Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic The Canadian Election

Yes, ML, we frequently have the Congress under the control of one party and the Presidency filled by somebody from the other one. It's called gridlock, and to the extent that neither side can get all it wants, that's probably a good thing Like a minority gov't, kind of.

PJ

Yes, thanks for this thread, ML. I've greatly enjoyed it - I love the Rhinoceros Party's manifesto. Much more inventive than our own Monster Raving Loony Party.

LabRat

Yes, thanks for the thread, ML! Not only has it been fun, but I feel so much better informed about Canada and its political system and current government than I have ever been before!

Ann

Wow. That's about all I can say to that. I can't even imagine....

Wow...really? Please explain this to me. So, you don't have a seperation of powers in your government? How does the prime minister control the votes? Thanks for this thread...I'm really facinated by this discussion.

Okay, well, let me think - so that I can properly compare it to the US system. If I understand your system, you have three branches -judicial, legislative and executive. Okay, so we,too, have an independant judiciary. But, if I recall correctly the differences between the executive and legislative branches, both of those would be controlled in Canada by the House of Commons (where the MPs we just elected sit - including the Prime Minister himself - he's just another member of the House of Commons). (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong in this comparison)

Threats and bribes - Oh, wait! That's not how it works! We don't call them threats and bribes when the PM (Prime Minister) does it! (bad, mlt, very bad

There are still three branches, though. There's the judiciary, which is completely separate from Parliament. There's the House of Commons, presided over by the Speaker, into which the Prime Minister's party has to introduce bills; these are debated and voted upon just as bills are in the US Senate, except we don't get riders attached which have absolutely nothing to do with the bill (which seems utterly crazy to me). Bills can be amended, though this usually happens in the Committee stage.

The process is First Reading (just introducing it), Second Reading (where there's a debate), Committee stage, Third Reading, where there's a final vote. Votes are held at every stage, though in theory the first reading is a formality.

Then there is the Senate, which is the Canadian Upper House; the Senate has legislative oversight and all bills passed by the Commons must also pass Senate - if Senate amends or rejects them they return to the Commons, which can overrule Senate if it votes to do so.

The Canadian system is modelled on the British, by the way. I believe that Acts of Parliament are signed into law by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative in Canada, but I can't swear to that.

So, in the sense that the Prime Minister has power to do whatever he wants in a majority government, he does... unless enough people vote against him in the Commons or the Senate. Which can happen!


Wendy

Groobie -

In a *very* simplistic comparison...

If the US suddenly went to a Parliamentary system [with no other changes made except ditching the P/VP and moving the rest of the executive branch under the control of the PM], Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi would become Prime Minister. Not sure if the PM comes from the upper or lower house or if it varies by country.

Not a completely valid comparison, but...

Carol [who teaches US Govt but only skimmed the Electoral College but set aside all of Election Day to discuss it in more detail...]

Really interesting! Carol - thanks for the Reid/Pelosi comparison...that helped. So it's more like you have two branches of government while we have three. Our system puts in place a series of checks and balances so no branch can be more powerful than the others, and the US electorate often votes for a President that's of the opposite party from the party that controls the legislature. However, the system is often bogged down in gridlock...Congress can't get legislation passed without the president vetoing it, and Congress doesn't have enough votes to override the veto. I wonder if Canadians feel like your system runs more smoothly - that your government has an easier time passing laws. We also have majority and minority whips who pressure members of their party not to break ranks, particularly on important bills, but it doesn't always work that way. Another question (I hope I'm not annoying you all!): how often do you have elections? Is there a set schedule or is it only when a budget fails to pass?
Susan (who will also be spending November 4 teaching about the electoral college!)

One thing I'm really curious about... for all our American friends out there.

In Canada, even though an MP is elected as a member of one party, he will, on occasion, 'cross the floor' - in other words, switch allegiances. So he can be elected as a Liberal and then 'cross the floor' and become a Conservative without having to go through another election. Does that happen in the US? Can someone be elected as a Republican and then become a Democrat?

What about in the UK? Does that happen much there?

(Speaking of which, it's my guess that right now Harper is sitting down with a list of MPs, trying to figure out who he can bribe to cross the floor to give him that illusive majority government)

ML

Yes it can.

There was the guy in Kentucky or Tennessee early this century. I'm sure RL remembers who it was. He was elected as a Republican but a while in switched to Democrat [or was it an Independent who caucused/voted with Dems? Doesn't really matter which as long as he goes with them].

Leiberman is kind of the same thing. He lost the Dem primary in his state because the Dems didn't like him anymore for being too centrist basically. He ran as an Independent and won. He still mostly votes Democratic but not always.

Carol

ML, it does, and has, happened in the UK, but not all that often, and the person doing it is usually regarded with a significant amount of opprobrium - and not only from their own party. It's (almost, I think) unheard of that someone who crossed the floor would be given a ministerial position, as happened in the last couple of Canadian administrations. Maybe after they'd served a year or so on the back benches, and even better if they've proved that they can win election as a member of their new party - usually they can't, unless they get parachuted into a nice safe seat, and even then they get punished by the electorate.

