Election reform

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by evman150

... It's not an issue I'm going to get emotional over, but it stinks of "USA". Im surprised Harper didn't set the date to be first Tuesday in November or whatever it is. Next thing you know he'll be switching to the electoral college.

What exactly does "USA" stink like? Is it more like wet dog, vegemite, or that funny smell when you spill antifreeze on the engine block?

You said you weren't going to get emotional...but I hope you realize how emotional it actually is to dismiss an idea out-of-hand simply because it's something that Americans do. It's sure not an argument based on logic.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I have two problems with the set election date.

1) I like the tradition of being able to call an election whenever. I'm not sure why I like this, but I do, and I know it's a crappy reason, but I don't care.

2) My real reason. What happens when we get a minority government falling? I think a better way to do this would be to say 4 years after the government is elected, it must call an election. So if Harper get's defeated on a confidence motion next week, and the libs come back to power on say June 15, then the next election would be June 15, 2010.
That could work.

[Cube Inmate]

#2 is what's already being proposed, BBS.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

The Senate is a zoo, I'm glad they're doing something about that. But changing things electorally....I'm not a fan of.

Non-fixed election dates have worked for 140 years, why change now? Because it suits the Tories? It's not an issue I'm going to get emotional over, but it stinks of "USA". Im surprised Harper didn't set the date to be first Tuesday in November or whatever it is. Next thing you know he'll be switching to the electoral college.

I just want to know... do you live in a building with high lead content in the paint and blinds?

Fixed election dates would never ever suit the party in power.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I just want to know... do you live in a building with high lead content in the paint and blinds?

Fixed election dates would never ever suit the party in power.

No, he's just a hardcore NDPer. Reason and logic never enter into their political minds.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

#2 is what's already being proposed, BBS.

From what i understand and read in the paper this morning is that it would simply be the third monday of October every 4 years.
Not that it would be 4 years after the part took power.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FireFly

That's what I'm talking about... You have the 'winners' of the seats get their seat, and then you 'top-up' or even it out using the top losers for each party.

Let's say that the Conservatives get 45% of the vote, but 65% of the seats... well, now you need to 'top up' the other parties so their respective share of the vote matches their share of the seats.

Ahh. I must have misinterpreted what you wrote the first time.

Wouldn't this mean that the number of seats could fluctuate election to election? If you have to bring the 65% down to 45%, but the next election it's 55% to 50%, there will be different seat numbers, no? or just more "losers" from the "winning" party? Or am I misinterpreting again?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What would be the point of an elected senate if it just has the same representation of parliament anyway? Unless the Senate is based on the popular vote, as opposed to parliament which is not... that might work.

I don't think that was the intended plan. It would have the same breakdown as it currently does (same number for every province, not based on population at all) but the members would be elected instead of appointed. This would mean a better representation based on the area - ie: if BC and the Maritimes vote in a NDP senator, they'll actually have NDP senators. As it is currently, it will always be either Conservative or Liberal senators.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

From what i understand and read in the paper this morning is that it would simply be the third monday of October every 4 years.
Not that it would be 4 years after the part took power.

Except if a minority falls early, then it would be 4 years after that election on the 3rd monday in october...

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

From what i understand and read in the paper this morning is that it would simply be the third monday of October every 4 years.
Not that it would be 4 years after the part took power.

Since when did newspapers succeed in conveying the actual facts? It's written so that it will always be on the 3rd Monday in October, 4 calendar years after the previous election. Straight from the horse's mouth:

The New System Proposed in the Bill
Under the proposed system, general elections will be held on a fixed day. Specifically, the bill provides that general elections must be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election.
This does not affect the prerogative of the Prime Minister to advise dissolution at any time prior to the stipulated date, in the event of a loss of confidence. Where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, a general election would be held in accordance with existing practices. The general election following this would then be set for the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year.
The bill also sets out that the date for the next general election will be October 19, 2009, unless the government loses the confidence of the House prior to this time.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Good to know, the article I read in the paper this morning made no mention of that bit.
Thanks

[SeeGeeWhy]

I find the reasoning behind the move to be strange. I am sure that there will be ways that parties will be able to exploit the system to their advantage whether the system is fixed or open.

I can't be upset about it though as the ability for a government to be defeated through a non-confidence vote is still intact.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Ahh. I must have misinterpreted what you wrote the first time.

