Time for an election date
Colin James raises an important issue in this morning’s Herald (not on-line yet) when he challenges the Prime Minister to “name the election date then propose future election dates be fixed and regular”:
If Clark, who pulled an early election on a pretext in 2002, set this year’s election date now, that would strike a small blow for democracy…
With the date now fixed, other parties and candidates would not have to guess how to time their run and spending.
James notes that this would be an ideal issue for the Citizen’s Jury on electoral issues to consider, so that election dates could be set regularly in the future, rather than in decided upon by people in the most biased on positions; the politicians themselves. To use a sporting metaphor, which I don’t normally do, allowing the Prime Minister to decide the date of an election is a bit like giving the captain of one rugby team the freedom decide when the full time whistle should be blown.
Fixed dates would remove the tactical advantage flexible dates give prime ministers and thus also remove what amounts to prime ministerial presumption to exercise an ancient - and now surely anachronistic - royal prerogative.
It will be interesting to see if the Prime Minister responds to James’ proposal.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Particularly under MMP it seems important that the PM has the ability to call an election before any set election date. Once they have that a set election date seems difficult to enforce. How would James’ proposal be different to the current system, where there is a very real date for the election (Nov 13), but the PM can call earlier? Of course we could make the date firmer, by forcing the PM to name it, but the real effects of this seem minimal.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
No no NO!
The election date should be randomized…. set up to occur ANY time but statistically arranged so that on average it occurs at 3 years, not before the end of the first year and a half in office and guaranteed to occur within 4.5 years.
I mean, you have cards in a hat and you pick one and it says, 3 months from now is the election or try again tomorrow.
The details are just that. It can be worked out.
My object is to keep the incumbent party honest and reduce the power of the incumbency to manipulate the odds. Making them uncertain as to when they might face the people next would give them all a good reason to be far more careful not to do stupid things with laws and taxes. Making it impossible for them to pick a good time to take advantage of some temporary peak in popularity is also a good reason.
Fixed election dates don’t do that nearly so well… but are probably better than what we have right now.
respectfully
BJ
February 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
why not just set the date 3 years after formation of the government? it would need some sort of consideration for public holidays but it seems better to me and takes into account events such as we have seen with the national/winston first colapse which are likley to happen even with more experiance in mmp.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
BeShakey, the govt can *always* call an early election simply by dissolving parliament. Well, technically I suppose a minority government could find itself unable to get the majority needed to do that but it would be very odd. In NZ right now that wouldn’t matter, as I believe the govt can simply say to the governor-general “we give up” and there’s a procedure to follow at that point.
I’m a big fan of fixed dates as something that we can hope to get implemented. Randomising the date doesn’t seem to offer anything - perhaps a tiny smidgeon of uncertainty making the govt less likely to go “we’re not going to win, let’s screw our successors”? But unless you stop them resigning early that won’t help - they’ll just stuff things up then resign.
I’d like to see four or five year terms, or perhaps half the parliament elected in alternate three year cycles. Anything to make them think long-term (or at least more than one or two 3-year cycles ahead).
February 12th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Moz
The idea is to prevent the government from going “we don’t have to care, the election isn’t this year, let’s screw everyone while they still have time to forget”
Interesting… It hadn’t occurred to me that a government could force an election by resigning… my heritage is so vastly different that I never even considered it. Government resigning as opposed to an individual resigning from government.
My answer to THAT part of the problem would be that there must be succession containing the opposition that makes “resigning” something different than “having an election”. Not sure how to get around the parliamentary headcount, but I can imagine a couple of ways that would be sure to p!ss off the incumbents so much that they’d NEVER do it.
respectfully
BJ
February 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Sapient said
No, that would never work. What we should do is get the calendar out and then find the one Saturday where there is no rugby and use that as polling day
February 12th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
fastbike, I think that’s why Governments usually like to call elections in early November, provided the Electoral Act allows it. The rugby season is over by then, and the cricket season, apart from minor club games that nobody notices, hasn’t started. And the weather is still so bad that no-one is going to the beach.
But other dates have had mixed results - Muldoon failed miserably calling one for July 1984, but Clark won astoundingly when calling one several months early in 2002, under the pretext of instability of government caused by Jim Anderton orchestrating the breakup of the Alliance.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:51 am
Sapient, Your suggestion is very close to what the law currently says
“The term of Parliament shall, unless Parliament is sooner dissolved, be 3 years from the day fixed for the return of the writs issued for the last preceding general election of members of the House of Representatives, and no longer.”
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94241.ht ml
“return of the writs” means the official announcement of the final count of votes.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:23 am
BJ, This is one area where the Westminster system is superior to the American system. Having an hereditary Head of State means there is someone at the top who isn’t a politician, and isn’t concerned about being re-elected. That means they are free to tell the truth and be honourable instead of populist. Which means you can trust them to handle the succession issue properly when they need to. You can’t place that sought of trust in a Suprme Court whose judges are appointed by the President.
