Survey

[c9]

Background: Fixed Election Dates are getting to be a hot topic in Canada, with some provincial governments introducing laws stating the specific dates of future elections, rather than leaving it to the Premier's or Prime Minister's discretion. Even Stephen Harper has talked about fixed dates for federal elections.

The upside: everybody knows when the next election is, there's no guessing.

The downside: everybody knows when the next election is, there's no guessing.

Question: Are fixed election dates a good thing?


My opinion: I can't stand the dithering over elections that happens from 3.5-4.5 years into a mandate, drives me up the wall. Plus, the party in power gets a big headstart in being ready for an election, even though these things really can't be hidden. I can't stand even more (even less?) the electioneering in the USA every four years. Their presidential elections start over a year before the actual voting day, and just get worse and worse every time! It would really suck to have that happen here. So I dunno if I like it or not.

Comments

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

I don't know what the rest of the world does, but it strikes me that fixed election dates might not be appropriate for Canadian-style parliamentary democracy.

In the U.S. they simply elect people into positions. The executive (the President) is directly elected (more-or-less) by the people.

Here, though, the executive (Prime Minister or Premier) is just the leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons. The identity of the executive doesn't directly depend on elections. The most common method for a change in executive is via election, but there are other ways, including a non-confidence vote or massive floor-crossing.

I suppose we could still have set terms for Parliament, and let the executive fall where it may. But it seems like the flexibility in term makes more sense for a system that is already somewhat flexible in its selection of executive.

I don't know which is a better idea. Set terms have a lot going for them. But I worry about being too ready to adopt American-style solutions to an otherwise non-American-style system.

[kdborg.livejournal.com]

I prefer the Canadian parliamentary system. It gives the ability to change as required. If a minority government were in place, it may not last the 5 years. In that case, voters weren't decisive enough and another election would be within 2 years be it through a non-confidence vote or inability to act. In a fixed-date system, you're stuck until the next election and that might not be a good thing.

In a majority situation, the government in the parliamentary system can figure out the best time for an election. This is based, of course, on public opinion polls. Being unpopular for a long period of time could cost a party the entire election (e.g. Mulroney's PCs). To me, this gives a bit of power to the people. In a fixed-date system, the parties know when the elections will be and plan/campaign years in advance to win (e.g. US elections). This process can be open to more manipulation of public opinion. I think with such a longer campaign period it creates more voter apathy and low voter turn-outs.

Effectively, in the Canadian system, the parties are consulted by the PM or Premier so that everyone has a heads-up. The media even knew the election was going to happen weeks before the election was called.