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

I don't really have anything to say about it. Just felt a little left out that no one is talking about it

Well, that's what happens when you are not the big mighty country in the world, just neighbours with the big mighty country in the world!

So tell me, ML. When is the election? Has it already happened? If so, who won? And if there is a winner, what changes do you foresee in Canadian politics?

Just curious!

Ann

I confess I don't know much about the Canadian system of elections. Which party is favored to win on October 14? Is there a chance for one party to win a majority or will there have to be a coalition put together?

Our election is coming up on October 14th and it is currently looking like another minority government. But we Canadians are fickle, so that could still change. Today’s poles indicate that things are tightening up. The latest poles I heard have the following:

Conservatives (our right wing party): 31%
Liberals (our middle of the road party): 27%
NDP (our left wing party): 21%
And the Block and the Green party hovering around 10% each.

Of course, that doesn’t mean anything since we don’t vote directly for our leader. We vote for a local candidate and then the party with the most candidates elected will be asked by the Queen of England (through her representative) to form the government. So even with only 10% of the votes, the Block will probably get more candidates elected than the Green party since the Green party is all across Canada and the Block only runs candidates in Quebec. (Assuming the Green party gets any candidates elected). In fact, I remember at one point that even though the Conservatives got about 20% of the vote, they only had two members elected.

In the past, forty precent of the vote has usually been required to have enough to form a majority government. With minorities, they don’t form coalitions. They just have a heck of a time getting their laws passed.

So who will likely form the next government? It’s looking like it will be the Conservatives. But it looks as if they will have another minority government. Since that is exactly what it was before the Conservatives called the election - and since they called the election because they were mad that they couldn’t get all their bills passed - one has to wonder why we spent all this money having an election. (Now, that is Canadian politics at its finest).

ML

Hi ML! It's great to see other democratic nation's elected officials waste the tax-payer's just the same. Old government calls it quits. Elections. Same deadlocks. Repeat as needed.

Michael, who looks forward to 3-6 months of coalition negations himself, at the end of which they will bicker for 2 years tops and then call for re-elections. :rolleyes:

Well, of course, Stephen Harper (the prime minister and Conservative leader) called the election because he thought it was his chance to have an overall majority. And, for a while, it looked as if that would happen.

But first there was the rapid decline of the automotive industry, which hits Ontario (the most populous province) in particular, and the federal government's being blamed for not doing enough to help. To a degree, that's probably a fair criticism; the provincial government is pumping money into retraining and employment counselling services, but the federal government has pretty much shrugged its shoulders and refused to adjust any national allocations of cash/interprovincial transfers to take into account the fact that Ontario's currently hurting badly. So the Conservatives are getting flak for that.

Second, the global economic crisis is hurting Canada as much as anywhere else, and that in particular is causing Harper's personal poll rating to plummet, and the party's standing overall to decline. Now, it's looking like another coalition government, just like the last federal election only a couple of years ago. Last time, the Bloc Quebecois joined in coalition, but its leader, Gilles Duceppe, has been saying some pretty harsh things about the Conservatives in the campaign. Which is not to say that the Bloc won't go back into coalition if the electoral maths means they could get a majority together, but it might look a little hypocritical

Incidentally, as someone still getting used to the Canadian political scene, I was surprised when, a few weeks ago, I went to the Conservative Party website to see what kind of campaign message they were promoting. Out of five pictures on the front page of the website, four were of the Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion - and they were attack ads, of course. Now, there are three of Harper to two of Dion, but that still seems very odd to me and creates a very negative impression - if I were an undecided voter (and I'm neither undecided nor a voter; I'm not yet eligible to vote in Canada) that would have put me off voting for that party.

It's going to be an interesting day next Tuesday.

Wendy

I was wondering who to vote for till the debate . Elizabeth May ( Greens) surprised me with how well she spoke. I also thought Stephan Dion seemed very genuine and passionate about his ideas . At least he is willing to explain them, unlike Harper woh seems to want to keep everything secret. Even more unusual -- Dion acted like a gentleman, if I can call it that. And I liked that.
So now I'm thinking Liberal.

