Fixed-term elections

Last Saturday night’s forum on Political Truths and Reconstruction raised several questions about the suitability of the Westminster system of Parliamentary Democracy for Bermuda. One of the topics arising was fixed-term elections. As I have written more than a few columns on our system of governance I thought it might be useful to post them for cogitation and comment. Here, then, is the first, a reprint of a column I wrote in October 1990 on Westminster and fixed-term elections. Your comments welcome.

This week I'd like to look at another aspect of the Westminster system which I believe adds to the community's stress level, the timing of elections.

An election in our system is triggered by the canceling or "dissolution" of the existing Parliament. Historically, Parliament was dissolved either by the passage of time or by proclamation from the reigning Monarch. In Bermuda's case, the maximum period of a Parliament's life is five years. The prerogative of the Monarch to dissolve Parliament is now exercised by the Monarch's representative, the Governor. However, it is the Premier who triggers Parliament's dissolution.

The Westminster notion of allowing the government leader to call an election at his/her whim is of little or no use to the electorate. Certainly if a Parliament loses the confidence of the people, there ought be some mechanism to allow for the election of a new one. But such a mechanism in the hands of a party leader serves only as a tool for the perpetuation of power through springing surprise elections.

Thus to allow the government to force an election at whim is an invitation to opportunism. I believe it elevates the practice of gamesmanship over the pursuit of excellence in service as the skill of choice for Parliamentarians. In other words, it is a practice which frustrates the whole thrust of the Westminster System which is "Government for the good of the governed".

The practice was deeded to us in 1968 during the transfer of authority and power from the Monarch in England to the people in Bermuda. The local partners in the framing of that transfer were the newly formed parties' politicians. It was to be expected that they would negotiate the transfer from the viewpoints of the parties and with their respective party's interests foremost.

The Progressive Labour Party (PLP) was not likely to champion a dilution of power to the same "independent" Members of Colonial Parliament (MCP) whose segregationist and racist policies that party had formed to combat. The United Bermuda Party (UBP) saw itself as those same "independents", but merely drawn together to offset the PLP's challenge to the authority they had always wielded.

I would assume that neither the parties nor the Monarch's representatives from England saw anything wrong in the disenfranchisement of the non-partisan influence on policy-making - if they saw it at all. I suppose at the time the members of the two parties saw themselves as representing the people. However, I suspect they viewed that representation as occurring solely through the auspices of the parties.

In any case, the power to decide when Parliament would be dissolved was transferred from the Monarch to the leader of the dominant party. On paper, the transfer of that authority was to the elected Member of Parliament who, in the opinion of the Governor of the moment, "commanded the confidence of a majority of the members of that House" (Bda Constitution, Sec. 58 (1)). In practice, however, that authority was vested in the majority group - the group which was defending its accustomed political turf against the PLP's challenge.

Rather than transferring that power to either group that, by virtue of their partisan nature, could not conceivably exercise such power benignly and without prejudice, the determination of when an election is to be held would better have been put on a fixed timetable.

As the situation is now, one side is continually plotting to see when it might get the greatest advantage from calling a surprise election while the other side is perpetually on tenterhooks about its preparedness in case an election is called. I doubt we can afford to have our leaders' energy and attention siphoned away by such endless plotting.

I would propose therefore to have fixed term elections.

The pros and cons of each of the different possible lengths of term should be a matter of public debate and decision. In the Island of Jersey, the term for Constables and Deputies is three years while senators are elected for a six year term. A staggered term can provide a level of continuity currently missing from our system.

From experience elsewhere we can anticipate that fixed term elections will:

• reduce the electioneering that tends to surface whenever there's a hint of an election

• prevent abuses whereby elections are called for partisan political advantage rather then in the service of the electorate.

• give non- government and new candidates a fairer chance by enabling them to organise and plan a campaign rather than being in limbo about the timing of the next election

• eliminate one of the arguments for yearly voter registration.
  

This is the kind of thinking that must occupy us if we are going to stem the increasing wrangling that pervades our politics and our media.

Comments

[ken on 14.03.06 at 17:06]

I have no problem with fixed election dates...I think they would enable goverments to schedule their agendas properly as they and their cabinets would properly know when an election would be called and would therefore know what time frames they were working with.
My only issue and its a minor one, is why are people calling for this under the PLP govt, when it wasn't an issue for 30 years...the UBP called a snap election in the 80s which almost decimated the PLP. The PLP as a government hasn't called an early election, and doesn't appear to be headed that way this time. So although they have the right to, the chances of a government exercising this right tends to be minimal.

