2019 Federal Election

[jamincan]

Despite the spin the Conservatives are trying to sell, the government doesn't change with elections, the House does. Generally, if another party wins a majority, the outgoing Prime Minister will resign and the Governor General will appointment a new Prime Minister as it's clear that the previous government will not last. However, if the Prime Minister believes they have the ability to hold the confidence of the House, they are under no obligation to resign. I highly doubt Trudeau would resign in the circumstance that both the PCs and the Liberals held a minority, and if the Governor General were to dismiss him and appoint Andrew Scheer, it would be an astonishing overstep. It's pretty much unfathomable.

[danbrotherston]

It's true that the party that won the most support is not necessarily the party that won the most seats. But usually it is. You can't really say that the general sense is wrong- we're talking about "should" statements. We can all agree that the Governor General gives first crack at gaining the confidence of the House to the PM (and that what Scheer is talking about when he talks about "conventions" is misleading or worse). That is what happens, legally.

Politically, I think in 2019, the Liberals won't try to form government if they do not win the most seats. Let's say that they are at 130 to the Tories' 134. I think that the Tories will be allowed to (try to) govern. I did say the opposition parties should "try" to work with the leading party (or maybe just be seen to be trying?), not "knuckle under." Obviously the party with the plurality should not be able to "govern as though they had a majority," as Joe Clark tried and failed to do.

The party with the largest number of seats will be given first try, but if they fail, it makes no sense to waste money having another election right away instead of letting the other parties try...

[jgsz]

The party with the largest number of seats will be given first try, but if they fail, it makes no sense to waste money having another election right away instead of letting the other parties try...

I don't think it works that way.  The sitting prime minister always gets the first crack at forming a government.

[MidTowner]

The party with the largest number of seats will be given first try, but if they fail, it makes no sense to waste money having another election right away instead of letting the other parties try...

jgsz is right, the PM is given the first try. Even if the Liberals win twenty fewer seats than the Tories on Monday, the PM can try to govern. But I am saying that I think he won't.

You're right about an election. No one wants that. There seems to be an implicit belief around here, though, that the Tories can not govern in a minority situation. I don't understand really understand that.

[panamaniac]

There may be qualms about the Conservatives needing to rely on the Bloc in order to govern, but it would just be another minority government situation, no reason why it couodn't happen.

[plam]

There may be qualms about the Conservatives needing to rely on the Bloc in order to govern, but it would just be another minority government situation, no reason why it couodn't happen.

I think the point is that all the other parties in the House pretty much don't agree with the Conservative platform. Especially the Bloc.

[jeffster]

There may be qualms about the Conservatives needing to rely on the Bloc in order to govern, but it would just be another minority government situation, no reason why it couodn't happen.

Right, the Conservatives could work with the Bloc, as they have the same idea's on certain things, including taxation in Quebec. If the case was the Conservatives won 130 seats and the Bloc wins 38 -- both which have a really high chance, they would have the numbers to inform the GG that they can successfully govern and that the Trudeau government, doesn't. Unlike the NDP, both the Conservatives and Bloc aren't talking about it, so it may already even being planned.

[MidTowner]

The Bloc supported Harper's minority government on several occasions.

Jack Layton didn't rule out supporting Harper's minority government, either. His position was that the possibility would be examined on a case-by-case basis. They were close in 2009 when the Tories proposed reforms to EI and a few other subjects.

[danbrotherston]

It's funny because you're all explaining how a minority government is better than a majority.

And I'm getting election ads from the liberals talking about how we need a "strong" government...which is pretty much code for having a majority government with authoritarian abilities...

[MidTowner]

That's not what "authoritarian" means.

But it's not surprising that that the Liberals would be pitching that. So are the Tories- they need a majority to "protect" against a coalition.

There are drawbacks to minority governments as well as advantages. It's a drawback to have uncertainty about whether a given government will be around in a year to implement its policies. There was a lot of uncertainty in the years after 2004. A lot of good comprises were struck, too, of course.