Thanks for the update! Well, here's to hoping there's a non-controversial election. Recently, ours in America always seem to be controversial in some way.

I suppose there are good things and bad things about paralysis in government with minority governing. If you're Canadian, sound off on what you would like to see happen. It might be fun to start a poll and see what people here want. I'd vote: I'm not Canadian and only want to vote so I can see the results.

Me... I'm keeping track of all the lies. Everytime one of them lies or puts out an advertisement that lies, I keep track. Then, on election day, I'll vote for the one who has told the least number of lies. Right now, that's the Marijuana party. The only thing I've heard them say this election is that they want to legalize marijuana - and I'm pretty sure that on that, they are telling the truth .

ML

Well, the Marijuana PArty is tempting but it's not running candidates in most ridings. Now my favourite, the Rhinoceros Party has disbanded and so....

Honestly, in this election, I don't know who to vote for.

Overall, the Conservatives haven't done too bad a job, and our incumbent MP, who is Conservative is hardworking and has integrity. But the Cons have shortchanged Ontario (my province) so that's problematic.

The Liberals? The leader, Stephane Dion, is very closely associated (see various histories of the Chretien years, eg. Susan Delacourt) with our former PM around whom much corruption swirled (perhaps why he lost the last election) As well, I can't forget the vicious Liberal attack ads of the last election which essentially accused Harper of planning to establish a militrary dictatorship. As well, Dion has made election promises that cost so much money that we'll be once more in deficit.

The Greens? I like their environmental program. Also, heard their new leader, Elizabeth May, speak a couple of years ago when she was head of the Sierra Club in Canada and was really impressed. OF all the party leaders, she comes closest to being charismatic. But the she's been anti-abortion until last year (I can't figure out what her stand is now, although I have read it) . But I'm unclear about what the Party stands beyond the environmental. In the last election, it was fiscally conservative, but now seems very like the NDP.

Okay, the NDP (as I've stated elsewhere I'm a former card-carrying member) But.... so many economic promises - I'm ok with deficit spending in tough times (and that we are in!) but the NDP plans are excessive. As well, I've always been uncomfortable with the Party decision to pull out of NATO.

So... none of the above.

more than you wanted to know, right?

What to do? Maybe, make the call on whomever I figure has the most integrity and ability, regardless of party?

c.

I'm sure you are right about what you say about the parties telling truths and lies, but I guess I wouldn't vote for the Marijuana Party anyway!

But thank you for reminding us of the Canadian election, ML! And thank you, Wendy, Allie and Carol, for explaining a few things about Canadian politics. I'll be sure to listen to the radio on Wednesday next week, because even though Swedish media hasn't breathed a syllable about the Canadian election so far , they will tell us who won when the result is available.

Ann

Oh! Oh! Oh! I used to be a card carrying member of the Rhinoceros Party!!!! But then the Rhinoceros died and... well, no one could throw a party quite like he could so the party fell apart

Actually, believe it or not, the Rhinoceros Party is back! The website proudly proclaims: Join the Party and Bring the Rhino Back from Extinction!



You even have the opportunity to sign up and become founding members, ML and Carol! Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any statement of what the party stands for, other than consideration of renaming the country Big Sexyland or "EH" and if you don't like it your a hosehead!

What's a riding? Is that like a district, an area that a member represents? I've never heard the term before.

First, RL, yes. A riding is like a district for voting purposes.

And, Wendy, thanks for the info. I went to the website, and it directed me to Wikipedia to read about the past history of the party. It says that the basic credo of the party was “a promise to keep none of our promises.” - Now, that to me is an honest political party! It then goes on to state some of their more famous promises:

1. Paving Manitoba to create the world's largest parking lot
2. Repealing the Law of Gravity
3. Providing higher education by building taller schools
4. Instituting English, French and illiteracy as Canada's three official languages
5. Tearing down the Rocky Mountain so that Albertans could see the Pacific sunset
6. Making Montreal the Venice of North America by damming the St. Lawrence River
7. Abolishing the environment because it's too hard to keep clean and it takes up so much space
8. Annexing the United States, which would take its place as the third territory, after the Yukon and the Northwest Territories (Nunavut did not yet exist) in Canada's backyard, in order to eliminate foreign control of Canada's natural resources
9. Ending crime by abolishing all laws
10. Paving the Bay of Fundy to create more parking in the Maritimes
11. Turning Montreal's Saint Catherine Street into the world's longest bowling alley
12. Adopting the British system of driving on the left; this was to be gradually phased in over five years with large trucks and tractors first, then buses, eventually including small cars and bicycles last
13. Selling the Canadian Senate at an antique auction in California
14. Putting the national debt on Visa
15. Declaring war on Belgium because a Belgian cartoon character, Tintin, killed a rhinoceros in one of the cartoons
16. Offering to call off the proposed Belgium-Canada war if Belgium delivered a case of mussels and a case of Belgian beer to Rhinoceros "Hindquarters" in Montrééal (the Belgian Embassy in Ottawa did, in fact, do this)
17. Painting Canada's coastal sea limits in watercolour so that Canadian fish would know where they were at all times
18. Banning guns and butter, since both kill
19. Banning lousy Canadian winters
20. Renaming the country Nantucket
21. Building a bridge spanning the country, from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland.
22. Making the Trans-Canada Highway one way only.
23. Changing Canada's currency to bubble gum, so it could be inflated or deflated at will.
24. Donate a free rhinoceros to every aspiring artist in Canada
25. Counting the 1000 Islands to see if the Americans have stolen any
26. The Rhino Party also declared that, should they somehow actually win an election, they would immediately dissolve and force a second election.

Now... who wouldn't support a platform like that?

For more information, you can look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Party_of_Canada

*sigh*... if only the rhino party was still out there. It would definitely make the debates more interesting, and I think it would encourage politicians to clean up their act. How embarrassing would it be to realize that people would rather vote for the rhino party than for you?

This is my first federal election where I am able to vote, so that's exciting for me.

I was pretty disappointed by the Conservatives in the leaders debate. They seemed to offer no concrete plans beyond offering tax cuts. Although extra money is always appreciated, I'm not sure how this can be the solution for every problem in Canada today.

Out of curiosity, I just tried that website - it said my postal code was not a valid one in Canada. lol. And here I thought that's where I was living. Maybe the site is being run by the Rhinos?

(did try a couple of times, just in case of typo issues, btw)

c.

Thanks for the website, Beth. I typed in my postal code and it told me I could vote for any party - that mine was not a swing vote.

Funny. I could have told them that. A snowball has a better chance of remaining in a solid state in the devil's domain than for my riding to elect a Conservative.

Thus, the choice here is always... Liberal or NDP.

ML

Just for no reason at all...when I took English at the university, we were told that 'riding' was a Scandinavian word, except that the original word was something like 'thriding', a third. The Vikings exported this word to England, and the English used it in expressions like 'north thriding' or 'south thriding'. But since 'thriding' wasn't their word, and didn't mean anything to them, they started thinking the word should be 'riding' instead, as in north riding and south riding!

Isn't there a party of useless knowledge that you can vote for in your election?

Ann

Back home in Nova Scotia, I always voted NDP. I didn't like the Conservative candidate, and I didn't want the Liberals to win even though I liked their local candidate. But here, in the middle of nowheres Manitoba (North of 55), I have no idea what the historical voting history is, and I've only received pamphlets at the door from two candidates, so I don't feel truly informed this time around.

But still, I'm off to vote in the morning. My grandmother always tells me, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain". So I'm being the responsible Canadian Citizen after work tomorrow and voting blind.

Strangely, this will be the first time I've ever tried to vote without being on the local voters list.

and the votes are coming in.

looks like another Conservative minority government, but we'll know better in the morning.
Interested in watching the results as they come in?: http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2008/electionResults.html

Heres a list of the political parties in Canada: http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2008/images/map/party.html It's actually quite a few more than I thought. I've only ever had a max of six in my home riding.

Ah! The Canadian election. I've been thinking about it. Thanks for the update, and please tell us more when you have more news!