[SmokingGun on 14.03.06 at 17:28]

Fixed elections? I thought that was a no-no. But if they are talking about having elections on set dates then that's a whole different kettle of chowder and it sounds very much like the right thing to do.

Structure and standardization form solid bases to work from.

[John Steele on 14.03.06 at 17:39]

…reprint of a column I wrote in October 1990

Really? 1990?

[John Steele on 14.03.06 at 17:47]

Oops. Sorry Stuart. I thought it was Phil's post I was reading, not your's.

<sqeakyvoice> nevermind </sqeakyvoice>

Damn RSS feeds.

[Canuck in Bermuda on 14.03.06 at 21:12]

Ken,

I don't think it's really a PLP thing at all (though I could be wrong of course). Fixed election dates are gaining popularity all over the place, and I think this is just a case of people seeing a good idea and wanting to emulate it

[stuart J Hayward on 14.03.06 at 22:22]

Ken writes:
"My only issue and its a minor one, is why are people calling for this under the PLP govt, when it wasn't an issue for 30 years"

Ken, you''l note that this was written in 1990, when the UBP was still the government.

[ken on 14.03.06 at 23:28]

Stuart,

I wasn't specifically talking about that article. But different posters on here have been more aggressive in calling for fixed election dates. Thats what I was referring to.

[Uncle Elvis on 15.03.06 at 01:05]

ken, with all due respect, I think that the very fact that this article was written in 1990 proves that people were calling for fixed term elections.

Perhaps there has been an increase in the calls for them lately, but, as has been said again and again on this site, it's not about the PLP, but about the current administration. Fixed term elections would relieve quite a bit of tension on the part of the electorate, those that are dissatisfied knowing that, maybe, they'll only be around for x amount more of years and put a little more pressure on both sides, forcing them to get themselves together, as you so eloquently said. Based on some of the posts here and comments I've heard from PLP supporters, the pressure of an election in the forseeable future, on a set date, a visible goal, if you will, would put boots to the right asses.

[Bermudian on 15.03.06 at 10:58]

I think by people saying it's not about the PLP, it's about the administration is an excuse. Just admit that you do not like the PLP (even though it is blatantly obvious, actually I think it's been said already by many).

Again, nobody is saying that they are not supporting fixed-term elections. But I think some of our motives are different.

People are making it seem as if the PLP are abusing this 'privilege'. They haven't. So why is Limey writing stuff like:

"As the situation is now, one side is continually plotting to see when it might get the greatest advantage from calling a surprise election while the other side is perpetually on tenterhooks about its preparedness in case an election is called"

[Point Finger on 15.03.06 at 11:35]

Fixed term elections are just common sense. As a Bermudian living overseas it would help to know when an election is so you can vote. Also with all the students abroad, it just makes plain sense. Have it in July before Cup Match, or else allow Bermudians to cast votes at a local British embassy, so all Bermudian can participate. The last election there was one month's notice, pure BS, people had already made summer vacations plans. For me it was a $700 for a plane ticket for one vote.

If there were set election dates, both party's could properly prepare. There should also be televised debates, have at least 3 debates. 2 with the leaders debating, the other with the deputy leader, with a moderator asking questions on the issues facing Bermuda. Bermudians need to realise it is about the issues and what each party plans to do . It seems more like a popularity contest based strictly on negative campaigning.

[Uncle Elvis on 15.03.06 at 11:47]

Actually, "Bermudian", I am not against the PLP. I would support them if they gave me anything to support. they haven't. This is why I don't support the UBP either. You may want to take the time and actually read the posts and not try to make up what's between the lines. You might learn something. I know I have.

Regarding the quote from Limey...
Are you saying it's inaccurate? In my not-even-remotely-humble opinion, it's pretty spot on. One side generally does try to call the election when it's most advantageous for them, as is evidenced by the first post by ken.
There is a level of unevenness with one side being able to call the election when they want, which is what we're addressing.

BTW, no one accused anyone of abusing the privilege. No one accused anyone of anything... well.. except you, that is.

[observor on 15.03.06 at 11:51]

Bermudian

People are making it seem as if the PLP are abusing this 'privilege'. They haven't. So why is Limey writing stuff like:

The Limey isn't writing stuff like this, Mr. Stuart Hayward is ... back in October of 1990.

[ken on 15.03.06 at 11:55]

Point Finger,

The 2003 election was actually announced earlier that any previous election ever, so that the voters could finalize their registration information due to the constituency changes.

Even if you had vacation plans made, you can vote in the advance poll unless your plans are so extensive that you are away for that long of a time.

I am a supported of absentee ballots and the government has supported this (at least verbally). I hope they introduce the legislation and policy to support this prior to the next election.

I think its good to recognize though that the only government to abuse this privilege was the UBP government, and I believe they would do it again, if given the chance. Which is why I in fact do support the idea in theory. But lets not get it twisted and act as though the PLP has abused the process.

[Bermudian on 15.03.06 at 12:07]

My apologies. But do you feel that the situation described is what we are observing today?

[Bermudian on 15.03.06 at 12:10]

Elvis loves the word games.

[Point Finger on 15.03.06 at 12:10]

Ken,

Didn't mean to rag on PLP specifically (as you said UBP also called early elections-cannot remember how much lead time was given).Just ragging on the process.

Fixed term elections would better prepare the parties and the electorate, so issues could be presented and debated in a public forum to allow voter's more knowledge and the direction each party would take the island.

[Uncle Elvis on 15.03.06 at 12:15]

Thanks, obsie... I just realized that and was gonna post, but y'beat me to it.

So I ask.

How is this anti-PLP? It was written in 1990, when the UBP was in power.

Can someone explain?

[Bermudian on 15.03.06 at 12:15]

"as you said UBP also called early elections"

Point Finger,

the UBP were the only ones to call an early election.

[observor on 15.03.06 at 12:16]

Bermudian

I would agree that the PLP are continually plotting to see when it might get the greatest advantage from calling a surprise election. Unfortunately they don't have a very successful track record to employ sufficient confidence in their chances of a re-election (this was also the case with the UBP in pre-98) so we end up with almost full 5 year terms.

On the flip side I don't think the UBP are entirely on tenterhooks about its preparedness in case an election is called given the abysmal PLP track record.

[observor on 15.03.06 at 12:18]

Bermudian

I would add to your comment the UBP were the only ones to call an early election and win.

[Uncle Elvis on 15.03.06 at 12:22]

Pardon? How was what I said a word game?

How was putting my feelings on both parties in plain English playing with words?

As for what it describes, I think the fact that this was written in 1990 and still pertains today is a pretty good indication that the process is unfair, no matter who is in power.
If the denunciation of the process was valid in 1990 and still stands today, it's pretty obvious, to me, anyway, that it is NOT a denunciation of a party (though it seems that you see anything anyone writes as a denunciation of the PLP), but of the process itself? So, I ask you:

What are your thoughts on the process itself? We've dismissed your point about this being anti-PLP pretty well, I think, so that's over. So let's talk about the topic.
What are your thoughts on fixed term elections?

[Bermudian on 15.03.06 at 12:23]

observor,

that only proves that they were the only ones to abuse the process. the current government have not abused this process and it doesn't look like they are.

I have a question for some of you guys (besides stuart): when the UBP were in power, where you pleading for fixed-term elections then? If you weren't, why not?

[Uncle Elvis on 15.03.06 at 12:31]

Personally, because I was in my twenties, working in a nightclub, having the time of my life and not giving a shit about politics.
In the mid-late 90's, when I DID start getting more interested in politics, having started my own company and having settled down with someone, the topic didn't come up very often, and when it did, I did wonder why we didn't have them, but chalked it up to Bermuda's quirky way of doing things.

To be honest, because of the Peter Pan life I was living during my 20s (ahhhh good times, good times...) I didn't grow up until well into my 30s.
Hell, I'm 37 and I'm still not grown up! As I tell any therapist that asks, I'm still looking for my "Inner Adult"!
Hope this answers your question.
I wasn't pleading for them because I just plain didn't care. I do now.

[Point Finger on 15.03.06 at 12:59]

Bermudian,

The point I'm trying to make is that there really needs to be a set lead time. If a party calls an election it cannot occur within say 3 months. This would allow ample time for debates to be arranged. Preset election dates would solve this problem.
I don't care who is or was in power. The lack of polictical debate in a public forum by leaders before an election in Bermuda is pathetic. Politicans of both parties need to have hard questions asked, and then supply their answers, so people can make an informed decision on the future of the island.

[Phil on 15.03.06 at 13:12]

I was surprised by ken's contention that "the 2003 election was actually announced earlier that any previous election ever", so I thought I'd check it out. It seems he's right.

