CanadianJeff wrote:
If a government is ever formed in a democratic country it's because it was voted into power by the people in a fair and open election.... The problem is that the coalition denies this ideal.... Most voters going into the voting booth never had the expectation of anything other then electing a one party government.
The reality in a minority situation though, is that you need coalitions of some form, otherwise you don't have the confidence of the house, and it's back to the voting booth. And these coalitions are
always formed post-election, because who goes into an election advocating a partnership with another party (ok fine, the Libs/Greens, but look where that got them). 99% of the time it's a coalition between the largest party and whatever smaller party they need to get 50%+1 of the house, but there's nothing saying it HAS to be that way. Our constitution was written with a pretty large opening there. I doubt it was done by accident. Our constitution was based off of England's, and they'd had hundreds of years in which a similar situation could have occurred.
In fact, in 1931, a similar situation occurred in the UK. The Labour government, reeling from the Depression and a scandal, as well as being unable to decide on some rather contentious market reform policies, resigned. The Conservative and Liberal parties were invited to speak with the King, and asked to form an "all parties" coalition, to temporarily run the country until the budget could be tabled, after which the coalition would dissolve and general elections held.
Quote:
This IS a violation of what the general public thinks happens in the house.
Most people think they are voting for the prime-minister too, instead of for their own MP who's party the PM happens to lead. Imagine the stink if Harper were replaced mid-term. Or actually, remember the rants of "I didn't vote for him" when Martin succeeded Chretien. Some things require an election. Changing party leader, or parties voting together, is not one of them. Would people demanding an immediate election to give the new guy a mandate be any less informed than those who think parties aren't allowed to negotiate and vote together towards a common goal?
As another comparison, look at some of the furor over Harper planning to appoint new Senators. Some people seem to believe Harper isn't "allowed" to appoint Senators while the Parliament is prorogued. However, while right in a technical sense (Harper doesn't appoint anyone, as a member of the Privy Council he "advises" the Governor General, who appoints Senators), they are incorrect in the broad sense. Nothing in the constitution states that Senators can only be appointed during a sitting session.
Junior Member 
CKA Elite 
