![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
c9Background: 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-23 09:41 am (UTC)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.