Ann

The Marijuana Party? Seriously? I was just teaching about the two-party US political system today and how there are actually other parties (like the Green Party) that just don't usually draw many votes. I said that other countries have lots of parties too (I was thinking of Italy...don't they have, like, 100 of them?). Since I know basically nothing about Canada (sorry, neighbors to the north!), can someone tell me: does your system work like ours...that there are two main parties and a bunch of others that just don't ever get many votes, or is it something different?

Yep. As predicted, another minority Conservative government. We spent 350 million dollars and ended up with the same thing we had when we went to the polls.

The only real story of the night (other than my region of the country going almost exclusively NDP) is that Justin Trudeau is now a member of parliament. Oh, and that we are likely to soon have a new leader of the Liberal Party .

ML

Groobie,

Well, to give you an idea of the breakdown between the parties... here are the current results, although a few of these are still in play:

Conservative: 143 seats
Liberal: 77 seats
Block: 49 seats
NDP: 37 seats
Independants: 2 seats

While historically, only the Liberals or the Conservatives have made up the governing party, as you can see, the other parties are not insignificant.

To have a majority government (in other words, to have enough votes to get your laws passed), you have to have 155 seats. As you can see, no one did that tonight. That means that either the Conservatives will have to persuade others to vote with it, or to abstain from voting in order to get their laws passed. So are the smaller parties relevant in Canada... absolutely.

ML

Okay, I just went to Wikipedia to figure out how your Parliament works, but my head is spinning. I'm sure I seem stupid, but I can't quite wrap my head around it. Did everyone in Parliament get elected today? In the US, only a portion of the members of Congress are up for election at any one time.

Everyone was elected tonight.

Also, we don't vote for our leader. When we go the polls, there is only one question being asked: Who do you want to elect as your local member of Parliament (your MP). You make an X on the ballet (using a pencil - no hanging chads for us ) beside the person you want as your local candidate. Then the ballets are counted by hand and the results sent in. The person in your local riding who gets the most votes becomes your MP.

Then, the leader of the party with the most candidates elected (the most MPs) is asked by the Queen of England to become the Prime Minister of Canada (Yes, we are a constitutional monarchy).

Hope that clears up some of your confusion. (Although, I suspect I just added to it )

ML

Oh, one more interesting little tidbit for you to chew on... Did you know that the head of state for Canada is the Queen of England?

ML

It's clear to me, but I'm from and live in Canada!

Then again, I find the US system confusing. I understand it well enough (thanks to years of American TV and movies), but that doesn't mean it makes sense to me.

desiree

Well, what fun is an election without hanging chads? I think I need to go back to college and take Comparative Politics 101, or perhaps hit the bookstore and find "Canadian Politics for Dummies." Maybe this is just a good excuse to take a vacation up north and learn all about Canada for myself. Now where did my passport go...

Susan, who has enough trouble explaining the Electoral College to 8th graders. "How can you win the popular vote but lose the election at the same time?!"

Maybe you can get Al Gore to come in and explain that one.

Susan,

A good place to start would be to have your students read the statement Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) gave on the senate floor back in 1979.

Also, when discussing the possibility of another election in which the candidate with the popular vote loses the election, you might want to have the class debate a point not mentioned in Moynihan's statement, but brought up by Walter Dellinger (U.S. Solicitor General under Bill Clinton):

[W]e simply do not and cannot know who would have won a national popular-vote contest had one been held. In such a case, both candidates would have run fundamentally different campaigns, emphasizing different issues and appearing frequently in states like California, New York, and Texas. Who can know how people in those states would have responded had they been as informed by exposure to the candidates and their ads as citizens in Wisconsin and Ohio? One cannot persuasively impeach the electoral vote with a national popular-vote number that was wholly irrelevant to the campaign that was actually run. The hypothetical question of who would have won a national popular-vote contest if one had been held is thus completely unanswerable.

Oh man, am I feeling old now. I remember all the news when he was born...

Kathy

Yep. Almost $290 million dollars and we are right where we started from Lowest voter turnout in decades.

A stronger Conservative minority government, but a minority government it is. Oh, and MLT, you're right...all day, my friends and I were discussing who the next Liberal leader is going to be.