The election was announced on 11 June 2003 for 24 July 2003. According to the Royal Gazette, the election was "long-awaited" and moreover:

Bermudians are in for the longest campaign in recent history - with six weeks set aside for canvassing as opposed to the normal 17 days.

Legislation to introduce the new 36 seat single member constituencies allows for a minimum of 31 days campaigning, but the Premier said she was allowing six weeks to make “special allowances for the newness of the single seat process”.

There was some concern about the election being called at a time of year that many Bermudians are on holiday, but even Grant Gibbons agreed that this would affect people of all political affiliations, and refused to agree that the timing of the election was a cynical strategic move.

So I don't think the call for fixed-term elections could be said to come from anything the PLP has done.

That said, if I was in Government and had the ability to choose when I called an election, of course I'd pick a date that I thought increased my chances of winning. I would expect both the PLP and UBP to do this.

Nevertheless, I'm ambivalent about the idea of having fixed-term elections. I can see some benefits, but they're not sufficiently big for me to get worked up about. I'd be inclined to focus my energies on deficiencies that I think are more pressing, such as the need for a recall mechanism.

[Uncle Elvis on 15.03.06 at 13:17]

Dude, YOU brought it up! *grin*

Just kidding.

You're right, of course. There are far more pressing issues.

[Phil on 15.03.06 at 13:27]

Elvis

Stuart brought it up, actually. And I'm happy for him to have done so. Most of the suggestions that were aired on Saturday night are worthy of further discussion, to determine the level of public support for them.

I don't think this is a bad idea, it's just that for me personally, it's low down my list of priorities.

[SmokingGun on 15.03.06 at 13:44]

Point Finger makes a very good point. For just the simple fact that a great deal of Bermudians are often away at school or for short term work. Why not have a standard date that we all know will be the time we must vote. This really is just simple common sense.

What I find amusing is that people will try to take every little "change' that is proposed and try to drag it into a "Well, why didn't you raise a fuss when it was the UBP's time in power?" Why can't people understand that we are not born with 20/20 foresight. Time passes, things happen, people learn and decide to make changes. It's called life.

[observor on 15.03.06 at 14:19]

Bermudian

I think you've got it wrong when you state that the current government have not abused this process and it doesn't look like they are.

No one is abusing anything. This is the way elections have worked for more than 40 years. I don't necessarily think it's the best way but, as of right now, it's the only way.

And let's be honest for a moment ... if the PLP actually thought they had a hope in hell of winning a "snap" election they would do it in a heartbeat.

The absence of their decision to call an "early" election is not evidence of a lack of abuse, it's evidence of a poorly performing government who haven't instilled sufficient confidence in the electorate to return them to power.

[sleepy on 15.03.06 at 16:50]

This idea that the UBP 'abused' the election process by calling early elections is utter stupidity. That's the Westminster system.

It's not abusing the system, that is the system. You might not like 'the system' but that doesn't mean anyone abused anything.

The reason the PLP called the 2003 election so late is because they were hoping for a short-term poll improvement to optimise their chances of victory. The UBP were waiting for the same short-term uptick in 1998 but it never happened.

The reason the PLP provided 60 (or so) days run-up is because it was the first under single seats and there was going to be a large amount of education about districts etc.. It was also clear that they didn't have their campaign together and hence needed time to rachet up the intesity and rhetoric.

[Bermudian on 15.03.06 at 18:44]

observor and sleepy,

Let's be realistic here. The Westminister system is designed to be 'fair'. Yes, we can spend days debating that, but the fact is that elections are scheduled the way they are so that the government will remain in power full term (thus increasing political stability) unless something special happens, such as a vote of no-confidence.

Calling snap elections because you are in good-standing with the public is an abuse of the system. It is not what the system was designed for. Political parties who do this are not doing the country justice. Any intellect can see that.

To answer Elvis' question, I am for fixed-term elections. I am simply stating that there is more to this debate than supporting or not supporting this form of election scheduling. I think a difference exists in the intentions of those who are for this method.

[stuart J Hayward on 15.03.06 at 23:10]

"This idea that the UBP 'abused' the election process by calling early elections is utter stupidity. That's the Westminster system."

Sleepy,
You may not agree with someone's opinion, but it doesn't help to label them "stupid". The objective here imho is to build on our shared knowledge, not demean each other.

