5 ms·

In Canada it triggers a new election

mmastrac 8y ago
I had to refresh my memory on how this works up here, but generally our parliamentary system is designed to refresh itself when it becomes dysfunctional: https://globalnews.ca/news/3568037/vote-of-no-confidence-canada/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3568037/vote-of-no-confidence-can... I don't know how it might work in the American system with the "balance of powers" or if it might be abused but generally our unstable minority governments resolve to a more stable majority after a few election calls.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  > unstable minority governments resolve to a more stable majority after a few election calls. And before that time you get parties that have to work together to keep things moving, forcing compromise, and giving the less represented groups more power for a time.
JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
Can we get this please? I can think of a really great way to stop this shutdown by removal of one person in particular.
- tomschlick 8y ago
  Honestly the last thing I want when we reach a budget impasse is for a full roster of rookie congressmen managing it. Thats ripe for abuse and you'd be getting rid of a lot of well seasoned people who know how to work around red tape to get things done and make deals.
  - zentiggr 8y ago
    For a well meant opposing viewpoint, flushing longer term congresspeople could mean the breaking of many lobbyist ties, shadow coalitions, and other impediments to reasonable progress. I've proposed before that campaign contribution amounts be publicized, and let people vote out the ones who have been too heavily 'bought'.
    - artificial 8y ago
      The allure of limits is not without dangers, to see how this has played out in a different arena examine California's State Assembly and how term limits affect(ed) things. For one thing Lobbyists don't have any limits.
    - tomschlick 8y ago
      I would be more in favor of removing any campaign contributions and publicly funding elections of candidates who get X signatures. For instance a Congressman might get 200k to campaign while a president might get many millions. Would cost us a few billion a year but would probably save us at least that in pork barrel spending.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > flushing longer term congresspeople could mean the breaking of many lobbyist ties, shadow coalitions, and other impediments to reasonable progress. You think lobbyists and interests groups having all the people experienced with legislation while members of Congress are all neophytes that get booted out after a handful of years (and then with job experience most relevant to legislating, which they can't do any more, and lobbying...so what is it they are going to be setting tthemselves up to do afterwards?) is going to make things better?
    - mcintyre1994 8y ago
      > I've proposed before that campaign contribution amounts be publicized They are aren't they? opensecrets.org
  - garyrichardson 8y ago
    I'm Canadian. It means something really different to "trigger an election." It's the expected behaviour because we don't have formally scheduled elections. There are a few different things that can trigger an election here, including a "no confidence" vote in the parliament.
  - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
    I was thinking more the executive branch...
a-priori 8y ago
Specifically in Westminster systems (like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK) the budget is a supply bill, a bill where the government asks for money. Supply bills are automatically confidence motions, which means that if they fail to be passed then the government (i.e, the Prime Minister and their Cabinet) is said to have lost the confidence of the House. If this happens, the Prime Minister loses the right to govern and a new government must be formed. Usually this means an election, but in rare cases the opposition parties can form a coalition that has the confidence of the House. This process is mediated by the Governor General or (in the UK) the Queen. But in all cases, until a new government is formed and they manage to pass a budget, the old budget remains in effect. There's no scenario in a parliamentary democracy where failing to pass a budget will cause the bureaucracy to shut down.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
In the US, I could see that being weaponized. One side doesn't like the results of the last election, so they force an impasse to get a new one. (In particular, I could see the Democrats trying this after the election of 2016. Perhaps the Republicans after 2018, though I think their motivation would be less strong.) And in the US, I could see that tactic succeeding, unless the voters were willing to punish gaming the system that way. I see no evidence that US voters are responsible enough to do so, however.
- a-priori 8y ago
  Perhaps, if the people would allow it. Theoretically you could end up in a loop where the people vote in Party A in a minority government, then Parties B+C oppose a budget bill, an election is held, Party A is re-elected into a minority government, and Parties B+C oppose a budget bill, and so on. But it's important to recognize that blocking a budget is a risky manoeuvre. In all likelihood the above cycle would never happen more than once or twice because people find elections irritating. If people think you called an election frivolously then voters will punish you at the polls; in the above example people would eventually get pissed off at B and C and break the cycle by giving A a majority so that they can pass their budget without opposition support. The important thing is that in the Westminster system (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK) if Parliament loses the ability to pass important bills then it results in an election. It keeps the opposition parties honest insofar that they have to be confident that they would actually gain in the polls in order for them to force an election by blocking the government. They can't just block things without repercussions.

