Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:18:30 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Sep2.195120.1393@bcars6a8.bnr.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.121150.7314@cl.cam.ac.uk> iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson) writes:
> >Like so many other aspects of the political framework in Canada, I'm
> >guessing Canada imported the system of choosing election dates from 
> >the British. It's sad how British-like (read undemocratic) Canada's
> >political institutions are even today (the Senate being the prime example).
> 
> "British-like" == "undemocratic"?  I think I'll skip flaming this one.
> Other than to point out that more democratic countries follow the British
> model than the American.  Italy, Germany, Australia, India etc. are closer
> to the British model than the American.  The American model has the dubious
> honour of being followed by more less democratic countries...  like Mexico
> or farther south.  Like their friends in El Salvador.

This an utterly amazing assertion. The countries you mention in Europe use
proportional voting systems that give *very* different (in kind) legislatures
to what the First-past-the-post voting system used in the UK and Canada
delivers. The Australians employ a preferential voting system for Parliament
and a proportional system for the Senate. Several state governments in
Australia use proportional representation as well (the A.C.T. and Tasmania,
in particular). While this may make it desceptively similar in terms of the
institutions that exist,  the way they function can be quite different.
 
Canada's only saving grace politically is that people usually vote for
different parties at the federal and provicial levels. Not all people - but
enough to keep the rulings parties out of synch. This creates a healthy
tension. 
 
Proportional representation would provide the means to resolve many of the
quarrels that have afflicted Canada since its birth. 


> 
> 
> The British system has the advantage of being able to abort ineffective
> (read unable to govern) governments quickly.

How do you figure this? The Tories have been lame-ducks since '89. Their
support in the polls hasn't benen over 20% for almost 3 years. Where's the
quick abort?

  The advantage of being able
> to call elections when you're at the peak of popularity isn't necessarily
> an advantage - as Peterson found out.   A lot can change in the 90 day runup
> to an election - as Bush is finding out now.
> 
> During the years that Nixon was frantically trying to cover his ass over
> Watergate and nothing much else was getting done, Canada, Britain and Germany
> each went through two governments.

That was the oil shocks.........not the voting system or constitutional
arrangements. Also, the election dates convieniently fell into that period.
Germany has had 4 changes of government since 1953......

> 
> It's still a crapshoot.  And I prefer the option of early termination...
> 
> And besides, with a 15% or thereabouts approval rating of Mulroney, what're
> you worried about?

I'd be worried that the British system allows a government with 15% in the
polls to continue to run the country for 3 or 4 more years - as it has in
Canada.
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada