Murphy’s Logic: Fixed election dates are a fiction

Weeks of speculation about an early fall election in New Brunswick has put the lie to the purpose and value of fixed election dates.

They’ve been put into law across the country over the past 20 years or so, supposedly to end the practice of prime ministers and premiers calling snap elections when it is to their partisan advantage. In other words, when they’re popular and likely to be re-elected. In bringing in the federal law in 2008, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper said such fixed rates would “level the playing field for all parties” and make the rules clear for everyone.

Under New Brunswick law, the next provincial election is set for Oct. 21, 2024, but the law isn’t binding. It allows the lieutenant governor to grant an early election when requested. So it’s little more than a suggestion: an election will be held on a fixed date. Unless, of course, the premier decides he or she wants it earlier, or the government is defeated, something always possible in parliamentary democracies, especially when there is a minority government.

In essence, fixed election dates do nothing but set a time limit on how long a government can wait before seeking a new mandate. But the constitution already says a government can’t go beyond five years, and historically those that have come governed into a fifth year have been thumped at the polls.

Far from ending uncertainty and blunting the government’s advantage in election timing, fixed dates create a whole different kind of uncertainty, by saying an election will be held on a certain date, unless it’s not!

What’s the use of that? The laws should be changed to say that only when a government is defeated on a confidence bill can an election be called before the date fixed in law. Otherwise, let’s just end the pretence that these laws have really changed anything.