Justin Trudeau. With a name like that, you think he has potential? A bit young, but I think, he could definitely be PM potential a couple of decades from now.

Rick Mercer did a very funny interview with Justin on election day. I have NO doubt he will be leader in just a few years.

I suspect that Justin will take a run for it at some point. I hope it isn't too soon, though. He needs some experience first. But I've already heard his name tossed around a few times.

I guess Justin as leader of the Liberal party would be about the same as if John-John Kennedy had taken a run for President in the US.

Hey, I wonder if Ben Mulroney is going to get into politics?

I would like to thank you all for this education in and update on Canadian politics. Last Wednesday, I was chatting with a lady at church who's from Canada, so I asked about the election. Turned out I knew more about it than she did.

Then she asked me if I'd voted in it, and I had to confess that I was not Canadian. Nope, just have a lot of friends north of the border.

PJ

Well, it has started already... the breaking of campaign promises. Harper promised all through the election that he would make sure that we didn't run a deficit again. And now he's saying it's a possibility: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/10/17/federal-deficit.html

If I were Prime Minister, my very first law would be that any politician who breaks his election promises would go to prison for life. (Of course, since they'd all be there within the first few months, I guess it begs the question of who would run the country? )

ML

One of the things I stress when I teach about our government is that, if you look in the Constitution, you will find that the president doesn't have a whole lot of actual power. Any time a politician tells you what they're going to do when they get elected is, by its very nature, a bunch of B.S. - nobody has unilateral power to enact legislation. The only thing politicians have the power to do (regardless of party affiliation) is to make a bunch of promises that they don't have the ability to keep. I suspect the same is true in Canada and most places around the world.

Actually, grooby, the Prime Minister of Canada in a majority parliament is more powerful than the President of the US (in his/her own country). The Prime Minister in a majority parliament controls the majority of the votes - so he can basically do whatever he wants. (Which is why I like minority governments - I don't trust any of these clowns enough to give them that type of power )

In my understanding, the US is quite different. You have a much greater division of power.

ML

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"

Yes, the Constitution originally had legislatures appointing senators.

Back in the late 18'th century, the Founding Fathers did not always trust direct elections, due to logistics. Many people didn't understand the issues with communications almost negligible, so the Founding Fathers created the Senate as a check against the popularly-elected House. It was not until communications became easy enough that campaigning was possible that direct elections of senators was approved by amendment.

The House had small enough districts that campaigning was practical, but statewide or national elections were a completely different matter as no forms of electronic communications were available and the fastest mode of transport was the horse. The small districts permitted popular elections.

Keep in mind that the Founding Fathers always assumed a citizen legislator, who would serve for a short time and then go home, so they never envisioned a professional politician class who had time to campaign for two straight years.

Of course, a second reason for the Senate was the Connecticut Compromise where the smaller states were afraid of the power of the large states, so while the House was apportioned based on population, all states had two senators regardless of size.

A similar reason was behind the Electoral College as insulation against a direct popular vote.

Hey, well at least your senate has some relevance. Ours... Well, they are all appointed by the Prime Minister. And they are appointed until they are 75. They can't propose legislation or stop a bill. They can only slow it down.

Oh, right, and the majority of them spend their winters in Florida .

I call the Canadian Senate the Old Politicians' Retirement Home .

Oh, oh, oh! One more thing I almost forgot. If we wanted to change our Senate, make it more relevant, we'd have to amend our constitution. But... well, we can't even get all of our provinces to sign our current constitution. And there is no mechanism provided in the constitution to change it!

The Constitution differentiates the two houses in a couple of different ways.

All legislation that has to do with taxes or spending must originate in the House of Representatives. Once the bill has been proposed, both houses are on an equal footing. Since all bills enacted into law must pass both houses, there isn't any difference between them in terms of specialization. Both houses have their equivalent committees with certain Congressmen or Senators specializing in different areas and spending their times in committees. For instance, both houses have an Armed Services Committee, a Banking Committee, a Foreign Relations Committee, a Commerce Committee, an Intelligence Committee, and so on.

