[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Canadian soothsaying (click to view)
Date: March 1, 2011
Is there any game more hopelessly superstitious than trying to predict the date of Canada's next federal election?

Because Canada's parliamentary system ridiculously gives the prime minister of the country the authority to set the timing of his own re-election, Canadians are used to election calls occurring in perfect tandem with a moment of great polling success for the ruling party. And thus, with the Conservatives currently polling around 43% approval, the media has been more abuzz than ever with election speculation as of late.

This is also ridiculous, but under Canada's delightful electoral system, a 43% rate of public support is usually enough to win over 50% of the seats in the House of Commons, and thus generate a powerful majority government. This is the great prize Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been slavishly coveting for so long, after years of toiling in frustration with his measly parliamentary plurality and its sometimes (shudder) uncertain legislative outcomes.

Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, however, the Canadian people are not total saps, and do in fact know an opportunistic, pointless election when they see one. Harper's 2008 re-election campaign certainly fit that bill, and the public's hesitancy to grant the man a second-term majority so soon after winning his first mandate, can be at least be partially attributed to voter frustration with a thoroughly unnecessary trip to the polls.

So Harper has a vested interest in trying to manufacture some sort of legitimate-seeming crisis to justify an election call, and this is where much of the media's entrail-reading has been focused these days. Since a Canadian election can also be instigated through a parliamentary vote of no confidence, if Harper sufficiency pisses off the other parties, he can then provoke them into voting down some key piece of legislation, then call a snap election on the pretext that parliament has become "unworkable."

This means we now have to attempt to read the minds of not just Harper, but also Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton. Will they play along with Harper's game of chicken? Or call his bluff?

The Conservatives are expected to table their sixth budget sometime this month, and already Harper has been going through the motions of meeting with opposition leaders in an effort to portray himself as a guy willing to "reach out" to partisan opponents. Whether or not Harper's budget will actually wind up incorporating any NDP or Liberal proposals is another question altogether, however. Appearances tend to matter more than substance in the cynical world of politics, so as long as it looks like Harper at least tried to reach out... well, he's got all the defensive campaign platform talking-points he needs in the event he ultimately decides to deliver a poison pill.

In any case, if Canada is to face an election in 2011 it will be entirely because some gang of politicians have deemed it in their best interest. Though it's easy for Canadians to regard this whole crooked tradition with a sort of numb dejection — as we do with so many of the less attractive elements of our political system — the ongoing partisan manipulation of this country's polling dates remains one of the most corrupt aspect of Canadian democracy, and one of the most justifiable cases for constitutional reform.

[CKASlacker]

Wasn't one of Harper's election promises before his 1st election the move to have fixed election dates? Whatever happened to that idea?

[Psudo]

I imagine Harper would argue that he's waiting until he has a majority government so he has the votes necessary to pass such a bill.

[DrCaleb]

CKASlacker wrote:

Wasn't one of Harper's election promises before his 1st election the move to have fixed election dates? Whatever happened to that idea?

He did get a bill passed for fixed election dates (C-19), that being the third Monday in October, in the 4th year after the previous election, starting with October 19, 2009. But nothing stops him or the GG from calling an election whenever they desire. The same rules of confidence also still apply to the government.

Doesn't anyone do their own homework anymore?

[Psudo]

You say "in the 4th year after the previous election." Does that mean October following the fourth anniversary of the previous election day? Or October in the year of the previous election day plus four?

In other words, if you had an election in November 2020, would the following election be scheduled for Oct 2024 or Oct 2025?

[DrCaleb]

That would be "homework".

[JJ]

Basically, the law only seems to work if the government forgets it exists.
"Oh? That's TODAY? Well I guess we better have an election then!"

[CKASlacker]

DrCaleb wrote:

CKASlacker wrote:

Wasn't one of Harper's election promises before his 1st election the move to have fixed election dates? Whatever happened to that idea?

He did get a bill passed for fixed election dates (C-19), that being the third Monday in October, in the 4th year after the previous election, starting with October 19, 2009. But nothing stops him or the GG from calling an election whenever they desire.

Oh. So nothing changes then. We have fixed election dates, until if/when the current government or the opposition decide we should have one *now* (or reasonably soon enough), by a vote of non-confidence, or, in Harper's case, by sabotaging a significant bill (ie. budget) by making it unpalatable to the other side so they non-confidence it. Fantastic.

Wouldn't it be nice they Canada had actually *fixed* election dates, instead of wearying the Canadian public with endless campaign ads? That is, if the current government was elected as a minority, they'd actually *have to sort things out amongst themselves until the next election*, instead of spending countless hours politically maneuvering so that "their" side doesn't look like they're "forcing" yet *another* distasteful election on the Canadian public?

I suppose I'm being too idealistic, and I seem to recall we've already had a Canadian republic/constitutional monarchy debate on these forums.

[DanSC]

CKASlacker wrote:

I suppose I'm being too idealistic, and I seem to recall we've already had a Canadian republic/constitutional monarchy debate on these forums.

Unfortunately, Canada becoming a republic wouldn't help this issue, as the parliamentary system would almost certainly remain intact. Replacing a puppet Queen and Government General with a puppet President still leaves the PM free to hold elections whenever he or she wants.

[Psudo]

I wonder what Canada's government would be like if the GG (or equivalent office) was actively involved in the running of government. Like, if they were given an overridable veto power over legislation like the US President, or was made head of non-partisan organizations like the election commission and the redistricting board.

[DrCaleb]

CKASlacker wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

CKASlacker wrote:

Wasn't one of Harper's election promises before his 1st election the move to have fixed election dates? Whatever happened to that idea?

He did get a bill passed for fixed election dates (C-19), that being the third Monday in October, in the 4th year after the previous election, starting with October 19, 2009. But nothing stops him or the GG from calling an election whenever they desire.

Oh. So nothing changes then. We have fixed election dates, until if/when the current government or the opposition decide we should have one *now* (or reasonably soon enough), by a vote of non-confidence, or, in Harper's case, by sabotaging a significant bill (ie. budget) by making it unpalatable to the other side so they non-confidence it. Fantastic.

Wouldn't it be nice they Canada had actually *fixed* election dates, instead of wearying the Canadian public with endless campaign ads? That is, if the current government was elected as a minority, they'd actually *have to sort things out amongst themselves until the next election*, instead of spending countless hours politically maneuvering so that "their" side doesn't look like they're "forcing" yet *another* distasteful election on the Canadian public?

I suppose I'm being too idealistic, and I seem to recall we've already had a Canadian republic/constitutional monarchy debate on these forums.

The state of 'non-confidence' is actually in the Constitution. Changing it isn't quite as easy as lowering the GST, for example.

If people are weary of campaign style ads, they will stop buying party memberships.

And no, fixed election dates wouldn't make any difference. We get elections when we need elections. The more often a party calls one, the less likely they are going to be re-elected. Thought I disagree with the Harper government, he has been doing a great job keeping a minority government functional. I like the imbalance of power, because it means he must govern with the majority of MPs on his side, not just his own party.

[DrCaleb]

Psudo wrote:

I wonder what Canada's government would be like if the GG (or equivalent office) was actively involved in the running of government. Like, if they were given an overridable veto power over legislation like the US President, or was made head of non-partisan organizations like the election commission and the redistricting board.

The Governor General and the Queen do have veto power. But it's rarely used. And we've had endless debated about having an appointed official overriding elected representatives. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.