Elections Survey

[c9]

Do you think that fixed election dates -- meaning the set scheduling of elections every (for example) 48 months, rather than at the whim of the Prime Minister -- are a good idea? Why or why not?

Good: The PMO loses some power, and it's fairer to all the parties.

Bad: The election campaign starts essentially as soon as the last one finishes, like in the US.

Question mark: I'm not sure how we would deal with minority governments.

Comments

[disasternat.livejournal.com]

I personally don't like fixed election dates - I think the possibility of an election at any moment either in a majority setting, i.e. 2000 (which caught the opps off gaurd) or in a minority setting - keeps people more credible... well slightly more credible.

[ex-halfwitte432.livejournal.com]

Fixed are not good simply because of the constant campaign thing... it makes people complacent.

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

We have constant campaigns anyway.

I like the idea. My problem is that I think it's inconsistent with our constitutional democracy. The government is only the government so long as it has the confidence of the majority of the house. We'd be changing that if we had fized-term mandates. I guess we can do it; BC and Ontario have. But I don't like presuming that American-style solutions fit easily here.

[c9.livejournal.com]

This is true, politics has come to mean constant campaigning.

I haven't investigated what BC and Ontario propose to do in case of minority. I should research that.

[simplisticton.livejournal.com]

I like Nihilicious's observation that the government is only the government as long as it has the confidence of the house. I think that's a key aspect of our democracy. If a government is doing well, I don't see any reason to incur the expense and trouble of an election just for the sake of having an election. Conversely, an unstable or ineffective government is usually quickly addressed.

[miket61.livejournal.com]

I think that it's silly that we have to elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives every two years. By the time they figure out where their offices are, get their staff hired, and get to dealing with actual issues, they have to start their re-election campaign, so they never get anything done.

Oh, wait, I get it now...

[jamincan.livejournal.com]

Couldn't they have a fixed term instead of a fixed date? That would accomodate failed motions of confidence. Or maybe a minimum term?

[thespos]

I do not like fixed election dates, but then, I am not a fan of the US form of democratic government.

As you correctly point out, the campaigns literally begin the day after the election. The loser vows to return, the winner vows to honor the promises and build a record toward re-election. We live in a country of nearly never-ending campaigning here.

In the US, this also allows for sales to be built around Election Day, which I find ridiculous.

The other problem that arises because of the constant campaigning is that the work of government becomes more about politics than about true governance, because there is always an eye toward the next election. We also suffer through longer periods of politic advertising than most other democratic countries, and these conventions are utter nonsense and posturing.

I am not saying that government in a parliamentary style of election is without politics, I am quite sure from my experiences in other democracies that this is not the case. But I do feel that elected representatives actually do more work, because they may have to fight to defend their jobs at any time. Our reps in this country tend to ramp up activities just before an election cycle.