The Senate was given the power of advice and consent, meaning that all treaties negotiated by the president and all appointees made by the president must be approved by a majority vote of the Senate. That includes judges, cabinet members, ambassadors, and even senior officers in the military.

Impeachment is another area of differentiation. Any officer in the government can be impeached. With that process, the House votes on a majority basis to "impeach," i.e. indict. The House then appoints its members as the prosecution if impeachment happens. A trial then takes place in the Senate with the House members prosecuting the case. The Senate convicts on a 2/3 majority vote. Anything less is an acquittal. Two presidents have been impeached. Andrew Johnson (who followed Lincoln) avoided conviction by a single vote. Bill Clinton was impeached but was acquitted by the Senate.

If the electoral college fails to give a majority, the House votes on a state-by-state basis for president (each state gets one vote, so whoever has a majority in a state will vote for their candidate while a tie means a state gets no vote). The Senate votes for vice president on a majority vote.

Both houses are roughly equal in terms of power. The use of the terms "lower chamber" for the House and "upper chamber" for the Senate are just semantics and really have no meaning. Rules make the Senate much harder to pass legislation with the filibuster available for all but spending measures, while in the House, even a one-vote majority gives absolute iron-clad control to the party in power, so in effect, the House tends to be much more partisan while the Senate requires consensus on everything or nothing happens.

Quick tutorial...



Congress is comprised of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

There are 100 members of the Senate - 2 for each state.

There are 435 members of the House - based on the population after the last census [every xxx0 year and redistributed before the xxx2 election]. Every state has at least one Representative. California has... 55 iirc.

All money bills *must* start in the House [which isn't to say that all bills dealing with money start in the House ]. All the budget stuff starts in the House, but there are often riders etc to bills that contain the 'pork' we've all heard so much about - those can start either place.

The Senate does a few other things the House doesn't [as the 'upper' body]. They approve some presidential appointments [about 800 of the 7000 executive department appointments, including Cabinet members, ambassadors, etc. and judges/justices], they also have to approve treaties and have the power to declare war [which is not the same as sending troops - the last official *war* we were in was WWII].

They have different roles in the impeachment process. The House acts as a Grand Jury and indicts/impeaches a person [2 presidents and... 9? 15? judges in history]. The Senate acts as the trial jury [with the Chief Justice presiding] in impeachment proceedings.

They both deal with things like import/export taxes and such but the State Department handles official relations with other countries and that's part of executive branch.

Most of what they deal with is domestic stuff. The president - as the head of the executive branch - is both head of state and head of government which isn't the case in Commonwealth countries like Canada/etc. The Queen is the head of state/ceremonial head of the country but the PM is the head of government/chief executive. He deals with most foreign affairs through the state department.

Carol [who hopes she managed to get all that right and who is avoiding doing what she needs to do...]

Okay, so if I'm understanding this correctly, if a person says they are a member of Congress, they could be saying they are in the House or the Senate - is that correct? So... what is a Congressman? Is he a member of the House - or could he be a member of either?

ML (who's main goal at the moment is to keep Carol from doing what she's supposed to be doing )

Roger, Carol, thanks for the clarification. I was indeed mistaken about the direct election of Senators. My apologies for misinforming you, Carol.

I'll check the Constitution next time before I refer to it in print.

When someone refers to a Congressman (or Congresswoman), that usually refers to a member of the House of Representatives. That is their official title. A member of the Senate will have the title of Senator.

But the term, congressmen, can be used generically to refer to any member of the House or Senate.

More on the electoral college. It seems outdated today, but the reasoning behind it back in the 18'th century was rather sound. Since communications were very poor back then, it was typical that the average person would not even know the candidates for president. But the average person would know prominent members of their community. So in came the electoral college where people voted for electors, who would be well-known people in their communities. People essentially voted for representatives who they would trust to be informed on the presidential candidates and would vote for the person who would better represent their community.

The electors would be directly voted on by the people. They would then convene in December to discuss the candidates for president. These better informed representatives of the people would then vote for president. The winner would become president and the runner-up would become vice president.

Not until much later did electors disappear on ballots to be replaced by the actual names of the presidential candidates. Today, political parties appoint members who would be electors. When a candidate wins a state, the electors appointed by the winning party would then travel to Washington to vote on the president and vice president separately.

