[EM] Fixed Terms

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Blake,

you wrote (26 Aug 1999):
> Markus Schulze wrote:
> > Dear Blake,
> > you wrote (22 Aug 1999):
> > > Election dates should be fixed and outside the control of the
> > > legislature.  Often it is suggested that the legislature or cabinet
> > > needs to be able to call an early election to resolve an impasse in
> > > the legislature.  My response is that such a rule has the opposite
> > > effect to that intended.  In general, as the opinions of voters
> > > change, it will frequently occur that a majority, or near majority in
> > > the legislature see a new election as likely to increase their
> > > standing.  If an impasse triggers an election, they have good reason
> > > to create an impasse.  If cabinet must be defeated on a major bill,
> > > they will seek an opportunity.  Also, if an early election does occur,
> > > it is not guaranteed to remedy the situation, and frequently doesn't.
> > > Furthermore, fixed terms have been used in PR municipalities, and some
> > > PR countries, such as Norway, without any obvious increase in
> > > governmental ineffectiveness over other PR jurisdictions.
> > 
> > I prefer the Swedish Method. The Swedish Method says that there are
> > ordinary elections on fixed days (e.g. on the first Thursday of
> > October of every year with a date dividable by five). Extraordinary
> > elections are possible. But the term of the then elected parliament
> > ends with the next ordinary elections.
> > 
> > The Swedish Method guarantees that the possibility to dissolve
> > the parliament cannot be misused to "corriger la fortune."
>
> In a later post Markus states:
> > There have been extraordinary elections in Sweden
> > in 1887, in 1914, in 1958, and in 1970.
>
> Interesting.  I find it rather frustrating that references seem never to
> properly explain the rules for when an election may be called in various
> countries.  Do you know of any other jurisdictions that use the Swedish
> system (besides Scotland)?

To the best of my knowledge, Sweden is by far the most important
jurisdiction that uses the Swedish option. I doubt that there is a more
important jurisdiction with the Swedish option because -as you might
have already observed- the more frequently a political idea is used the
more names it has. As the Swedish option has no other names, Sweden must
be the most important country with this option.

I observed that the Swedish option is also used for the upper house
(Eerste Kamer) of the Netherlands. Article 64 of the 1983 constitution
says: "De zittingsduur van een na ontbinding optredende Eerste Kamer
eindigt op het tijdstip waarop de zittingsduur van de ontbonden kamer
zou zijn geeindigd." ("The duration of an upper house that meets
following a dissolution shall end at the time at which the duration of
the dissolved house would have ended.") But I don't remember that the
Eerste Kamer has ever been dissolved.

You wrote (26 Aug 1999):
> DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> > * Fixed terms
> > 
> > Recall elections should exist to be able to get rid of/change idiot
> > legislative bodies or executive / judicial officers anytime.
>
> Do citizens in PR countries talk as much about recall as those in countries
> like Canada and the US?  It seems to me that if the public elects a
> legislature using a reasonable method, then the public is unlikely to
want to
> throw them out before the next election.  Any comments from people who
> actually live in PR countries?

The recall is well known and frequently used in Germany.

a) Between 1993 and 1996, 10 mayors have been recalled successfully in the
   state of Brandenburg. (The 1,700 mayors in the state of Oldenburg are
   elected for a term of eight years.)
b) The most important successful recalls in Germany in 1998, were the recall
   of the mayor of Goerlitz (ca. 63,000 inhabitants) in Saxony and the recall
   of the mayor of Potsdam (ca. 140,000 inhabitants) in Brandenburg.
c) To the best of my knowledge, since WWII it never happened in Germany that a
   whole legislative was successfully recalled. But the recall has been used
   several times between 1930 and 1933 because of the public dissatisfaction
   about the incapacity of the parties to solve the economic crisis. The most
   important unsuccessful example was the failed recall of the lower house
   (Landtag) of Prussia (Preussen). The most important successful example was
   the recall of the unicameral parliament (Landtag) of the state of
Oldenburg.

Markus Schulze