In the US Presidential and Senatorial elections are held on regular bases; in the UK, Parliamentary elections can be held at any time, with a maximum term of 5 years.
It seems to me that in the U.S. most of the last year of the President’s term of office is taken up with the election of the new President. Here in the UK we have a general moderate level of politicking with everyone kept on their toes by the uncertainty, but things only really hot up for the duration of the election - 5 or 6 weeks. Would this not be preferable for the U.S.?
What do you mean by elections can be held at any time? Who decides when it is held? Could elections be held every year or every six months if enough people don’t like the out come? I really don’t know anything about how the UK election system works.
Well, one of the problems of a variable term (or advantages, if you’re in the majority party) is that you can time the elections to your advantage. If you’re popular, call elections before you become unpopular. In a system like the U.S., Bush just has to pray for good weather and happy times next October-November.
Grossly simplifying, in the UK the Prime Minister can call for an election at any time, subject to a maximum of 5 years. In the early 70s Edward Heath won an election with a wafer-thin majority, so he governed for a while, looked at supposedly favourable opinion polls, called another election the same year, and lost.
Yes, it often favours the incumbent, but it also often favours the opposition - look at the Labour victories of 2001 and 1997 respectively.
It’s also a useful device for keeping MPs in line: consider how many Labour MPs would lose their seats if TB were to call an election tomorrow.
The last time a Canadian government fell because of a vote of “no confidence” (i.e. the majority vote in Parliament) was Joe Clark’s administration, 1979, which I mention for the sake of contrast to, say, Italy, who’s had so many governments since WW2, I’m surprised the seats get warm at all.
A fixed electoral schedule favours a two-party system, in that one side typically gets a clear majority and thus a mandate for two or four years. If a third party gained strength in the USA, I could picture a 3-way tie in Congress which would force a truly ridiculous amount of negotiation over every piece of legislation, lest two parties team up to neutralize the third and nothing gets done for two years at a time.
Fixed term - two parties
Effective variable term - three to five parties
Paralysis - six or more parties