I had to refresh my memory on how this works up here, but generally our parliamentary system is designed to refresh itself when it becomes dysfunctional: https://globalnews.ca/news/3568037/vote-of-no-confidence-canada/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3568037/vote-of-no-confidence-can... I don't know how it might work in the American system with the "balance of powers" or if it might be abused but generally our unstable minority governments resolve to a more stable majority after a few election calls.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
> unstable minority governments resolve to a more stable majority after a few election calls. And before that time you get parties that have to work together to keep things moving, forcing compromise, and giving the less represented groups more power for a time.

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

Can we get this please? I can think of a really great way to stop this shutdown by removal of one person in particular.

tomschlick 8y ago
Honestly the last thing I want when we reach a budget impasse is for a full roster of rookie congressmen managing it. Thats ripe for abuse and you'd be getting rid of a lot of well seasoned people who know how to work around red tape to get things done and make deals.
- zentiggr 8y ago
  For a well meant opposing viewpoint, flushing longer term congresspeople could mean the breaking of many lobbyist ties, shadow coalitions, and other impediments to reasonable progress. I've proposed before that campaign contribution amounts be publicized, and let people vote out the ones who have been too heavily 'bought'.
  - artificial 8y ago
    The allure of limits is not without dangers, to see how this has played out in a different arena examine California's State Assembly and how term limits affect(ed) things. For one thing Lobbyists don't have any limits.
  - tomschlick 8y ago
    I would be more in favor of removing any campaign contributions and publicly funding elections of candidates who get X signatures. For instance a Congressman might get 200k to campaign while a president might get many millions. Would cost us a few billion a year but would probably save us at least that in pork barrel spending.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > flushing longer term congresspeople could mean the breaking of many lobbyist ties, shadow coalitions, and other impediments to reasonable progress. You think lobbyists and interests groups having all the people experienced with legislation while members of Congress are all neophytes that get booted out after a handful of years (and then with job experience most relevant to legislating, which they can't do any more, and lobbying...so what is it they are going to be setting tthemselves up to do afterwards?) is going to make things better?
  - mcintyre1994 8y ago
    > I've proposed before that campaign contribution amounts be publicized They are aren't they? opensecrets.org
- garyrichardson 8y ago
  I'm Canadian. It means something really different to "trigger an election." It's the expected behaviour because we don't have formally scheduled elections. There are a few different things that can trigger an election here, including a "no confidence" vote in the parliament.
- JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
  I was thinking more the executive branch...

a-priori 8y ago

Specifically in Westminster systems (like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK) the budget is a supply bill, a bill where the government asks for money. Supply bills are automatically confidence motions, which means that if they fail to be passed then the government (i.e, the Prime Minister and their Cabinet) is said to have lost the confidence of the House. If this happens, the Prime Minister loses the right to govern and a new government must be formed. Usually this means an election, but in rare cases the opposition parties can form a coalition that has the confidence of the House. This process is mediated by the Governor General or (in the UK) the Queen. But in all cases, until a new government is formed and they manage to pass a budget, the old budget remains in effect. There's no scenario in a parliamentary democracy where failing to pass a budget will cause the bureaucracy to shut down.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

In the US, I could see that being weaponized. One side doesn't like the results of the last election, so they force an impasse to get a new one. (In particular, I could see the Democrats trying this after the election of 2016. Perhaps the Republicans after 2018, though I think their motivation would be less strong.) And in the US, I could see that tactic succeeding, unless the voters were willing to punish gaming the system that way. I see no evidence that US voters are responsible enough to do so, however.

a-priori 8y ago
Perhaps, if the people would allow it. Theoretically you could end up in a loop where the people vote in Party A in a minority government, then Parties B+C oppose a budget bill, an election is held, Party A is re-elected into a minority government, and Parties B+C oppose a budget bill, and so on. But it's important to recognize that blocking a budget is a risky manoeuvre. In all likelihood the above cycle would never happen more than once or twice because people find elections irritating. If people think you called an election frivolously then voters will punish you at the polls; in the above example people would eventually get pissed off at B and C and break the cycle by giving A a majority so that they can pass their budget without opposition support. The important thing is that in the Westminster system (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK) if Parliament loses the ability to pass important bills then it results in an election. It keeps the opposition parties honest insofar that they have to be confident that they would actually gain in the polls in order for them to force an election by blocking the government. They can't just block things without repercussions.