This system “is known for the separation of powers and for congressional committee system” (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1982). In relation to Prime Minister Harper’s plan for re-election, the election would be significantly different in a Presidential system. To start, the passing of the Fair Elections Act most likely would not have occurred due to the loose party discipline as well as the separation of powers leading to the opportunity of vetoing the bill – Explained further, “the president’s powers are restricted by not being a member of Congress… limited to exercising influence rather than authority over its members” (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1982). As a result, Harper would not have acquired an increased campaign budget or an extended campaign time which would have negatively affected his party’s chances of winning. If met with an issue that the majority of people disagreed on, great opposition of the President could cause a “full-blown regime crisis” (Linz, p. 65, 1990). Also, the centralized power of a President would allow Harper to wield greater influence however it would not allow him to win a plurality. Yet, “the elected president wields substantial powers over the executive branch and the lawmaking process.” (Carey, p. 92, 2008). Additionally, if one takes into account the structural constraints in Canada’s electoral system, the distribution of population would be affected similar to that of the Presidential system. Through the use of electoral college votes, Harper would have to win districts by obtaining the highest number of electoral college votes. Essentially, considering that some of the ridings the Conservatives won in the 2011 campaign were relatively low population areas, the desired outcome would be improbable. The election in a Presidential system supports the notion that Prime Minister Harper’s party
This system “is known for the separation of powers and for congressional committee system” (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1982). In relation to Prime Minister Harper’s plan for re-election, the election would be significantly different in a Presidential system. To start, the passing of the Fair Elections Act most likely would not have occurred due to the loose party discipline as well as the separation of powers leading to the opportunity of vetoing the bill – Explained further, “the president’s powers are restricted by not being a member of Congress… limited to exercising influence rather than authority over its members” (Dickerson & Flanagan, 1982). As a result, Harper would not have acquired an increased campaign budget or an extended campaign time which would have negatively affected his party’s chances of winning. If met with an issue that the majority of people disagreed on, great opposition of the President could cause a “full-blown regime crisis” (Linz, p. 65, 1990). Also, the centralized power of a President would allow Harper to wield greater influence however it would not allow him to win a plurality. Yet, “the elected president wields substantial powers over the executive branch and the lawmaking process.” (Carey, p. 92, 2008). Additionally, if one takes into account the structural constraints in Canada’s electoral system, the distribution of population would be affected similar to that of the Presidential system. Through the use of electoral college votes, Harper would have to win districts by obtaining the highest number of electoral college votes. Essentially, considering that some of the ridings the Conservatives won in the 2011 campaign were relatively low population areas, the desired outcome would be improbable. The election in a Presidential system supports the notion that Prime Minister Harper’s party