Actually there are three ways a New Zealand Parliament can be dissolved:
1) it reaches it’s use-by date, 3 years from the announcement of the official results of the last general election;
2) the Prime Minister decides that government has lost the confidence of Parliament and asks the Governor General to dissolve Parliament;
3) the Governor General decides the government has lost the confidence of Parliament, revokes their Ministerial Warrants, and installs a caretaker government. This actually happened in Australia in 1975.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerr#The_dismissal
“The dissolution is effective from the time it is published in the Gazette (the Government’s publication for official notices) or earlier if it is read
aloud in the presence of the Clerk of the House and other witnesses. This may involve a ceremony on the front steps of Parliament House.”
“Whenever Parliament is dissolved or expires, the Governor-General must, not later than 7 days after the dissolution or expiration, issue a writ in form 3 to the Chief Electoral Officer requiring the Chief Electoral Officer to make all necessary arrangements for the conduct of a general election.”
February 13th, 2008 at 4:24 am
“The reserve powers (or the personal prerogative, as the governor-general’s personal discretion is called) are confined to appointing or dismissing a prime minister, refusing a request to dissolve Parliament, forcing a dissolution of Parliament or refusing the royal assent to a bill where to grant it would be unlawful or would irreparably impair representative democracy. Listed that way, they sound impressive, but their exercise is, in all but exceptional circumstances, dictated by constitutional convention. ”
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/governor-general/modern-duties
February 13th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Kevyn
It is different, but it is not “superior”, and that is irrelevant in any case as I am not proposing an “American” system here. I am proposing changes that allow the date of the election to be randomized and utterly out of the control of the incumbent.
The American system is more modular and succession is immediate and automatic at the Federal level with the opposition often represented in the chain of succession as defined. Nobody bails out except for being pushed. It isn’t even sensible to talk about “the government” resigning. The damned thing isn’t singular. Individuals may come and go, but the government continues and the election dates are fixed.
The presence of someone who can summarily determine that the current administration has totally fncked up and has the power to remove them is better than requiring a bill-of–impeachment and all the rest. The ability of that person to appoint caretakers and call a new election poses no problem to me in the sense of the change I proposed.
The voting dates are fixed in the US system and the “government” cannot resign to force a new election when it seems an advantage to do so, The idea that parliament must be dissolved to form a new government causes the country to suffer a complete new election whenever the executive here fncks up or chooses to have it… and the executive is tied to the legislative far more tightly… so it is almost impossible not to do it that way.
If I were to propose a government form here it would be a unique one and it would borrow from many places… it would not reflect “American” usage at all. For example co-leadership in the Prime Minister’s position and a two house parliament with one being Maori and one being the rest of us.
That gives us something a little like a “House of Lords” but the responsibilities would be different. More a co-government than a separate house. AFAIK, no government has ever been formed in this manner… no other country has to cope with having a treaty like ours either. But that isn’t what I am arguing to do.
No… my argument here is solely that the election date should be randomized so that the government can never be complacent about its current popularity and its need to convince the people to let it remain in power. Some small changes to the arrangements around that are all I am pointing to. If the executive here resigns I think the members resigning should forfeit their seats in parliament and the GG should have the authority to appoint new members to fill the seats made vacant in this manner. The opposition may then be given the opportunity to form government based on the new numbers… WITHOUT a new election.
The point to all that is that people might resign for personal reasons, as individuals. In that case the next list member takes their place, per current practice. The resignation of government however, is either an admission that they’ve fncked up or an attempt to manipulate the outcome of the election through timing of the election date. Neither of those situations should lead to the same fools being returned to power for another term.
Designing a system of government of humans by humans is not Rocket Science… it is WAY more difficult.
respectfully
BJ
February 14th, 2008 at 1:46 am
BJ, The Westeminster system is superior only in so far as the Head of State hasn’t had to commit most of the seven deadly sins to attain that position, or at least not within the last couple of hundred years. IMHO anybody who isn’t a politician is inherently superior to anybody who is a politician, with the possible exception of a few of those who are guests of Her Majesty for the term of their natural lives.
Abe and Teddy might’ve been the last Presidents who practiced the seven virtues. 
http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm
February 14th, 2008 at 2:22 am
BJ,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it -
a) the President, Senate and Congress are elected at different times. Which means a republican President can be elected with a republic majority in one or both of the houses and finish his term with democrat majorities.
b) the majority party in congress elects a majority leader which is the way our Prime Ministers are chosen. Whereas our Cabinet is appointed by the PM from elected members of the house the US cabinet is appointed solely at the discretion of the President. Thus the legislative branch of US government is elected but only one member of the executive branch is elected. Most other western republics have a president whose role is closer to that of our governor general than to the of the US president, and a Prime Minister and Cabinet essentially the same as we have.
c) almost every country that has minor parties has constant resignations.
d) resignation is probably not the best term to use. When a party leader feels that they no longer have an effective majority or “the confidence of the house” and thus a mandate from the masses, they are honour bound to step aside and let someone else have a go at forming a majority. Politicians being politicians, they are never so honourable as to step aside when their is any real chance of that happening. Thus the inevitable result of a government surrendering it’s ministerial warrant is that the GG has to call an election. In theory National could do a deal with minor parties to support a no-confidence vote, then advise the GG that National can form a government which does have the confidence of Parliament. The GG can then take the initiative to recall the ministerial warrants and issue new ones. However under Westminster conventions only a government’s failure to pass it’s budget would be considered serious enough to warrant such a drastic step. Which is what happened to Whitlam’s government.
