Not just is it a numbed emulation of the American system
There are plenty of countries that have fixed-term elections. France, for example. Ontario passed a bill on it in 2004. The European Parliament has them to. Why are you singling out the United States? To appeal to Canadian anti-American bigotry?
for no reason,
Not so. The impetus behind it is to prevent the government of the day from manipulating elections by calling them when they're high in the polls, even when they currently still have a mandate. That's exactly what Chretien did for years.
There may be other problems that come with a fixed-date system; but I don't see how the current way of doing things is so infinitely superior.
it also means that we've made it illegal to call an early election.
As I understand it, there are still provisions for a new election if the government falls on a vote of confidence.
The senate once forced Mulrouney to shelve free trade unless he got a new mandate from the people in the form of an election
Did they? I wasn't aware that the Senate forced anything. They certainly didn't manage to stop the GST, which was at least as controversial. They also didn't force any elections when the Liberals broke all their major promises after 1993.
a policy either has to be shelves until the fixed date, or allowed through
There can still be a federal referendum, can't there?
the lack of proportional representation, which helps the right-wing party win elections
It goes both ways. The Liberal majority governments since 1993 (and before) all exercised dictatorial powers with only ~40% of the vote.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2007-05-08 04:11 pm (UTC)There are plenty of countries that have fixed-term elections. France, for example. Ontario passed a bill on it in 2004. The European Parliament has them to. Why are you singling out the United States? To appeal to Canadian anti-American bigotry?
for no reason,
Not so. The impetus behind it is to prevent the government of the day from manipulating elections by calling them when they're high in the polls, even when they currently still have a mandate. That's exactly what Chretien did for years.
There may be other problems that come with a fixed-date system; but I don't see how the current way of doing things is so infinitely superior.
it also means that we've made it illegal to call an early election.
As I understand it, there are still provisions for a new election if the government falls on a vote of confidence.
The senate once forced Mulrouney to shelve free trade unless he got a new mandate from the people in the form of an election
Did they? I wasn't aware that the Senate forced anything. They certainly didn't manage to stop the GST, which was at least as controversial. They also didn't force any elections when the Liberals broke all their major promises after 1993.
a policy either has to be shelves until the fixed date, or allowed through
There can still be a federal referendum, can't there?
the lack of proportional representation, which helps the right-wing party win elections
It goes both ways. The Liberal majority governments since 1993 (and before) all exercised dictatorial powers with only ~40% of the vote.