2021 federal election

[panamaniac]

I don't have any issue with a parliament sitting for five years, either!

Iirc, it was an issue for Mr. Harper.  Can't recall why.

[curiouschair]

[...]
Mike Morrice did well the last election and hopefully will do well this time around. (I am a Green Party member).

Beisan Zubi is of Palestinian heritage and I wonder if some Greens may vote for her given the infiltration of the Green leadership by radical anti-Palestinian Zionists that has caused problems for Green Party unity.
[...]

I think a lot of people will see Mike Morrice's somewhat close 2nd place last time around as a sign that the Green party is the most viable alternative to the Liberals. I do see the apparent disorder of the party as a potential detractor, but unless something further happens I don't think it will significantly affect things. My guess is Morrice will win this time around.

[tomh009]

Outside of BC, Morrice may indeed be the Green Party's best chance for winning an additional seat.

[panamaniac]

Possibly helped by an incumbent who is a relatively low profile backbencher, to the extent voters care about candidates rather than party.

[nms]

From the realm of "an out there" suggestion, with no hope of ever being reality, but:

What if an election were called with the caveat that if the majority of people in a riding voted ahead of time, that the election campaign would automatically end in that riding. Everyone in that riding could get on with their lives.

What prompted this was wondering how many people actually change their minds between when a writ is dropped and election day. I'm sure that there are brighter minds out there than mine that know the answer. I also realize that this system would be open to potential abuse. Maybe amend it to once a candidate gets a majority of votes?

This is intended to be a lighter post.

[KevinL]

I was already visiting my Twitter less and less often lately, but with this election call I chose to take a deliberate hiatus. I don't need to slog around in that kind of mud.

[jeffster]

That law really is pointless (and toothless). It has a massive loophole in that the GG can dissolve the parliament at any time -- and of course the prime minister is able to ask the GG to do that.

Harper's government passed the law in 2006 ... and in 2008 he asked the GG to dissolve the parliament and call an early election.

I don't know whether the loophole was intentional or due to massive incompetence, but I suspect the former.

From what I remember from back then there was a big hew and cry about fixed election dates being "too American", which was why the option to dissolve and call a new election was left in.

I don't believe they can take out the option to dissolve whenever, even if everyone agreed that that option should go. We're a Parliamentary Democracy, and irregardless if we have FPTP or not, we have no guarantee of 4 year terms. Under our system, the max term is 5 years (examples, PC's in Canada from 1988 to 1993) but not many like anything more than 4 years.

It's not even a loophole in the law. It's just the way that it is.

When introducing the legislation, Harper stated that "fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."

However, despite the amendments to the legislation, the prime minister is still free to request an election at any time. As the Bill C-16 amendments to the Canada Elections Act clearly state "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion"

Works the same for all provinces. The whole 4-year thing started in British Columbia back in 2001. It may have had something to do with the NDP clinging onto power, less than two weeks from 5 full years (which I believe is the max in BC as well), but I might be wrong. I am unsure why Ontario decided with 4 year terms.

That said, I have zero issues with 4 years, it makes things consistent and predictable. Would be even better if we could have all cities, regions, provinces and the country do it at the same time. But, the set-up for provinces and the country don't allow for that type of set-up.

[jeffster]

From the realm of "an out there" suggestion, with no hope of ever being reality, but:

What if an election were called with the caveat that if the majority of people in a riding voted ahead of time, that the election campaign would automatically end in that riding.  Everyone in that riding could get on with their lives.

What prompted this was wondering how many people actually change their minds between when a writ is dropped and election day.  I'm sure that there are brighter minds out there than mine that know the answer. I also realize that this system would be open to potential abuse. Maybe amend it to once a candidate gets a majority of votes?

This is intended to be a lighter post.

Not sure how that could even work. One of the reasons why certain information isn't given (such as polling information) is to prevent last minute mind changes. That said, the "majority" never votes ahead of time, most do the day of, so they have enough information to make an informed decision.

[tomh009]

That said, I have zero issues with 4 years, it makes things consistent and predictable.  Would be even better if we could have all cities, regions, provinces and the country do it at the same time. But, the set-up for provinces and the country don't allow for that type of set-up.

Four years is fine. (But, at least for me, so is five.) But all this law does is cap it at a maximum of four years: it's silly to even pretend that it sets "fixed election dates" as the parliament may be dissolved by the GG at any time, usually on the prime minister's request.

I would like to see a limit to the campaign period, though, the 77 days was just ridiculous.

[ijmorlan]

That said, I have zero issues with 4 years, it makes things consistent and predictable.  Would be even better if we could have all cities, regions, provinces and the country do it at the same time. But, the set-up for provinces and the country don't allow for that type of set-up.

Four years is fine. (But, at least for me, so is five.) But all this law does is cap it at a maximum of four years: it's silly to even pretend that it sets "fixed election dates" as the parliament may be dissolved by the GG at any time, usually on the prime minister's request.

I would like to see a limit to the campaign period, though, the 77 days was just ridiculous.

I would say the campaign period length is actually part of the advantage of the election happening whenever the Premier/Prime Minister says it happens. The campaign starts when they dissolve Parliament. By contrast, in the US, campaigns have been getting longer and longer, to the point that now there is basically no actual period of normal governing — as soon as one election is over, people are starting early campaigning for the next one, and the actual campaign when people are mostly campaigning is several months. I suggest the 77 days was partly because everyone knew when the election was coming; if we actually stick with the 4 years rule we might get longer and longer campaigns. Or maybe calling early will become standard, and then eventually somebody will call an election past the 4 year mark, and then eventually the fixed date provision will be removed entirely in a housekeeping bill.

And while I consider the criticism that the PM can strategically choose the election date a valid and reasonable criticism, in practice I don’t think it’s a real problem. We haven’t had long stretches of the same people being re-elected due to their clever election timing; instead people seem to do things that appear clever and then end up losing in one way or another.

[Joedelay Highhoe]

I voted Mike last time around, but I don't feel comfortable supporting the Green party given the anti-Palestinian platitudes within the party. Plus the anti-nuclear stance is bizarre.

I think NDP has the best platform as a federal party. Beisan Zubi will be getting my vote. However, I am concerned that the progressive vote will be fractured enough to ensure a liberal or conservative victory in our riding.

[ac3r]

I'd love to see the Liberals lose just out of spite for calling an early election. But I know the Conservatives are polling fairly well so I feel we're kind of screwed once again by not being able to confidently vote NDP or whoever else one might support. Gotta love FPTP...

[tomh009]

I voted Mike last time around, but I don't feel comfortable supporting the Green party given the anti-Palestinian platitudes within the party. Plus the anti-nuclear stance is bizarre.

I think NDP has the best platform as a federal party. Beisan Zubi will be getting my vote. However, I am concerned that the progressive vote will be fractured enough to ensure a liberal or conservative victory in our riding.

In the case of a small party like the Greens, I think you really are voting for the candidate, not for the party leader. It's different with the three big parties, where your vote will help determine the next prime minister; here, there are effectively solo MPs, and party policies/discipline make much less of a difference -- at least in my opinion.

But each one of us should make our own choices for voting, the key is to get out and vote, whoever that vote is for!

[jamincan]

I'm not thrilled with the leadership of the Green Party, but in this case, I think Mike Morrice is clearly a good choice on his merits. We're voting for him, not Annamie Paul.

I will never vote for the LPC ever again. The CPC and LPC are two sides of the same coin, with the one side having the ominous spectre of social conservatives taking it over, and the other playing bate and switch and seemingly trying to see how little they can do without the electorate calling them on their bullshit. Neither party is going to meet our emissions targets. Neither party is going to take serious measures to address the housing crisis. Neither party is going to address growing income inequality.

Trudeau betrayed us on electoral reform. The only way to stop the cycle is to call the bluff and vote with your conscience. I voted for Mike Morrice last time, and I felt great afterward, even knowing he lost to an insipid and invisible seat warmer.

[panamaniac]

For some, it would depend on what one expects of their local MP. Voting Green pretty much guarantees that your MP will have no influence on government policy (unless there's a razor-thin minority, perhaps), but when you know your incumbent will remain a backbencher, that may not seem like an impediment. From a purely pragmatic perspective, it wouldn't be shocking to think that having an MP who is a member of the governing party might lead to local benefits in terms of government projects, and that could influence some people.