[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Budget envy (click to view)
Date: April 10, 2011
Canadian and American politics have an interesting tendency to sync up, and it's not uncommon for a debate south of the border to overlap with a near-identical one in the north. Yet no matter how similar the issues being discussed, our two different political systems usually guarantee that the outcomes will unfold in decidedly distinct ways.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the following letter published in the National Post:

For students of comparative government, it has been quite revealing to observe the contrasting ways that the Canadian and U.S. systems deal with an identical problem, namely the failure to pass a budget.

In America, if the parties cannot agree to pass a budget, the federal government is forced to shut down until they do. This puts enormous pressures on both parties to put their differences aside and come up with some sort of compromise. In Canada, however, there is no incentive whatsoever for this sort of co-operation. The parties can keep forcing elections year after year after year, until one finally emerges dominant. It can then ram its agenda through parliament without even the pretense of caring what the opposition thinks or wants.

In America, partisan deadlock results in a brief refrain from government spending. In Canada, the precise opposite: A needless orgy of increased spending in the form of a vain and pointless multi-million-dollar election.

And as the campaign unfolds, Canadians are seeing first hand just how vain and pointless this election truly is. So few issues are on the table — or are even being debated — that many newspapers have started pushing their "Canada Votes 2011" coverage deeper and deeper into their pages, behind more interesting news about missing dogs or road closures. The Conservative campaign in particular has been quite pathetic; since the party was non-confidence'd over its budget proposals, their election platform has been nothing more than a regurgitation of things they were all set do anyway, had they not been willing to help instigate this needless electoral interregnum.

In the United States, by contrast, we saw their closest equivalent of a non-confidence vote — a government shutdown — narrowly averted at the last minute by a bi-partisan deal to forge a mutually-agreeable budget. As President Obama's spokesman notes in his statement on the matter, America's 2011-2012 budget will be a compromise mix of deep spending cuts (to satisfy Republicans) combined with protections for key social programs and subsidies — such as the money given to Planned Parenthood (to mollify Democrats). It's not a perfect agreement by any means, of course, but the fact that the GOP leadership of the House, and the Democratic leadership of the Senate were ultimately able to agree to it does suggest that the American system, for all it's much-criticized "deadlock," can, in fact churn out genuinely compromise-driven policy now and then.

My question to American readers, and Canadians too, is whether they believe the US budget impasse would have been better resolved by holding an emergency election, Canadian-style. I'm inclined to think few will agree.

Canadians often celebrate the idea of a minority government, and say it's the only sort of outcome our system generates that honestly promotes the idea of multi-partisan cooperation. Yet the kamikaze "escape hatch" of a non-confidence vote — the idea that when they parties get tired of working together they can simply vote themselves an election in an attempt to destroy each other — will always exist as a severe corrupter of that ideal. Take away the right of non-confidence votes and emergency elections and maybe you'll get honestly multi-partisan government in Canada, but if current events are any indication, the two ideas can not co-exist.

[sandorski]

I prefer the Canadian System. A Majority would avoid these issues.

[Canadaka]

heh I notice the "canadaka" brand TV.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Er, right - budget envy. I believe the situation in the USA is that last year's federal deficit was $1.5 trillion and neither the Republicans or the Democrats have an actual plan for dealing with the problem. They may have passed "a budget" but they are in deep shit and headed deeper. In Canada the structural budget deficit is small. In the UK David Cameron has slashed most every department because of a huge deficit - is getting the job done.

[Scape]

Quote:

Take away the right of non-confidence votes and emergency elections and maybe you'll get honestly multi-partisan government in Canada, but if current events are any indication, the two ideas can not co-exist.

Politics without consequences? Yeah, that will fly.

Sorry but considering the alternatives what we have now isn't perfect but it is a mere inconvenience in contrast to the alternative, a kangaroo court. These 'endless elections' are not endless at all. At some point the gig will be up for the leaders who try this and the people tolerance for such antics is not limitless. The party that refuses to compromise for the good of the country and puts party 1st will end up destroying their brand and any legacy they might have had.

Sure brinkmanship might work for them in the mid and short term but they can't keep it up for decades. Either leadership reviews or the general election will sort that out given time. Even if the party seeking absolute control stacks the senate that still won't save them if they are mired in minority status. The control of the house of commons is sacrosanct and will trump any other political maneuver in the long run. The only way the house of commons itself can be outflanked is if the people themselves no longer invest themselves in the political process itself. Be that not showing up for the vote or protesting. However that is a self fulfilling prophecy as the more egregious the political over reach the more extreme the reaction will be by the voting public. In other words, you can try to run a minority as if it is a majority with impunity but it's all a bluff and the people can call the government on the bluff at any time if they are inspired enough to do so. That usually happens when governments grow old, complacent, arrogant and take voter apathy for granted.

[JJ]

Scape wrote:

These 'endless elections' are not endless at all. At some point the gig will be up for the leaders who try this and the people tolerance for such antics is not limitless. The party that refuses to compromise for the good of the country and puts party 1st will end up destroying their brand and any legacy they might have had.

