In general practice, we elect provincial and federal governments to four-year terms of office. That’s the understanding, though we know leaders interpret their mandates rather loosely.
Both our prime minister and premier have promised fixed election terms, but the cynical among us can draw our own conclusions as to what “fixed” really means. They like to keep their window of opportunity as wide as possible.
But since municipalities wield the least absolute power over their affairs, it is possible for the province to impose fixed four-year terms of office for our mayors and councillors. The province will not completely take this medicine itself, but that does not mean the medicine is bad.
Right now, cities and towns elect councillors to three-year terms, which produces an unbalanced cycle of elections with the loose four-year terms of the province and the feds. That means in some years it feels like we’re constantly being harassed to vote for someone. It’s not easy to whip up interest in the third election campaign in an 18-month span.
If the provincial proposal being floated for feedback does become law, predictable election schedules could go a long way to improving participation in the affairs that affect our lives and our futures.
You can go to http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1774.cfm to record your opinion.
Suppose municipal elections could be scheduled like the Olympics. It stands to reason that the province would not schedule provincial elections in the same years as municipal ones. It would make sense to alternate. Therefore, in even-numbered years, Albertans would know they are expected to both go to the polls and watch their athletes.
The rotation turns out for municipal elections in the springtime of years when the Winter Games are on. If voters could persuade the province to firmly fix their election windows, we could have our provincial governors nicely into office, just before watching the opening ceremonies of the Summer Games.
Business before pleasure, you know.
And since we can hold the federal government to no electoral schedule at all (what with the risk of non-confidence motions and all) at least there’s the 50-50 chance they’ll choose an odd-numbered year to dissolve Parliament.
The timing of elections alone does not determine public interest in public affairs, except in a negative way by crowding elections too close. Nor does it determine if particular councils, legislatures or Parliaments can get along well enough to conduct their business.
But it does establish a firm level of expectations on the responsibility of voters to vote.
In even-numbered years, everyone would know they’re expected to make important decisions of some kind. We could name the time when we threaten to withhold our votes from candidates, if they don’t do what we want them to now. (Just you wait till next April! We’ll see who’s boss!)
This sort of rotation puts fixed terms by which we want to see results on promises made. It’s easier for everyone to keep track of who’s got to be accountable, next.
In short, it’s easier for voters to keep track of their own responsibility as voters. In turn, this makes the practice of politics more results-oriented. We have deadlines, not a date out there in the future that only a few people really know is coming.
All griping about politics aside, what voters really want are governments that deliver what they say they plan to deliver, on time.
What governments want of us, is a genuine report card on their performance.
Fixed election dates can be one means of making that possible. Even numbered years, somebody’s going to be measured. Better pay attention.
We’ve got to get this done before the Games are on.
Greg Neiman is an Advocate editor