Hehe - Alisha's taking care of that by sending me back 5 beta'd chapters of OTOH.

And election coverage and general apathy...

Though DH won't be happy if a lot of it's not done...

Anyway...

Technically, they're all congresspeople, but Senators are usually referred to as Senator and Reps can be either Rep so and so or Congressperson So and So - I believe, as Roger said, when they're being all official [like on the floor of the House], they say something like 'the chair recognizes the Congresswo/man from such and such' or something along those lines. On the news or whatever you'll usually hear them referred to as Rep. so and so from state. At least that's what I usually hear.

Carol

Thanks for the history lesson, Roger. That does make sense.

Hey, wouldn't it be funny if the electoral college got to Washington to vote and all decided to vote for the other guy (okay, so maybe I do have a weird sense of humor )

ML

/whispers

They don't vote in Washington. They vote in their own state capital and then the results are sent to Washington.

/ends whispers



ETA:
That said, in some places they are required to vote the way the state told them to. In other states, the electors are chosen by the party of the candidate who won the state. So in Missouri, where I live, if McCain wins, the MO Republicans pick the electors. There's no way they'd change their votes to Obama.

There are 'faithless electors' who break with what they're supposed to do, but it has never affected the election outcome. In... 2000? one of the electors didn't vote for VP as a protest over DC not having representation in Congress*. I think that's what it was - something along those lines.

Incidentally, Washington was the one president to have a unanimous electoral vote. Someone else would have but one elector didn't vote because he believed only Washington should hold that distinction. [Okay - it's been like 7 years since I read that and I could be wrong on that one - a quick google shows that's the case for Washington - not a clue who the other guy was... and my computer hates wikis...]

*DC is not represented in Congress. They do, however, have 3 votes in the Electoral College.

Carol
National Archives and Records Administration Electoral College FAQs
NARA Electoral Scorecard - couldn't find the second election I mentioned, but Washington was unanimous in both elections - it only goes through 1996, but I know Bush wasn't close to unanimous .

The last faithless elector was in 2000 where Barbara Lett-Simmons, representing Washington, D.C. abstained in her vote for president as a protest for the lack of Congressional representation for D.C.

If it had been important, she would have voted for Gore, but in the end, the final tally was 271-266 and one abstention.

Electors are appointed by parties based on their loyalty and activism for the party. They don't just appoint anyone, so the odds of a faithless elector throwing an election is pretty much zero.

Back in the old days, a lot of negotiations went on and vote after vote of the electors would happen. These electors were not tied to any one candidate, so they were free to elect anyone.

In 1788 and 1792, the vote was unanimous for Washington, but not after that. John Adams in 1796 barely squeaked out a majority against Thomas Jefferson, his old friend and adversary by 71-68. In the rematch in 1800, Adams placed third after Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

Apology accepted, Terry. but not necessary - it does my soul good to dig into a reference book every once in a while.

c.

Ahh... Aaron Burr... Gotta love 'im .

Carol

Anybody remember that really funny "Got Milk" commercial where this guy eating a sandwich tries to call a radio show to win a prize? Unfortunately his mouth is full just as the radio host picks up and he answers, "Aaon Buh." The question was "Who shot Alexander Hamilton in the famous duel in 1804?" The answer, of course, is Aaron Burr, but the radio host couldn't understand the guy on the phone.

Hehe - yes I remember that!

The only VP who tried to raise his own army to annex Mexico IIRC...

Carol

I've been learning a lot about US politics this year, mostly through discussions on my LiveJournal (and ironic to mention this on a thread originally about the Canadian election... ). Thanks, Roger, for the very useful explanation of the distinction between the House and Senate; I just realised recently while re-watching all of The West Wing that I honestly had no idea what it was, or whether a Congressman had less status than a Senator.

Postscript to that comment: we have three nominees this year who are senators. Would it be unusual to have a Congressman/woman running for president?

