News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 2.1K     14 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Bayview Village Resubmission More Than Doubles Height Near Bessarion Station
 2.5K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Drone Flight Captures Cladding Progress at Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon
 747     0 

Six year terms federally offset by region

E

EnviroTO

Guest
One of the frustrations I have heard about with the federal elections is that by the time polls close in the west the election has already been decided. I was thinking it might help people see the power of their vote if combined with plans for fixed election dates voting did not occur at the same time in all locations.

Basically the way it could work is as follows:
2008 - QC, NB, NS, PE, NL
2010 - ON
2012 - BC, AB, SK, MB, YK, NT, NU
2014 - QC, NB, NS, PE, NL
2016 - ON
...

These areas hold about the same number of seats. This would keep the government accountable continually through the term yet each MP would need to concern themselves with their own re-election less as well as eliminate the threat of frequent elections in minority governments. I would think that voter turnout would increase because not only would voters not be fatigued by elections every 2-3 years, they would also see each vote as their turn to have a say and respond to how the other two zones voted in previous elections.
 
I think there would be a lot of pandering to particular regions every few years. It would certainly make it easier to pander to one region if one doesn't need to worry about backlash elsewhere.

That elections are decided out east before the polls close in BC is a fallacy. Every seat in parliament is equal. It's as ridiculous as Ontario saying that BC got to break the 'tie' between the Liberals and Conservatives this year, and thus their seats were 'more significant'.

A better fix for our electoral system would be preferential balloting. It would give the Greens a leg up and take a lot of the angst out of strategic voting and vote splitting between similar parties.
 
It would also mean that when the voters want to send a message (like with Kim Campbell) they don't get to. Instead of being down to 2 seats the Tories could have held onto loads because certain seats weren't up for voting and thus they could concentrate on keeping only those up for election, pouring national resources into a regional election.
 
^ However the argument can be made that the process isn't as well served by knee-jerk reactions as well as it is with a well thought out analysis of the previous 6 years. The punishment could still be sent but over a longer timeframe. With about one third of the seats up for grabs every 2 years any party's majority could easily be removed at any time. Arguably Mulroney's PCs would have been removed from majority power about 2 years earlier under this scenario and they wouldn't have had time to pick a new leader to run with until they were already a minority, and the following election could have decimated them. If the government was in a constant state of elections then they would be judged for the work they do all the time rather than having 2.5 bad years followed by the 1.5 years of pandering to voters that everyone remembers. They wouldn't have the budget to maintain full blown campaigns every 2 years.
 
I'd rather a third of each region be elected every 2 years.
 
What about no-confidence votes that bring down parliament?
 
I don't think there should be non-confidence votes. The people voted these MPs in, it shouldn't be that when they have a vote on a particular issue that it forces another election.
 
The non-confidence vote is the basis of our parlimentary system, the government must maintain the confidence of the house in order to have a mandate to govern. As such, there is no possibilities for deadlock; what good is a government that is unable to pass bills?
 
What good is your local representative if any vote he makes which represents the views of his constituents can bring down the government. We seem to be approaching an era, especially if proportional representation gets serious consideration, where the country can expect more minority governments. I really don't want to see elections every two years or less for the whole country because on one issue the government cannot agree.
 
"What good is your local representative if any vote he makes which represents the views of his constituents can bring down the government."

Not very good at all... which is why not just any vote can bring down the government. It's only major votes that are considered to be non-confidence votes. Most importantly, the throne speech which sets out the priorities of the government and budget votes. If a government can't pass a budget then they can't function. And if they aren't competent enough to ensure that they can manage government, the electorate will punish them. See: Joe Clark 1980.

I do agree that local representatives should have greater freedom to represent his constituents, but lack of freedom isn't the fault of the system. Sadly, what we end up with are pols like Mr. Harper who speak of the need for greater MP freedom but upon election turn around and silence his MPs with a tighter muzzle than any PM before.
 
"One of the frustrations I have heard about with the federal elections is that by the time polls close in the west the election has already been decided."

So why don't they just not release any results until polls in BC have closed? Problem solved.

edit - and ban exit polling, too.
 
I don't understand how we managed to get along in the 1960s and 1970s when minority governments were as common as majority governments - from 1962 to 1968, and from 1972 to 1974 federally and from 1975 to 1981 provincially.

Federally, we adopted a new flag, abolished capital punishment, decriminalized homosexuality, reformed the 19th century divorce laws, liberalized immigration laws, introduced social health care.

Minority governments can work. Ottawa isn't because we have one party who generally is against the policies of all opposition parties (except maybe the old Paul Martin side of the Liberals), and because of the Bloc. But there were the Socreds that made up a fourth party in the 1960s.
 
Non-confidence motions are generally not great for government. I'd rather that minority governments presented a budget that the House could be modified without having to bring the House down. As it is, we have far too much brinksmanship in the House.
 
Most democracies have proportional representation or preferential ballots. How do they deal with minority governments? You always hear about multi-party coalitions in other countries and they obviously get things done. Maybe when no single party can ever win a majority (when was the last time a majority was elected with 50+% of the vote?), parties will think twice about constantly trying to bring each other down.

IMO, coalitions of several parties that have to compromise to pass laws would be a lot more democratic than the artificial majorities we get now. I'd even argue that it would be more stable. You don't get a sudden 180 in the country's direction when a new party is elected. Plus things like Adscam would be harder to pull off when you have other parties keeping you in line.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top