The Canadization of Election 2010

Been trying to think of the appropriate analogy to what those blasted debates have done to this election.

USA it ain’t – why?  Let’s state the obvious:

i) US is a Presidential contest

ii) There’s a four year fixed term

iii) You can spend money on prime time advertising to rebut the organised debates. (Here not only are Plaid excluded but we can’t even spend our own money on TV rebuttal – one of the big benefits to the London parties is this is saving them money)

Whereas Canada has:

i) A FPTP Parliamentary system

ii) Variable term Parliaments

iii) A closely regulated TV debating system (not sure about TV advertising – perhaps Canadian colleagues could enlighten us)

iv)  A multi party system with a strong nationalist party and significant historical regional voting loyalty

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/laws.html

Implications?

i) The possibilibilty of huge seat changes – in 1993 the Progressive Consevatives lost 149 of their 151 seats.

ii) There is no reason at all why the LibDems can’t actually win this election.


Discover more from Slugger O'Toole

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

We are reader supported. Donate to keep Slugger lit!

For over 20 years, Slugger has been an independent place for debate and new ideas. We have published over 40,000 posts and over one and a half million comments on the site. Each month we have over 70,000 readers. All this we have accomplished with only volunteers we have never had any paid staff.

Slugger does not receive any funding, and we respect our readers, so we will never run intrusive ads or sponsored posts. Instead, we are reader-supported. Help us keep Slugger independent by becoming a friend of Slugger. While we run a tight ship and no one gets paid to write, we need money to help us cover our costs.

If you like what we do, we are asking you to consider giving a monthly donation of any amount, or you can give a one-off donation. Any amount is appreciated.