The above just being a comment on your response to moz. As for your suggestion of randomization. The random draw could be done as the first order of business in Parliament every sitting day. Unfortunately decorum would probably prevent randomly chosen voters from having the opportunity to “spin the Wheel of Fortune” on live TV just like Lotto. Personally I think it would be more decorus than what happens in the debating chamber most days.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Between you, you’ve nailed the contradiction. Can’t have fixed terms like the US because the executive can not function without a parliamentary majority, and parliamentary majority can not be guaranteed.
One obvious improvement would indeed be a less spineless GG. Clark should not have been able to get away with calling the 2002 election early : since the GG has discretion to refuse a dissolution, they clearly should have done so in this case, as it was easy to determine that the government still had an effective majority on that occasion.
Perhaps it’s better to remove the discretion on all sides : Parliament shall only be dissolved early if it is demonstrated by a vote that it no longer has confidence in the government. Otherwise, the date of the following election is determined rigorously and immovably by the date of the previous.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Kevyn
There’s nothing wrong with your understanding.
All forms of democracy suffer from the power of the incumbency. It is a significant issue in EVERY form of representative democracy practiced on the planet and limiting it is one of the duties of any society that wishes to retain a representative democracy.
Which is why I regard randomization as a good idea. The US with its different election cycles for each branch of government, has the opportunity to have at least one branch of government change hands every two years.
The downside to that is that there is a lot more electioneering, expense and resulting temptation to corruption in that system.
Note that by randomizing the entire election cycle is 3 months and it is pretty well impossible to “gear-up” for an election. The need for a year of restricted spending goes out the window. The ability to ignore the wishes of the electorate carries much bigger risks because one can’t rely on their forgetting. The defining issues are whatever had the attention of the electorate on the day and campaign spending itself is limited by the practical consideration of there being only 3 months to do it in, aside from whatever legislated limits exist.
———-
The rest of this is not really relevant to the argument for randomizing
———-
The thing is that the President can be elected without his party obtaining a majority in either the House or the Senate and can spend his entire term of office with his Executive branch being in some form of conflict with one or both of the Legislative branches… which can be in conflict with each other,,, with all the inefficiencies that implies. There’s a flip side to that of course.
The case of the President and the Legislatures all being from the same party has marked the WORST governments in US history, and is actually pretty uncommon. One result of this is that most legislation is passed with the opposition having a hand in its formation. It is compromise out of conflict. This marks most of the good results of the system.
It used to work that way anyhow. Now the “wealth” party governs, controlling all branches of government. The opposition parties are actually the Greens and the Libertarians and this phenomenon is at work in other countries as well. The results are what we see and predictably bad.
I like MMP and regard that as more important than the differences between Westminster and the US form of democracy. FPP gives the wealth party much greater control than it gets in countries that use a more responsible method of balloting.
We had Eisenhower who warned us of the danger of the some of the people with money (he missed warning us of the bankers) and Carter the forgotten. I regard both as passably honest folks.
respectfully
BJ
February 14th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Kevyn said: Thus the legislative branch of US government is elected but only one member of the executive branch is elected.
Or two, if you count the Vice-President.
I currently not sure whether the VP should be counted or not - thing have become very murky in that regard during Cheney’s tenure.
Cheney changes his mind as it suits him re which branch of Government he considers himself to be part of, in order to avoid any accountability either to the legisalture (the VP chairs the Senate), or to the judiciary as a member of the Executive.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Kevyn Says:
February 14th, 2008 at 2:22 am
> c) almost every country that has minor parties has constant resignations.
Germany doesn’t, and they seem to cope fine with fixed terms, despite having a party system relatively similar to ours. I think they have different rules around confidence and supply motions which make the difference, but I couldn’t tell you what those different rules are.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
What we should do is get the calendar out and then find the one Saturday where there is no rugby and use that as polling day
THats exactly what Helen Clark did last election.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:44 am
kahikatea, I stand corrected. The Scandinavian countries are probably stable too. Maybe that just leaves Italy? Which somehow isn’t surprising.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:55 am
italy’s “instability” is much over-rated. so they change their government frequently… how has it hurt the country? they are still one of the richest countries in the world.
all this emphasis on “stable” government is out of place in the modern world administered by stable bureaucracies which provide enough continuity while elected heads change.
it’s a beat-up by the enemies of democracy to create a temporary demand for retrenching proportional representation & other democratic measures
just a note kevyn, cabinet members have to be approved by senate, not solely by the president.
while here in nz even if the government resigns, the governor general can try to find some other mp capable of forming a government, they don’t have to call elections. i suppose if enough MPs resigned from parliament the gg would pretty much have to call an election, but then those who resigned would likely be punished by the electorate for going to that extent to lock in a temporary majority