Sure brinkmanship might work for them in the mid and short term but they can't keep it up for decades. Either leadership reviews or the general election will sort that out given time.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. We're in quite uncharted political territory at the moment, in terms of the numbers of parties we have, and how entrenched their regional voting bases seem to be. The last three elections have generated basically identical minority situations, and this fourth one looks to be no different. Harper's been trying to make the "give me a majority for stability" argument for a while now, and it doesn't seem to be sticking.

The flaw in your theory is that it presumes emergency elections are clearly the fault of one party, who can in turn be punished by voters. But as we saw in the case of this vote, it's possible that every party can be equally deserving of blame, which makes the lines of responsibility far more blurry.

[Scape]

Well Harper task is to sell his brand and he has being doing the best he can with the cards he has been dealt. However, those cards will be reshuffled as many times as is required in order to break a deadlock, that is the genius of the system we have but it's not a system with the impatient in mind. Change will come but the timetable grows in proportion to the scale of the change.

As to 'one' party being at fault that argument is spurious. You will note that the NDP vote is collapsing at the same time the regional vote of the bloc has increased. This has little to do with just one party but as all parties interact with each other. That's the dance called politics. If the 'threat' of majority under Harper is significant enough the parties of the left will collapse under one banner come election time as 1st past the post will only allow for 1 vote 1 party. So if there is fault with that one vote then perhaps the voters themselves should bring that up for review and break the deadlock that way. I doubt we will ever switch from the 1st past the post system however.

[Taospark]

I think the chief issue is that no one party has been able to gain a lasting majority in Canadian federal politics for quite some time which actually makes the value of being king of the hill in an election less and less alluring. On the American side, the greatest shifts in legislative seats both in 2006 and 2010 have not produced lasting change.

While the nuclear arms treaty, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and credit card regulation were great steps over the objections of fearmongers or lobbyists, there's other stuff that's stalled over the usual infighting and posturing. You can sort of only hope that the coming war over healthcare and Presidential election will burn out the partisan bickering for a while.

[DrCaleb]

I still chuckle; the moment the government was defeated, the commentators were saying that the Conservatives will try to make it look like they were defeated based on the budget, which was never voted on. The reason they gave that it distracts from Minister Oda's and the Governments' findings of contempt of Parliament.

Their prognosticating abilities were dead on. "Look! Over there! See! Ooooo shiny! No contempt for the Parliamentary process and the citizens of Canada here! The big bad opposition defeated the budget! Yeeeess!"

[andyt]

DrCaleb wrote:

I still chuckle; the moment the government was defeated, the commentators were saying that the Conservatives will try to make it look like they were defeated based on the budget, which was never voted on. The reason they gave that it distracts from Minister Oda's and the Governments' findings of contempt of Parliament.

Their prognosticating abilities were dead on. "Look! Over there! See! Ooooo shiny! No contempt for the Parliamentary process and the citizens of Canada here! The big bad opposition defeated the budget! Yeeeess!"

What makes my jaw drop is how the media and opposition falls for it. Harper calls the tune and they all dance to it.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski wrote:

I prefer the Canadian System. A Majority would avoid these issues.

Our system works fine for us in that it prevents what's called 'a tyranny of the majority'.

More or less, whoever is in the minority retains some power and some voice in our system as a 'check and balance' on the excesses of majority. While the Democrats might bitch and whine about that now, they had no problem with it when they were in the minority a few years ago.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson wrote:

sandorski wrote:

I prefer the Canadian System. A Majority would avoid these issues.

Our system works fine for us in that it prevents what's called 'a tyranny of the majority'.

More or less, whoever is in the minority retains some power and some voice in our system as a 'check and balance' on the excesses of majority. While the Democrats might bitch and whine about that now, they had no problem with it when they were in the minority a few years ago.

You're mixing up terms. There's no Tyranny in a Majority Government. There's just a Working Government that has the balls to deal with issues.

Your System doesn't work near as well as you think it does, hence the huge Deficit and the cause of the Economic meltdown. All that compromise leads to half assed measures.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski wrote:

You're mixing up terms. There's no Tyranny in a Majority Government. There's just a Working Government that has the balls to deal with issues.

Your System doesn't work near as well as you think it does, hence the huge Deficit and the cause of the Economic meltdown. All that compromise leads to half assed measures.

I can't argue the fact that a one-party majority is, indeed, more efficient than a republic.

[sandorski]

BartSimpson wrote:

sandorski wrote:

You're mixing up terms. There's no Tyranny in a Majority Government. There's just a Working Government that has the balls to deal with issues.

Your System doesn't work near as well as you think it does, hence the huge Deficit and the cause of the Economic meltdown. All that compromise leads to half assed measures.

I can't argue the fact that a one-party majority is, indeed, more efficient than a republic.

Fail.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski wrote:

Fail.

I agree. One party rule is a failure.