Election 2021! (Canada votes again...)

[marshwiggle]

Party leaders are voted in by the party membership, so that's how prime ministers are selected.

As for candidates... it's very complicated. Most nominees actually win a nomination contest, but some are appointed for various reasons, and each party has its own rules for the nomination process, what kinds of protections exist for incumbents, etc. Although leaders generally have the final veto.

In other words, we have primaries but don't call them that.

A leadership convention doesn't have all of the months of theatre that seem to be an essential part of primaries in the US. Also, since parties have their own rules about when a leadership review is required, the process doesn't have to happen EVERY.SINGLE.ELECTION cycle.

[kaysixteen]

There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

[Kron3007]

There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

Both systems have their pros and cons.  I don't think either are "better".

[marshwiggle]

There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

I don't think there's any law about people being members of multiple parties. So any Canadian can become a member of whatever party they want to participate in choosing the party leader.

[Parasaurolophus]

There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

But as I explained, voters do choose the candidates?

There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

I don't think there's any law about people being members of multiple parties. So any Canadian can become a member of whatever party they want to participate in choosing the party leader.

You can only be a member of a single federal party at a time. When you purchase your membership, each party has you declare that you are not a member of any other federal party.

[marshwiggle]

There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

But as I explained, voters do choose the candidates?

There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

I don't think there's any law about people being members of multiple parties. So any Canadian can become a member of whatever party they want to participate in choosing the party leader.

You can only be a member of a single federal party at a time. When you purchase your membership, each party has you declare that you are not a member of any other federal party.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification.

[Puget]

There are advantages to the Canadian system, surely, but Americans would never tolerate taking away the right of the voters to choose their parties' candidates.   Any party that tried to do that would never be heard from again.

Both systems have their pros and cons.  I don't think either are "better".

There really is no one US system for primaries-- it is specific to the state, and in some cases the party. There is nothing in the constitution or US law about how parties must select their candidates, so there is a lot of variety.

For example, for non-Presidential primaries, some states now use a top-2 system where all candidates are on one ballot and the top two of any party advance to the general election. At the Presidential level, the parties can set the rules pretty much however they like, and this can vary by state-- some do winner-take-all, others apportion delegates by vote count with certain thresholds, some of course use caucuses rather than primaries, some are open only to party members and others are open to independents too and others are open to anyone, etc.

Also, the modern primary system is relatively new in US history-- prior to about the 70s, it was much more like the Canadian system, with party insiders making the decisions in the proverbial smoke filled rooms (and they probably were quite smoke filled in those days).

[kaysixteen]

This is true.   But it is one of those historical developments which is a one-way street.   Neither Democrats nor Republicans, in general, would ever accept a return to the old ways.   No matter how much party elders do not like this (and they don't), and no matter that our current system occasionally produces awful nominees like Trump.  The Canadian system just is not like this, all the more so because one actually has to 'buy' membership in the party of one's choice, and unaffiiated voters can have no say in the selection of any party's nominees.

[marshwiggle]

This is true.   But it is one of those historical developments which is a one-way street.   Neither Democrats nor Republicans, in general, would ever accept a return to the old ways.   No matter how much party elders do not like this (and they don't), and no matter that our current system occasionally produces awful nominees like Trump.  The Canadian system just is not like this, all the more so because one actually has to 'buy' membership in the party of one's choice, and unaffiliated voters can have no say in the selection of any party's nominees.

This is misleading. Every member of the House of Commons, including the Prime Minister, has to be elected in their own riding. There have been cases of party leaders losing their own seats, and they can't serve in the House until they do. When this happens, typically some MP in a "safe" seat will take one for the team and step down, so there can be a by-election, and the party leader will then run in that riding. Since it's a "safe" seat, AND voters like to pick a winner, then the party leader usually wins. If they didn't, the party would have to pick a new leader if they were going to form the government.

And, as I said earlier, if I want to have a vote for the leader of my party of choice, I just have to join that party and vote in their leadership convention. It's never been a burning desire of mine.

[Parasaurolophus]

Also worth noting that the cost of party membership is a tax-deductible $5 donation.

[kaysixteen]

How does one get to go to the leadership convention?

In any case, the leadership selection is one thing, but your system does not really allow the average voter to choose nominees for his own particular riding, either, does it?

[Kron3007]

How does one get to go to the leadership convention?

In any case, the leadership selection is one thing, but your system does not really allow the average voter to choose nominees for his own particular riding, either, does it?

I don't think so.  We don't elect nearly as many posts as in the IS.  I was surprised when I lived in the US and there were signs for Sherif, judges, and all sorts of posts.  We only vote on a couple.

Of course, I always wondered how much sense it really made.  Do people down there even know enough about all the peoples stances and background to make informed decisions?  Seems unlikely.

[mamselle]

It's often an excuse to vote for your friends and the people your friends tell you to vote for.

M.

[Parasaurolophus]

How does one get to go to the leadership convention?

Traditionally, you had to travel to wherever the party decided to host it. But since about 2015, you've also been able to vote online. (IIRC most parties had a mail-in option prior to that.)

In any case, the leadership selection is one thing, but your system does not really allow the average voter to choose nominees for his own particular riding, either, does it?

I think you missed my explanation earlier:

As for candidates... it's very complicated. Most nominees actually win a nomination contest, but some are appointed for various reasons, and each party has its own rules for the nomination process, what kinds of protections exist for incumbents, etc. Although leaders generally have the final veto.

[Kron3007]

It's often an excuse to vote for your friends and the people your friends tell you to vote for.

M.

That's what I assumed.  There is no way the general public is informed enough on so many different positions.  Seemed like a popularity contest, and not likely to result in the best person for the job.