Second comment: I'm still trying to get my head around this notion of attaching 'riders' to bills. That's an aspect of US politics that for a long time just went over my head. In my experience of political systems, bills can be amended during their passage through parliament, but amendments would have to be 'on topic', as it were. There's no way that anyone could propose an amendment to a bill to, say, increase the minumum wage which would (for example) provide funding for an environmental clean-up project. They're two completely different topics.

So how did this tradition of 'riders' come about, and how long have they been used as ways of getting chunks of money for pet projects that might otherwise not have been funded? And is The West Wing right when episodes occasionally show riders attached for proposals the president of the day could never support, attached purely as a bargaining tool?


Wendy

Okay, now I'm upset!!!!! I was just watching the CBS news and they were saying that a number of businesses are offering freebes for people who voted!!!! For example, Starbucks is offering a free coffee if you voted!!!! And ice cream!!!! Someone if offering ice cream!!!!

We don't get freebes when we vote

I think this campaign has settled the issue about a woman running.
All those Hillary / Sarah is a c..t tee-shirts. That nutcracker. The South Park exploding v.....a episode. etc, etc

Don't know about the Congressmen running, though. American history types, help ?

c.

Wendy -

Generally speaking, it would be unusual for a Congresswo/man to run for P/VP. In recent years, governors are much more likely with GHW Bush being the lone exception since... Nixon? Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush.

Senators tend to have more statewide name recognition [incumbent House members win over 90% of the time, incumbent Senators win about 60-65% of the time because they are challenged by governors etc with high state name recognition] and that eventually can translate into more nationwide name recognition which is vital to election. Few Representatives earn that same name recognition on a national level.

Another thing to realize is that the entire House is up for election every two years. Senate terms are alternating six years, so only 1/3 of them are up for election at a time - none of the three currently in the running are up for election. Members of the House would have to

A: chose to 'lose' their job in the House or

B: run two campaigns and hope that their constituents elect them to the House even if they're in a close election for the presidency

and that's just not a good choice for most of them. That has happened from time to time in the Senate - where a seat is up for election while the person in it runs for P/VP - I forget the last time... Edwards maybe? I remember one [but don't ask me who] who won the Senate seat while losing the P/VP, but I don't remember how close the race was.

Governors can face the same thing. Bush was not up for reelection in 00. Palin is not up for reelection this year, but it can happen.

Carol

Edit: Carol, I think the vast majority of Americans are completely disgusted by those kinds of things. Even if McCain/Palin lose today, I think we'll have a female P/VP with in the next 12 years or so [I know that seems like a long time, but that's only 3 elections]. I would be very surprised if both parties don't have serious female contenders - Palin, win or lose this year; Clinton [maybe, think she said she's done but...]; Pelosi perhaps; other women I've never heard of...

Carol, I hope you're right. But this campaign has left me so disheartened by both the MSM response and the internet response to female candidates. The latter, particularly, since presumably that suggests a younger demographic.

c.

I think part of the MSM attitudes towards Clinton and Palin have less to do with the fact that they are female as much as it was because the MSM seems to be completely enamored with Obama. That and Palin is conservative which the MSM isn't crazy about in males or females.

They were held to different standards [no one asks how Obama's going to raise his daughters, but Palin can't be a mom and a VP at the same time? it's not like either one is going to be doing dishes or laundry...] but I think that was more of an... anything we can do to make her look bad so Obama looks better thing. At least that's my impression.

And it doesn't carry the same stigma as questioning someone's ability because of their skin color, but is just as valid a measuring tool. It's not.

And most Americans realize that, I think.

I would imagine there were T-shirts with racial epiteths as well, but I haven't seen/heard of them...

Caorl

ah, Carol, the optimistic, positive spin. ) Hope your interpretation is right and mine not.

c.

Ah - I stand corrected.

Joe Biden just won reelection in Delaware's Senate seat. According to what I just heard, whether you can do that [run for Senate/P/VP at the same time], is up to the state.

Carol

Being able to run for president and Senate at the same time is dependent on state law. Biden did do that this time. The previous time was Joe Lieberman, who ran for the Senate in 2000 at the same time he ran for vice president. The outcome was somewhat different, of course, but Lieberman did win his Senate race handily.