Wouldn't this mean that the number of seats could fluctuate election to election? If you have to bring the 65% down to 45%, but the next election it's 55% to 50%, there will be different seat numbers, no? or just more "losers" from the "winning" party? Or am I misinterpreting again?

The seat numbers don't have to fluctuate, but they could if you wanted them to. You could have the set 305 + 40 seats. Then if you end up with the 55/50 thing happening, you do just add more losers from the winning party. It's not totally worked out yet, it's just in the idea stage of the game.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm not sure what the big deal is whether there is an exact date, or if the ruling party just has to have an election within a reasonable time frame. Either way, politicians will plan their agenda around the most opportunistic times. If anything, a set date can force issues that should otherwise be given more time.

On the senate; I can see the validity of an elected senate and a non-elected senate. The senate we have now may not be elected, but they also have very nominal power. It's really just a forum. And the fact it is appointed ensures that people from some minority groups that have little chance of ever being elected, but deserve to be involved in the politics of the country, can be involved.

What would be the point of an elected senate if it just has the same representation of parliament anyway? Unless the Senate is based on the popular vote, as opposed to parliament which is not... that might work.

I'm afraid you've got that part wrong, FA. The Senate has a whack of power, but due to it's not being elected, is unable to use any. This leads the Cabinet into being the most powerful body in government, and we've all seen what happens when said power goes to a Cabinet's collective heads.

The Senate is supposed to be used as the check and balance on both Parliament and Cabinet. It can't be though because the citizens of Canada never elected them giving them the right to impose their will.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The seat numbers don't have to fluctuate, but they could if you wanted them to. You could have the set 305 + 40 seats. Then if you end up with the 55/50 thing happening, you do just add more losers from the winning party. It's not totally worked out yet, it's just in the idea stage of the game.

It definitely does sound like an interesting idea and potentially workable idea. It definitely should have some serious scrutiny by those in the know.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by calculoso

It definitely does sound like an interesting idea and potentially workable idea. It definitely should have some serious scrutiny by those in the know.

Thank you! The biggest problem is that governments that get elected don't like to change elections for fear they will lose. What needs to happen first is the people in this great country need to give a damn.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I'm afraid you've got that part wrong, FA. The Senate has a whack of power, but due to it's not being elected, is unable to use any. This leads the Cabinet into being the most powerful body in government, and we've all seen what happens when said power goes to a Cabinet's collective heads.

The Senate is supposed to be used as the check and balance on both Parliament and Cabinet. It can't be though because the citizens of Canada never elected them giving them the right to impose their will.

Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree then.

The Senate cannot introduce financial legislation, and parliament has veto power over any amendments the Senate makes on constitutional ammendments. As well, the Senate can only delay legislation for 180 days if they disagree with something passed by parliament. That severely limits the Senate's power.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/parliament/senate/senate-structure.htm

As a side note, I did not know that in order to be a Senator, one needs to own land. That seems pretty outdated.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree then.

The Senate cannot introduce financial legislation, and parliament has veto power over any amendments the Senate makes on constitutional ammendments. As well, the Senate can only delay legislation for 180 days if they disagree with something passed by parliament. That severely limits the Senate's power.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/parliament/senate/senate-structure.htm

As a side note, I did not know that in order to be a Senator, one needs to own land. That seems pretty outdated.

The 180 days is for Constitutional amendments only. They have the right to veto anything else, including financial legislation. The main reason for the limit on their powers over Constitutional amendments is because the provinces themselves must agree on such amendments, making the Senate redundant. However, 180 days is more than enough time to bring to light any issues they may feel need to be addressed.

[calculoso]

I agree with Firefly.

From FA's link: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features...structure.html

"The Senate can amend, delay, or refuse to pass bills introduced in the lower House."

"Under the 1982 Constitution Act, the House of Commons has an absolute veto over constitutional amendments, while the Senate has a 180 day suspensive veto. This means the Senate can only delay the legislation for 180 days. " (emphasis mine)

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I'm afraid you've got that part wrong, FA. The Senate has a whack of power, but due to it's not being elected, is unable to use any.

I would say that it is more of lack of desire to use it than a lack of ability to use it.

Since Senators are appointed on the PM's recomendation the whole house is full of party members with no desire to stop any legislation that the HOC passes. And if they do get riled up, the PM can just appoint more so that his party has the majority (as the exact number of senators is not defined in the constitution), that is what is wrong with the system.