tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post4900575685740832625..comments2023-10-04T06:59:20.803-06:00Comments on The Enlightened Savage: qOtd: Fixed Election DatesEnlightened Savagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17872131888278838737noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-15215430440238532802011-02-28T10:10:01.708-07:002011-02-28T10:10:01.708-07:00Mark: In response to your questions: What Julia sa...Mark: In response to your questions: What Julia said. :)<br /><br />I think that fixed dates would undoubtedly lengthen the campaign cycle. Consider the U.S. Presidential cycle, where a newly-elected President governs for a year, spends year 2 campaigning for congressional mid-term elections, and then spends years 3 & 4 campaigning for his own re-election.<br /><br />I don't like it... but at least we all know what's going on.<br /><br />Advantage to the richest party? Absolutely. But, that's how it is now, and nothing short of fully tax-funded political parties (which makes me uncomfortable) will level that playing field.<br /><br />I don't have time right now to look into Julia's question re: Canadian precedent at the provincial level. Does anyone have that information?<br /><br />Please don't let today's shiny new qOtd distract you from this great discussion. ;)Enlightened Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17872131888278838737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-77577940985892983382011-02-27T16:39:14.198-07:002011-02-27T16:39:14.198-07:00Hello Enlightened:
Re: "there will be an el...Hello Enlightened:<br /> <br />Re: "there will be an election in exactly 4 years... unless it happens sooner" is pretty much the system we've GOT:<br /><br />With fixed election dates, it wouldn't be same as what we've got, because the power would be taken away from governing party to go to polls at its whim, which to me is the biggest reason why we should go to fixed dates in first place. (All the other reasons you cite are good, too.)<br /><br />I do agree that minority gov't scenario complicates the issue. If that happens and govt falls between fixed election dates, yes, you would hold an election at that point, sooner than four years. But after you have the "early" election, then the four-year clock starts again. <br /><br />Even under this scenario, I think this would still be a more democratic process than the status quo. <br /><br />Hello Mark@dollhouseycc:<br />Re: Lengthening campaign cycle: I think that probably would happen and it would be the downside. But many would argue that in our current system there's always an unofficial campaign going on (things are said and done with an eye to the next election). It just heats up and comes out in the open when an election is called. <br /><br />Re: Advantage to richest party: You raise very good point. But don't they have the advantage regardless?<br /><br />My opinion is that the upsides of fixed election dates outweigh the downsides.<br /><br />Question: I seem to recall talk of fixed election dates in B.C. but don't know whatever came of it, if anything. Does anyone know if this has ever been tried in Canada?@JulesNecheff - Julia Necheffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-61191094526115774392011-02-27T15:14:39.913-07:002011-02-27T15:14:39.913-07:00In principle I very much agree with the logic of F...In principle I very much agree with the logic of Fixed election dates. I would love to hear your take on whether or not it inceases the campaign cycle beyond the typical election period. I guess with Harper it could be argued we are already doing that but it has typically not been the case in Canada.<br /><br />My only fear is with fixed election dates, the riches party which is in most cases the one in power would still have an unfair advantage by extending campaign period well beyond the election date.<br /><br />Thoughts?<br /> <br /><br />Marc @dollhouseyyc@dollhouseyycnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-47206266268395924372011-02-27T15:08:39.544-07:002011-02-27T15:08:39.544-07:00Julia: Thanks for your thoughts.
I'm still a ...Julia: Thanks for your thoughts.<br /><br />I'm still a little unsure about the possibility of how to make this work in case of a minority government... essentially, "there will be an election in exactly 4 years... unless it happens sooner" is pretty much the system we've GOT. And we can't say "under no circumstances will there be an election earlier than 4 years from now" in that situation (or, to be honest, in any situation - if 40 Alberta PC's cross to the Social Credit party tomorrow, they could force us to the polls by late March).<br /><br />Likely? Not really. But the hassle with legislation is that we need to account for even the unlikeliest of happenings.<br /><br />Again, thanks for your take!Enlightened Savagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17872131888278838737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6929537540404873123.post-23630186501564104852011-02-27T14:49:51.745-07:002011-02-27T14:49:51.745-07:00My Take: Absolutely yes to fixed election dates, f...My Take: Absolutely yes to fixed election dates, for all the reasons you state.<br /><br />Our current system which gives the the governing party this power stacks the odds in its favour - this is an undemocratic anachronism that has got to go!<br /><br />If a govt fell before the next scheduled election date, I would think you'd have to restart the election clock from that point forward. I don't see the point in wasting taxpayers' money holding another election sooner than four years. Also, the new gov't that is elected should have the same opportunity to govern for four years. Gov'ts don't fall very often anyway (I'm not saying it never happens), so don't forsee this wrinkle being a huge issue.Julia Necheffnoreply@blogger.com