[sleepy on 16.03.06 at 09:36]

Who appointed Stuart Hayward the referee around here anyway? I didn't call anyone stupid, I said the idea was stupid. I stand by that statement whether it upsets the PC crowd or not.

With respects Bermudian's comment that: "the fact is that elections are scheduled the way they are so that the government will remain in power full term (thus increasing political stability) unless something special happens, such as a vote of no-confidence."

That's not a fact. There is nothing in the Westminster system that suggests that while elections can be called at any time the 5 year full term is the ideal please unless your colleagues think you're crap (to borrow a phrase from our crap Premier).

The system puts the decision to call an election solely in the hands of the head of the Government entirely at their discretion. The no-confidence vote is the other alternative, but this idea that parties *should* run out the full 5 years is naive and a complete misread of the way our electoral system works.

And on a related point, the Westminster system isn't designed to be 'fair'. It favours incumbents.

I'm with Phil. I'm ok with the idea of fixed election dates but it doesn't get me all excited. I'm also not some starry eyed dreamer that thinks that if we adopt a new system that political confrontation would go away, or even be reduced.

Politics is rough and tumble. Get used to it or get out of it. I don't want a bunch of pussy cats running the place, I want someone who'll fight for what they believe in.

[Denis Pitcher on 16.03.06 at 10:21]

Sleepy,

I think the very fact that this is Stuart's post appoints him as referee.

Bermudian,

In terms of this whole PLP/UBP debate, I'll throw a different curve on it. I wasn't old enough to vote when the UBP in power, let alone have any knowledge in politics then.

I've heard enough of the history of the UBP and seen enough of the reality of the PLP to know I'm not overly fond of either.

In my opinion, Fixed Term Elections are a benefit, no matter how you look at it.

The PLP is doing so abysmally that it seems the UBP's strategy is to win by default, and I wouldn't doubt if they do. The PLP should be planning preemptively incase they lose so we can stop the UBP from utilizing the Westminster system to it's full advantage. They could be doing whats in the best interests of the people and actually win over quite a bit of support if they pushed for radical change, but I don't see it happening.

The UBP isn't going to do it because the old members don't want to give up the power.

Realistically, the either party would buy my vote if they took the stance of revamping our political system into one of a participatory democracy.

I honestly don't believe either is interested in doing so.

[Bermudian on 16.03.06 at 10:24]

sleepy,

You must be living in a dream world. If you came on here to fight about this simple issue, then something is seriously wrong with you.

stuart wasn't refereeing. He didn't say that you couldn't say what you said; he simply stated that it would be better if you respected people with different opinions rather than labeling their ideas as stupid.

I think that I explained what the system was designed to do very well. Your counter argument was simply that it doesn't explicitly state that. But I guess you're one of those people who have to have everything spelled out for them all the time.

To think that the system was designed so that one party could call elections at times when they would only win is undemocratic. It's a flaw in the system and it could be fixed. I agree that it isn't a pressing issue, simply because the current PLP government isn't abusing that privilege.

sleepy, I think you need to wake up! It's obvious that you do not have any good arguments which is why you continue to label others as stupid, naive, unable to comprehend, etc...

[Uncle Elvis on 16.03.06 at 11:00]

Actually, I appointed Mr. Hayward referee.
Ok, I didn't appoint him, but I can think of no-one better for this thread.

Bermudian,
I dig where you're coming from, but I truly don't think this is a "Let's get rid of the PLP" issue, or even a "Let's get rid of the current administration" thing. I think it's a "Hey, here's something that's kinda messed up, and, hey, look, it's been messed up for a long time now."
I know it seems, in these sensitive times, that it may be an attack on the PLP, but I honestly don't think it is. I KNOW it isn't in my case.

Jus' so you know, amigo.

[sleepy on 16.03.06 at 11:05]

Sigh. The ability to call an election at the Premier's discretion is not a "flaw" in the system, it is the system. This isn't that hard.

My argument wasn't that it doesn't explicity state that terms should be the full 5 years, the argument is that the complete opposite: it explicitly states that an election can be called at any point up to 5 years. How much clearer can it be.

This is simple stuff. Sure, the parties can agree to have fixed terms, but to suggest that the flexible election date component of the Westminster system is an anomoly or a flaw is to deny reality.

But if it makes you feel better go on believing it.

[SmokingGun on 16.03.06 at 11:06]

If it's an attack on the PLP it's only because they happen to be the party in power. The attack started back in 1990 when the UBP were in so that effectively nullifies the argument.