Floor-crossing is most common with an unpopular government and heading into an election, particularly where that government has a narrow majority. In these cases, it's MPs leaving the governing party and joining an opposition party. Potential switchers will be courted assiduously - in secret, of course - by the opposition leaders, and then trumpeted as loudly as possible as a sign of how unpopular the government is. And then everyone in the switcher's new party avoids him/her, treating him/her like a plague-carrier...

In the 1992-1997 Parliament , where John Major's majority hung by a thread at times, there were a couple of big-name floor-crossers, notably Emma Nicholson and Alan Howarth. Unusually, Howarth was re-elected to Parliament in Blair's first landslide in 1997 - as a result of being parachuted into a safe seat - and was then made a minister. Emma Nicholson was not re-elected.

The most famous - and successful - floor-crosser ever in British politics was Winston Churchill. He was originally elected as a Conservative MP, but crossed the floor to the Liberal Party - still, in those days, numerous enough to form governments - and held quite senior ministerial office. As a Liberal cabinet minister, e was responsible for the first version of the minimum wage in the UK (arguing that without wage regulation the good employers are undercut by the bad and the bad undercut by the worst) and also set up the Labour Exchanges to help unemployed people find work. He later recrossed the floor to rejoin the Conservatives, commenting that "anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat.". His was without doubt the most successful political career there has been post-re-ratting.


Wendy

Yeah, I love when that happens and the abandoned party immediately rushes to fill the news slots, all going "Well...he was always rubbish anyway, we never liked him..."

LabRat

Yeah, Leiberman switched before he was elected. Then there was Jumping Jim Jeffords, who was elected as a Republican but declared himself Independent (aligned with Democrats, though) after he was in office. The Senate was so evenly split that year that just that one guy leaving cost the Republicans their majority.

So it can happen. Now, whether one can get *re* elected after switching parties is another question.

PJ

Right! Jim Jeffords - thanks Pam! Knew someone would remember...

Did he get reelected? He was in the 2000/06 cycle wasn't he?

Carol

Sorry, groobie, I forgot to respond to this question.

An election must be called at some point within five years - regardless of whether there is a majority or minority government.

In a majority government, the PM decides when to call the election. It tends to take place around four years - although he plays with the date to try to choose a time when he has a good shot of getting another majority government.

Now that has backfired on occasion. I remember once when the Premier of Ontario (similar to a Governor of a US state) decided to call an election after only three years because he was so popular at the time. The public was furious with him for taking them back to the polls - and as a result, elected the other guy .

In a minority government, the government could fall at any time - if, as stated before, a money bill fails to pass or if the opposition brings a motion for non-confidence in the government. Also, the PM himself can call a new election whenever he wants.

However, PM Harper brought in a law that set a consistent election date. The idea was to prevent the PM from bringing an election whenever he wanted. But since he was the one who called this last election (and well before his set election date), I'm really not sure how it works.

ML

He was re-elected in 2000 but retired from the Senate in 2006. He did not run for re-election in 2006 with his seat taken over by Independent Socialist Bernie Sanders. Ironically, Bush campaigned for him repeatedly in 2000 and the GOP gave him tons of money, helping him out in a tough race since Vermont is one of the most left-wing states in the Union. Jeffords paid him back by backstabbing him, turning the 50-50 Republican majority (with VP Cheney being the one to give the GOP the majority) into a 50-49-1 Democratic majority with Jeffords caucusing with the Democrats to give them a 51-49 majority for organization purposes.

just catching up with this thread.

It's my understanding that party "loyalty" (ie voting the party line) is less strictly enforced in the American Congress (especially in the House of Reps) than in our House of Commons because of the fact that our Governing Party will fall if it it loses on a major vote. So party discipline is more significant here and hence "crossing the floor" becomes A. Big. Deal. Same in UK politics. But it does happen there (as it does in Canada) - one famous example: Winston Churchill.

gotta love the Electoral College. btw - part of the Constitution's framers' approach-avoidance conflict over democracy.

But at least the Americans decided to elect their Senators directly (when? 1900ish?) - someday that might happen here.

c.

Carol wrote:

Ah, the lack of understanding of the American system. Just like Americans don't understand the systems of other countries like Canada.

The Electoral College was a compromise between the heavily populated states and the less heavily populated states in the election of the President. It was not approach-avoidance conflict.

And Americans have always elected the members of the Senate directly. Each Senator is elected by his or her state at-large, which means all voters in a particular state can vote for any Senate candidate. The representatives are the ones who are elected by their particular districts.

Terry, I meant the 'approach -avoidance' comment tongue-in- cheek. I get in more trouble with my flippancy

Just checked about your Senate (ashamed to say on Wikip.) 1913 is the year they cite for direct election of the Senate. Weren't your Senators at first appointed by the state legislatures? And then, some years later, appointed by the states from a list of candidates voted on in state elections? And then the 1913 amendment to the constitution?

c.
edit: okay, I made the trek downstairs and checked in a ... a book! (Hofstadter et al - yes, I'm that old) which contains the US
Constitution. "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof"