorry - meant to ask the question of both of you, but when I posted the question, I was making supper, posting on my iPhone, and playing “tackle the teddy bear” with the Piper Cub - multi-task overload!
I’m finding the comments on this thread interesting, but I’m on my iPhone again so won’t comment until I’m on my laptop, to avoid further confusion.
I don’t find that link really helpful. Parliament is ruled by a majority party. So far as I can tell, “reporting directly to parliament” shouldn’t be functionally any different from “reporting directly to the majority party.”
No, Parliament is not necessarily ruled by a majority party. The majority party of the Commons forms the government, but there is not always a majority party, in which case a minority party or a coalition of parties would form the government. Parliament is the all the members of any stripe in the Commons, all the members of any stripe in the Senate, and the Crown. Presently, the Conservatives hold the majority of the Commons and of the Senate, however, a majority in either or both is not always the case.
If a matter is within the government’s purview, then that is as far as it goes – meaning that it can be dealt with by the government rather than be dealt with in the Parliamentary houses. When a matter is within Parliament’s purview, then all the MPs and Senators get to address the matter whether the government wishes to bury it or not.
Note that parliamentarians are not necessarily required to vote on party lines on all matters (the party decides which vote are free votes for their members), and even if it is not a free vote, MPs can stick it to their own party if they wish, although typically they would get booted out of their party while condiuing to sit in the House.
In theory, if the Chief Electoral Officer were hauled up before Parliament at it is presently constituted (presently a Conservative majority in both Houses), and if the vote were whipped, and if few Conservatives bolted, then yes, the ruling party could win on the vote and hope to hell that the electorate would forget the matter before the next election. In reality, I doubt if a majority party would be willing to take a huge political hit by covering up a crooked Chief Electoral Officer.
On other words, by having a tenured Chief Electoral Officer who runs an independent institutioning to Parliament rather than a ruling party, it gives huge weight to the office, such that any party would want to keep the institution clean, and would not want to be held out by that instituion as being corrupt.