[Uncle Elvis on 16.03.06 at 11:25]

Smokes, thanks for summing up my incredibly messy, tangental, wandering and meandering thoughts.
Perfectly put.

[Phil on 16.03.06 at 13:07]

sleepy

Who appointed Stuart Hayward the referee around here anyway?

I did. I asked him to moderate the comments on his posts in whatever way he sees fit. Please respect his requests, even if you don't agree with them.

There's a lot of unnecessary snarkiness in the comments on this site. Perhaps it's an unavoidable part of online debate, but I too would like to see less of it.

[Bermudian on 16.03.06 at 13:17]

Uncle E,

thank you for your honesty. It's just the way it sometimes comes across seems like an attack.

Smoking Gun has suggested that I am saying the "attack" started when the UBP was in power. What Mr. Hayward wrote was from 1990, but the comments are coming from 2006, which doesn't nullify the argument. But we can leave it at that if you like.

sleepy, the reality is that the system was set up to at least try and be as fair as possible, not to put the power in the hands of a few and let them run wild with it.

somehow you believe that it was written that way so that it could be used as a political tool to stay in power forever. i dont see it that way as it would be undemocratic, which goes against what the system is intended to produce.

it doesn't make me feel any better or worse. i am very aware of the reality of the situation and as i said before, perhaps you are the one who needs to wake up ...zzz

[sleepy on 16.03.06 at 13:21]

I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony....

People need to develop thicker skins. This ain't kindergarten.

[stuart J Hayward on 16.03.06 at 13:23]

Sleepy writes"
"I'm also not some starry eyed dreamer that thinks that if we adopt a new system that political confrontation would go away, or even be reduced."

Some dogs, when thrown into a fighting pit and egged on, will tear each other apart. We even breed some dogs for fighting. This doesn't make dog fights or fighting dogs a sound use of or normal for the species. Many of Westminster's rules serve little purpose other than to bring out the pit bull qualities in our political leaders. It may make for good entertainment but in Bermuda it is a terrible waste of our already thin talent pool.

Confrontation itself is not necessarily a problem — in many cases confrontation is healthy. Destructive confrontation (personal attacks, name-calling, ridiculing, etc.) causes more problems than it solves. The rationale for changing the system is not to eliminate confrontation but to imporve the quality of deliberation and reduce a source of community discord. The quality of debate in Jersey (Channel Isles) is an illustration of how it could be done.

[Phil on 16.03.06 at 13:27]

sleepy

If you are unable or unwilling to respect the rules for commenting here, I'd prefer it if you didn't comment at all.

[SmokingGun on 16.03.06 at 13:37]

Bermudian - Actually I thought I was suggesting the attack started in 1990. The point only being is to say not always is a suggestion for change simply an attack against the PLP. Fixed Term Elections is much bigger than either the PLP or the UBP.

Besides, we've got plenty of other reasons to pepper the PLP so I wouldn't suggest wasting too much ammo on this subject. ;)

[sleepy on 16.03.06 at 13:57]

Man, you guys take yourselves way too seriously. But I'll play along for now.

With respects to fixed term elections, the reason I'm harping on this is because it's important to actually understand the system that people propose to change.

So I'll ask this question of Bermudian: Explain to me why flexible election dates are a key component of the Westminster system, other than to give incumbents an advantage that is.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 16.03.06 at 16:53]

Sleepy,

There is nothing wrong with the incumbent having an advantage. An incumbent insurer on an existing programme has an advantage over a potential new carrier. The holder of the heavy weight title in boxing gets paid more than the contender and so on.

[Uncle Elvis on 16.03.06 at 17:00]

The guy that already has the job is more likely to keep it than be replaced...

unless he's an expat, of course! *grin*

But that's true, Guilden. It reinforces the old adage of "Governments aren't voted in, they're voted out!"

[sleepy on 16.03.06 at 17:04]

Guilden, I don't disagree with you. I'm just trying to understand where Bermudian is coming from.

[stuart J Hayward on 16.03.06 at 18:20]

The question I would pose is: Should incumbents have an UNFAIR advantage?

Given the planning, effort and fundraising that goes into mounting a credible campaign, I maintain that surprise elections, that only the incumbents know about in advance, are unfair and impose an unfair handicap on new entrants as candidates. If we truly want to see a new breed of political leaders we should not want their chances cut off at the knees before even they announce themselves to the voters.