Within the past two years, both the United States and Canada have had their Federal elections. Obviously each country's system of electing their leaders is as different as our forms of government. The United States elects its president separately from the rest of its lawmakers, while Canada sees the whole of its elected representation stand for re-election.
In Canada the Prime Minister is the leader of the political party that manages to gain the most seats in the House of Commons. In the United States the electing of representatives to the House or the Senate has no bearing on the selection of who becomes President.
All you have to do to become President is win more Electoral College votes than your opponent. It doesn't matter whether you win by one vote or a hundred; a win is a win. For Canadian politicians the situation is slightly more complicated. A party needs to win a majority of the 308 seats up for grabs in the House of Commons in order to have uncontested rule for the next four to five years.
When the election was called at the end of last November, the Liberal party of Canada had the most seats in the house, but not enough for undisputed rule. For a year and a half they had formed an uneasy alliance with the slightly left of centre New Democratic Party (NDP) in order to stay alive.
Following last night's election there has been a switch in positioning for the top two parties. The Conservatives now hold the most seats of any party in the house with 124 followed by the Liberals with 103. In third place with 51 seats are the Quebec separatist party, The Bloc Quebecois and the NDP are fourth with 29 seats. (No that doesn't add up; there's also one independent.)
While the Conservative Party of Canada can point to the final tally and claim victory, this is far from the decisive win that they were hoping for, and could have perhaps anticipated. The federal Liberal party of Canada was one light punch away from being knocked out of the political arena completely if there had been someone out there capable of delivering the blow.
Paul Martin's tenure as Prime Minister has either been marked by scandal or ineptitude. Whether it was ineptitude or just a lack of political instinct we'll never know, but Paul Martin's decision-making ability was so woeful that he had earned the sobriquet Mr. Dithers. (Nothing to do with Dagwood's boss and a lot to do with dithering.)
Article comments
1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Intelligent writing, Gypsyman. You should have a piece like this in one of Canada's dailies.
2 - JELIEL³
The Cons have nothing to offer and hopefully their fate will be the same as last time they lost, party dissolution with only 2 seats. With 3 opposition parties from the center left, this could be short lived. And he only got 35% of the popular vote. This means 65% didn't vote for him. He's gonna be walking the tight rope for his whole mandate.
I wanted the NDP to hold the balance of power, but the BQ was too strong again and the Cons actually got seats in Quebec which I expected, but 2 or 3 tops, not 10. Anyway we'll see how it goes.
3 - RJ Elliott
Harper is smart enough to press ahead with the popular initiatives, while avoiding the controversial stuff the social conservatives want.
He's not trying to remake Canada in just a couple of years; he's trying to build up the Conservative Party into a position where they are a majority government.
Then, after the Conservatives have had some time in power, and the electorate trusts them, and they have a majority, they will press on with some of the anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stuff...
IMHO, of course...