Canadian PM dissolves parliment?

[Captain Seafort]

Actually, there isn't a set time from the dissolution of parliment till the election - in '97 Parliament was dissolved on 17 March, and polling day wasn't till 1 May - 44 days later. In 2005 Parliament was dissolved on 11 April and polling day was 5 May - 24 days later.

[IanKennedy]

Forgot to say weekends and bank holidays don't count, but generally it has to be stated when the election will be when it's dissolved.

[Graham Kennedy]

It's also true here that the government dissolves parliament just before the election and it doesn't meet again until the election is over.

To be precise, it is the Queen who dissolves Parliment. The Prime Minister must go to see her and ask her to do so if he wants an election.

Technically, she can dissolve parliment any time she likes. Just as technically she can refuse to do so if asked. Either one, if actually done, would likely lead to the abolition of the monarchy.

[IanKennedy]

I know, I was trying to keep it simple for the colonials out there

[sunnyside]

So how do things work in between disolution and election.

For example here even when in recess it's known who the legislators are. So if something major comes up they can just haul there butts back.

But what happens if your PM decides your country needs to wage a war and you aren't going to have a legislature for a while?

[IanKennedy]

The government stays in office until the results are announced, so they get to decide on things during that time. I don't think there's anything they specifically can or can't do during that period. Don't forget that we have no written constitution so things tend to get done because that's the way they've always been done. In terms of making laws during that period it would be very unlikely to happen. Each law has to be approved by the queen and she would not do that if she felt that parliament had not been given a chance to discuss the matter first. It also tends to be a very short period between dissolution and the election (typically 18 days) so it's unlikely that anything drastic is required. In a complete emergency I'm sure they would just go with the current set of MPs and cancel or postpone the election.

[Graham Kennedy]

It's also very fast when the election happens, too. In fact it's almost brutally fast. You have the elections on a Thursday. Typically the results will be known that night, running into the early morning. The Queen calls somebody in and asks them to form a government on the Friday morning - basically as soon as it becomes clear who has won. And the movers are in downing street boxing up the loser's personal effects as soon as that's announced. Typically the new PM moves into Number 10 that afternoon.

None of this months of waiting around like the Americans do!

[Mikey]

None of this months of waiting around like the Americans do!

Meh. We have that even when Congress is in session.

[Tsukiyumi]

None of this months of waiting around like the Americans do!

Meh. We have that even when Congress is in session.

That's at least three days out of the year, right?

[Sionnach Glic]

Out of curiosity, just why does the US have such a long election period? Over here I think it's over within a couple of months.

[Tsukiyumi]

Out of curiosity, just why does the US have such a long election period? Over here I think it's over within a couple of months.

We do have a fairly large population, so it takes a while for votes to be counted and verified.

[IanKennedy]

Gosh we do that in parallel, that way it takes the same amount of time no matter how large our country gets.

[sunnyside]

Out of curiosity, just why does the US have such a long election period? Over here I think it's over within a couple of months.

Primaries are a big part of it, as is directly electing the president. If a counties leaders are selected by a parliment there just isn't as much cause for getting started so early as indavidual difference blend into the general party line, and you don't have to have primaries.

Also, and I could be wrong about this easily, but my impression is that there isn't as much difference between candidates both in terms of what they'd like to do and what they could actually do in practice. For example I doubt the Irish have to consider whether someone they are voting for will unilaterally launch an attack on Iran, whereas our president can do that without having to get approval from anyone (they have to get congressional approval to keep at it, but they can get the party started).

[Mikey]

The tiered process doesn't help. Primaries with delegates, who then have to convene, and then a general election - also with the electoral college which then has to convene, etc., ad nauseum.

[Sionnach Glic]

Fair enough.