[danbrotherston]

That's not what "authoritarian" means.

But it's not surprising that that the Liberals would be pitching that. So are the Tories- they need a majority to "protect" against a coalition.

There are drawbacks to minority governments as well as advantages. It's a drawback to have uncertainty about whether a given government will be around in a year to implement its policies. There was a lot of uncertainty in the years after 2004. A lot of good comprises were struck, too, of course.

I don't see those as downsides, if a government implements bad policies, it should be gone, why do we have to wait 4 years.  And this is a problem anyway, most meaningful government plans take more than 4 years.

As for authoritarian, I absolutely do see it as authoritarian, people who want a "strong" government want one which doesn't compromise, I see compromise and broad accommodation as the opposite of authoritariansism.

[MidTowner]

I don't see those as downsides, if a government implements bad policies, it should be gone, why do we have to wait 4 years.  And this is a problem anyway, most meaningful government plans take more than 4 years.

As for authoritarian, I absolutely do see it as authoritarian, people who want a "strong" government want one which doesn't compromise, I see compromise and broad accommodation as the opposite of authoritariansism.

Well, the real opposite of "authoritarianism" is broad individual freedom. Concentration of power is only part of it. And while it's true that the powers of the House of Commons are concentrated in the PMO when we have a majority government, and that might be a problem, the powers of the state are not particularly highly concentrated in the House of Commons to begin with. A majority government still has to compromise with the Senate, with existing legislation as interpreted by the courts, and of course with the provinces.

Edit to add: I think it would be hard to argue that uncertainty in government is anything but bad. Even if policies are not in your interest, that's going to happen sometimes, but with general certainty of the policies that will be implemented, citizens can prepare for them and do their own planning with them in mind. Less uncertainty is not the primary consideration, but it definitely is one.

[ijmorlan]

Thanks for that link.

I just had an odd idea occur to me: what if the governor-general would only appoint a proposed prime minister who led a coalition of parties who attracted at least 50% of the vote? Food for thought. Although in the typical situation that currently leads to a majority government this would mean that they would have to appoint a minority coalition, which would be quite strange for reasons already discussed.

Operationalizing that seems kind of tricky. So you have to gain confidence of not a majority of the House but of the vote? What does that mean?

Indeed, it’s not an idea that works well with our existing system at all, at least not in an obvious way. It was just an odd thought that occurred to me because it sounded like some people were saying that a majority of MPs, coming from parties voted for by a majority of voters, shouldn’t form the government under certain circumstances (specifically, where the remaining MPs are from the party with the most seats). And I think that idea is just as strange as mine, and actually as impractical as well given the need for a majority of MPs in order to pass legislation.

Maybe I misunderstand what others are really saying should happen.

I guess we’ll know where we are on Tuesday (or even late Monday).

[jeffster]

It's funny because you're all explaining how a minority government is better than a majority.

And I'm getting election ads from the liberals talking about how we need a "strong" government...which is pretty much code for having a majority government with authoritarian abilities...

Minority governments sometimes are better -- especially when you have two different viewpoints representing.

An unlikely but cool minority government: Liberal + Conservative. It likely would be able to represent most Canadians on most issues.

[danbrotherston]

It's funny because you're all explaining how a minority government is better than a majority.

And I'm getting election ads from the liberals talking about how we need a "strong" government...which is pretty much code for having a majority government with authoritarian abilities...

Minority governments sometimes are better -- especially when you have two different viewpoints representing.

An unlikely but cool minority government: Liberal + Conservative. It likely would be able to represent most Canadians on most issues.

Not this Canadian. But you're right, Liberal and Conservatives would be broadly representative, the main reason we don't see that is that neither party stands to benefit by working together. It's to the point where the conservative party at this point, opposes conservative policies if the liberals support those policies (which as an increasingly centrist party, happens fairly often)...

It's the same reason they both oppose electoral reform.