Is it an unfair advantage that the current Prime Minister decides when the election will be held?


This applies at least in Canada and England.

Wondering what provision if any offsets this apparent advantage/disadvantage.


Posted 2017-05-19T20:31:24.237

Reputation: 2 676

Question was closed 2017-05-19T23:59:24.850

For England, please read the UK. Many people take the distinction very seriously. – origimbo – 2017-05-19T21:16:41.050

"unfair" is always going to be opinion. – None – 2017-05-19T23:59:17.207

2Perhaps you could ask how much of an advantage it is, or for times when it obviously has or hasn't been one. The government has a ton of advantages eg when to introduce a budget or other confidence motion, setting up committees to adjust riding boundaries, etc. Generally speaking this hasn't led to rampant unfairness and it might be interesting to ask why that happens rather than whether or not one advantage is binary fair/unfair. – Kate Gregory – 2017-05-20T13:14:38.893

In the UK, the prime minister no longer has the ability to unilaterally decide the date of the next election. They require a supermajority vote to hold an election early, so the opposition has to consent. – Brythan – 2017-05-20T13:50:53.590



The PM can be wrong. Look at Canada's 1984 election. PM Turner called an election holding a 35 seat advantage. After the election, his party was down 171 seats compared to the majority party.

Whether this makes the process fair or unfair is a not really a question we can answer for you.


Posted 2017-05-19T20:31:24.237

Reputation: 1 065