Hey Glen, great to see you back. Sorry I couldn't reply earlier, but I was away in Paris for a long weekend, and thus was unable to follow this forum. Enjoying your updates, by the way, and I'm glad to see that Bonfire Night has been retained in the Dominion, even if as a stiff-upper-lipped Brit and all that, I couldn't really give two figs about Thanksgiving 
For the record, the original length of a Parliament (in the "modern" era) was seven years. Terms only changed to a maximum of five years in OTL during the Second World War.
For the record, the original length of a Parliament (in the "modern" era) was seven years. Terms only changed to a maximum of five years in OTL during the Second World War.
Glen
Moderator
No problem - sounds like fun. I too have been somewhat MIA in part due to international travels (spent a week in Doha in the beginning of October).
Glad you like it - I thought is rather fitting and fun.
I couldn't really give two figs about Thanksgiving
It's a North America thing...
Darn it! I think I did know that somewhere before (note that the earliest Prime Ministers of the Dominion served roughly 7 years). I may need to retcon that to seven. Thanks for the tip!!
Glen
Moderator
On the other hand, I found this tidbit on Canada -
"Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 50; Constitution Act, 1982, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 44, ss. 4(1) and 5. The question of the duration of Parliament was thoroughly discussed in the talks leading to Confederation. At the time, it was decided to follow the New Zealand example of a five‑year maximum (see comments of Sir John A. Macdonald in Canada, Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, 3rd Session, 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada, Quebec: Hunter, Rose & Co., Parliamentary Printers, 1865, p. 39)."
Of course, the land OTL known as New Zealand is a bit different ITTL even by the 1860s, so may still go with seven years....
Sorry, hadn't logged in between posting my last message to see your comments.
It's fairly inconsequential really. Your NZ example clearly shows there is precedent (OTL, anyway) for them altering the length of Parliaments, and I doubt the reasons behind it were anything that couldn't be applied to the DSA. On the other hand, you make a very good point that you've already quoted seven years as the term of office of multiple previous DSA PMs. For me, that would be the decider - I'm not sure how you could argue that it's five years in contradiction to what you've previously said. If you can find a way, or it's not quite so cut-and-dry as I thought, then I say you should feel free to pick what you want. It's like debating what colour uniforms the Italians would wear in this TL if they unified (I don't think they have yet?) - it's an interesting point of debate, but ultimately not significant enough to argue over
It's fairly inconsequential really. Your NZ example clearly shows there is precedent (OTL, anyway) for them altering the length of Parliaments, and I doubt the reasons behind it were anything that couldn't be applied to the DSA. On the other hand, you make a very good point that you've already quoted seven years as the term of office of multiple previous DSA PMs. For me, that would be the decider - I'm not sure how you could argue that it's five years in contradiction to what you've previously said. If you can find a way, or it's not quite so cut-and-dry as I thought, then I say you should feel free to pick what you want. It's like debating what colour uniforms the Italians would wear in this TL if they unified (I don't think they have yet?) - it's an interesting point of debate, but ultimately not significant enough to argue over
Glen
Moderator
Sorry, hadn't logged in between posting my last message to see your comments.
It's fairly inconsequential really. Your NZ example clearly shows there is precedent (OTL, anyway) for them altering the length of Parliaments, and I doubt the reasons behind it were anything that couldn't be applied to the DSA. On the other hand, you make a very good point that you've already quoted seven years as the term of office of multiple previous DSA PMs. For me, that would be the decider - I'm not sure how you could argue that it's five years in contradiction to what you've previously said. If you can find a way, or it's not quite so cut-and-dry as I thought, then I say you should feel free to pick what you want. It's like debating what colour uniforms the Italians would wear in this TL if they unified (I don't think they have yet?) - it's an interesting point of debate, but ultimately not significant enough to argue over
Well....PM selection doesn't necessarily correspond with parliamentary elections (except when there is a change in party in power). So I could keep both - I believe I intended originally to go with the 7 year mark, but when I rereviewed noted it was a feature of the Canadian parliament at inception. I'm still debating the pros and cons of keeping the 5 year limit or 'restoring' the 7 year limit. Another point for the seven years is that DSA Dominion comes earlier than Canadian Dominion so it might make them even more likely to go with a closer Westminster model. Thanks for your thoughts, Falastur. Anyone else?
Well...it's possible for a MP to be promoted to the office of PM if the standing PM steps down during their term - Tony Blair had the Labour Party confirm Gordon Brown as the new leader of the Labour Party and then resigned in 2009, which made Brown de jure Prime Minister, and there was absolute uproar about it. But the election of Prime Ministers has to follow elections.
The Prime Minister is, simply enough, the leader of the party with a majority of seats in the House of Commons. If no one party has a majority and there has to be a coalition then one of the party leaders in the coalition is selected (usually the party with the most seats as happened in 2010, unless that person is utterly unacceptable for the other parties and they make their coalition membership depend on that person not becoming PM). But there is no mechanic in British elections for Prime Ministers to be selected at regular intervals independently of Parliamentary elections. The British system isn't like the American one where there is one Presidential election and a totally separate election for the Senate and Representatives so you can't have a situation where the Prime Minister is governing over a Parliament which is controlled by the opposition party. If one person is PM and their party loses a majority of seats in an election, there is zero way for them to remain in power (save for forming a coalition) so I'm not sure if it makes sense for PMs to be elected at a different rate from the MP elections.
Last edited:
Glen
Moderator
Legislatures of North America in 1900
Nation: United States of America
Legislature: Congress
Upper House: Senate - Senator
Lower House: Assembly - Assemblyman
Nation: Dominion of Southern America
Legislature: Parliament
Upper House: House of Provinces - Provincial Representative
Lower House: House of Commons - Member of Parliament
Nation: Third Mexican Republic (United States of Mexico)
Legislature: Cortes Mexicanas
Upper House: Senate - Chamber of Senators - Senator
Lower House: Chamber of Deputies - Deputy
Nation: United States of America
Legislature: Congress
Upper House: Senate - Senator
Lower House: Assembly - Assemblyman
Nation: Dominion of Southern America
Legislature: Parliament
Upper House: House of Provinces - Provincial Representative
Lower House: House of Commons - Member of Parliament
Nation: Third Mexican Republic (United States of Mexico)
Legislature: Cortes Mexicanas
Upper House: Senate - Chamber of Senators - Senator
Lower House: Chamber of Deputies - Deputy
Last edited:
Firstly, it's fabulous to see this excellent TL up and going again. and secondly, I have a question. how have party politics developed in this USA given its use of the condorcet method?
Glen
Moderator
Thanks for the compliment! As for the effect on party politics it hasn't changed that there are two parties that predominate int the US since it is still a majoritarian system. The general impact though is to keep down the impact of multiple candidates splitting votes and resulting in less desired candidates winning. It also tends to mean politicians need to try to appeal or at least not completely alienate factions who while perhaps not being their favorite they at least don't actively go against. Overall impact is that people feel their vote matters more and politics tends to be more civil (at least between factions - candidates still mudsling each other).