Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Should Canada limit Leaders to 8 years?


smokes

Should office be held for max of 8 years?  

53 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

The US limits it's Presidents to a max of 8 years in power regardless of the ruling party. As an observer I can see a few good and bad points of changing leaders. Fresh start, New ideas, etc. Do you think Canada should limit thier Prime Ministers and Premiers to 8 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah. If the people like him, the people like him. When the president get's unliked he get's voted out. If he's doing well, why kick him out? Trust me, many Americans, especially this year, were pretty much begging for a third Obama term by the end of their election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, smokes said:

The US limits it's Presidents to a max of 8 years in power regardless of the ruling party. As an observer I can see a few good and bad points of changing leaders. Fresh start, New ideas, etc. Do you think Canada should limit thier Prime Ministers and Premiers to 8 years. 

What good and bad points do you see? We could certainly discuss them further if we knew.

 

I don't necessarily see a point to it apart from to protect against a dictatorship forming. In any modern civilized democracy that shouldn't be a risk though. Bad leaders will get removed in the next election, or before even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite a bit different in Canada. Length of the term depends on when the government is dissolved. Its currently constitutionally maximum 5 years but currently legally fixed for 4 years (since 2009-ish), though it can still happen whenever PM/GG wants. Limit time, and elections would have to be changed; and if we limit terms it can become pointless when we have very short governments.

 

Also parties themselves have a leader who then becomes PM when their party has the most MP's, The voters have no power or legal right to limit that.

 

I like the system in a lot of ways. So I say don't change it... Though the Senate needs to be abolished. Makes zero sense. Quebec has 4 times the representation as Alberta and BC but isn't even close to that in POP. or GDP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

What good and bad points do you see? We could certainly discuss them further if we knew.

 

I don't necessarily see a point to it apart from to protect against a dictatorship forming. In any modern civilized democracy that shouldn't be a risk though. Bad leaders will get removed in the next election, or before even.

I think it's good because as people have said if the PM is well liked then he/she should still rule especially if they have always been doing a good job. But when I see people like Mulroney, Harper, or down to Premier Gordon, it seems like they did more and had more energy then they first took office. Near the end of their tenure, they have made up of what it seems as the "Old Boys Club" and slacked off until they were voted out. But by the time that happens the whole party ends up in rebuild mode because they lost so badly usually causing major setbacks to their party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More important would be limiting the ability of any government to make changes to our electoral systems without a national referendum.  What is currently being considered brings to mind changes Putin made to the Russian constitution so he could continue in power.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally, no limits make sense... let the people vote and have what they want.  In practice, I think term limits are a good idea.  It is difficult to vote out an incumbent (obviously not impossible), as some people are more afraid of change and could be willing to suffer under a poor leader for fear of getting a worse one.

 

I always did find it annoying with the flexibility on calling Canadian elections, allowing the PM to choose a date as favorable as possible to re-election chances or drawing out their time in office when the political climate is so bad you know you are going to lose.  I'm not sure what the benefits are behind allowing the PM to choose the date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Stelar said:

Unlimited terms but let's have set dates for elections. Every 4 years.  None of this "PM calls the election"

So what happens if there is a minority government?  Would you still guarantee them 4 years?  What would happen if they lost a confidence vote?  Would the 4 year clock reset?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, goalie13 said:

So what happens if there is a minority government?  Would you still guarantee them 4 years?  What would happen if they lost a confidence vote?  Would the 4 year clock reset?

 

Majority or minority, 4 year set terms. Confidence votes are dumb.

 

In the US, they should be forced to live with Trump for a full 4 years.  If he F's things up, so be it. That's what you voted for.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smokes said:

The US limits it's Presidents to a max of 8 years in power regardless of the ruling party. As an observer I can see a few good and bad points of changing leaders. Fresh start, New ideas, etc. Do you think Canada should limit thier Prime Ministers and Premiers to 8 years. 

After watching the mess that is the US political theater and it's 2 party madness.

 

I think the further we get from the system and less we emulate it the better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, greenbean30 said:

Nope, if the PM is good and doing good for the country, we shouldn't be forced to make a change we don't want. If they aren't doing good, and are unliked by the majority of Canadians, then they will be voted out.

This pretty much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Monty said:

Before looking at how many years one can run the country for, perhaps they should up the qualifications one needs to become the Prime Minister to begin with.

What would the qualifications be?

 

If you get the support of the majority of the voters that should be enough I would think.

 

Things in Canada are far different then the U.S. The party and it's members pick the leader's, so qualifications would be set by each party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason for the term limit is due to FDR being popular and a Democrat. The Republicans didn't like him winning 4 terms. So after he died in office in 1945. In 1947 they limited the terms to two. What a surprise the guy that lost the election Thomas Dewey, supported the 22nd Amendment. 

 

I don't really see the point Federally. I sometimes wonder if provincially it might make sense. But I think I'd rather see a set election date and term, instead of the Premier or Prime Minister having a window to declare an election to help assist him or her to try to get re-elected. Say June 1st every 5 years? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...