Elections American Style.

[I Think]

Before harper changed the elections to a fixed date, election campaigns were at most 60 days long.
Now we are seeing campaigns that have begun months in advance of election day.
It used to be that parties could spend about $20 millions on the election.
Now because the campaign is not officially underway, but is clearly going on, we are seeing much more money being spent.
How long before the electioneering does not stop, as we see in the flawed system to the south?.
How much money will it take to win, the rich guy always seems to have the advantage?.
Harper has taken away a tradition of fairness in our elections, and we let him do it.

[Urbane]

Is it fair that one party, the government party, knows when the election will be held (or at least can control when it is held), and the other parties don't? I'm not a huge fan of fixed election dates but there are some advantages. People used to complain about the government being able to control when elections are held and how unfair that was. Now they complain when the government doesn't have that advantage. Just saying . . .

[JLives]

I don't like the fixed election dates. It's nice to have a short cycle and be done with it. The American style campaigning is very bad for the country. It's boring, expensive and leads to voter fatigue. I'm not sure the governing party having inside knowledge of the upcoming date before the opposition has really proven proven to be a benefit as the elected party changes all the time.

[Urbane]

I don't like the fixed election dates. It's nice to have a short cycle and be done with it. The American style campaigning is very bad for the country. It's boring, expensive and leads to voter fatigue. I'm not sure the governing party having inside knowledge of the upcoming date before the opposition has really proven proven to be a benefit as the elected party changes all the time.

I'm not going to necessarily argue in favour of fixed election dates because I thought the traditional process was fine. For those interested here's some more information on the subject:

Fixed-date elections in Canada

Under the Canadian Constitution, general elections are to be held at least once every five years. Traditionally, under a parliamentary system of government, general elections are called at the discretion of the prime minister, although they may be held at any time if the government loses the confidence of the legislature. This can be contrasted with congressional systems of government, where elections are held on set dates, as well as municipal governments in Canada, which are generally elected for a fixed term of office. In recent years, there have been calls for more predictable election dates for federal, provincial and territorial legislatures, and for restrictions on a government’s advantage in calling elections when it is most politically advantageous for them to do so.

The intent of fixed-date election legislation is to create a regular cycle of planned general elections, with specific, predictable election dates and a fixed term for the legislature. Beginning with British Columbia in 2001, a total of eight Canadian provinces and territories have passed laws calling for fixed-date elections. In 2007, the Parliament of Canada passed a law which introduced fixed-date elections at the federal level. All of the Canadian statutes provide for general elections every four years. However, elections can still be held earlier if the government loses the confidence of the legislature, and nothing restricts the royal prerogative of dissolution.

By-elections to fill empty seats in the legislature are not affected by the introduction of fixed-date elections, and continue to be held between the dates of general elections as required.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/compilat ... tions.aspx

[Hurtlander]

The fixed election dates don't really mean all that much, if suddenly the Harper government surged ahead in the polls Harper could break his own law and call an early snap election, back when John Baird stepped down some political analysts were suggesting Harper might actually call an early election rather than have a by-election sometime before August to replace Baird. On the other hand, if the Harper government isn't showing very good in their own internal polling, Harper could violate his own laws and postpone the October election out the the constitutional maximum, which would be May 2016...

[Urbane]

The fixed election dates don't really mean all that much, if suddenly the Harper government surged ahead in the polls Harper could break his own law and call an early snap election, back when John Baird stepped down some political analysts were suggesting Harper might actually call an early election rather than have a by-election sometime before August to replace Baird. On the other hand, if the Harper government isn't showing very good in their own internal polling, Harper could violate his own laws and postpone the October election out the the constitutional maximum, which would be May 2016...

You make a good point about the fixed election dates not being all that fixed. Of course the electorate could punish any party that changed the fixed date. If Harper were to call an early election before the October date I think that he would pay a political price. By the way, like it or not even the UK has fixed election dates now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term ... s_Act_2011

[logicalview]

I still remember when Chretien called an election in 2000 to try and run to the polls because he was scared of Stockwell Day. He still had over a year left in his mandate, and wasted $300 million tax dollars on an election purely because he saw a political advantage. In Alberta, the PC premier called an election a year before it was required and he was soundly trounced, and one of the reasons for that was that he needlessly and arrogantly took Albertans to the polls for no reason. If Alberta had fixed dates, he would still be in power today, and Notley would still be searching the arts faculties of Calgary community colleges looking for unqualified candidates.

Fixed election dates are good, and the US isn't the only country that has them. Even Norway, beloved by socialists everywhere, has fixed election dates, yet I didn't see you mention that Stephen Harper has adopted Norwegian style elections. This constant fixation with trying to make everything Canada and Stephen Harper does seem American in nature really is a giant load of BS.

According to the Norwegian constitution, parliamentary elections must be held every four years. Rather uniquely, the Norwegian parliament may not be dissolved before such a parliamentary four-year term has ended, which in practice makes snap elections impossible to hold without breaking the constitutional electoral law of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_ ... tion,_2017

[Urbane]

Fixed election dates are good, and the US isn't the only country that has them. Even Norway, beloved by socialists everywhere, has fixed election dates, yet I didn't see you mention that Stephen Harper has adopted Norwegian style elections. This constant fixation with trying to make everything Canada and Stephen Harper does seem American in nature really is a giant load of BS.

In BC we're led to believe that Christy Clark invented photo-ops and federally we're led to believe that Stephen Harper invented fixed election dates. There are advantages to both a fixed date and an election call whenever the government feels like it but those pretending it's all about Stephen Harper trying to Americanize our system are wrong. I think it has more to do with losing and finding excuses than anything else. Fixed or not fixed if your party has the policies that are supported by the people your party will win. If not your party will lose.