Talk:Fixed-term election

Not Fixed Term

It always helps to define something by comparing it to what it isn't. It is interesting that so far this article does not mention one country where the government in power has the right to arbitrarily call an election, generally at a time advantageous to itself. One example would be Australia re federal elections. Edward Carson (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction

First sentence says "A fixed-term election is an election that occurs on a set date, and cannot be changed by a majority of incumbent politicians." Article then gives examples of Canada, Australia, and UK where no confidence votes can result in an early election. This seems a clear contradiction. UK entry even says "Like Canada, Germany, and Australia, provision is made for non-confidence votes".

It seems to me we either need different terms like 'fully fixed term' to distinguish from a 'variable fixed term' indicating possibility of a fixed date being altered. Probably can't do that unless we have suitable reference for such terms. So that leaves us needing a different way of avoiding the contradiction currently in the article. Immediate thought is to delete the 'and cannot be changed by a majority of incumbent politicians' in first sentence, then five examples in two groups. A good authoritative source to see whether inclusion or exclusion of this second part is merited might be a good start? Thoughts? crandles (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Appears we're not the only ones realizing this (see #Not Fixed Term section immediately above). We probably need to find a source article, something like "fixed term isn't what you think it is". Note: I am aware politicians use the term of this article for these Not-Really Fixed Terms (red link deliberate :-) but that does not mean we can't point out the incongruity. My point is: we should probably not invent new terms not widely used. CapnZapp (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Added {{Expert needed}} - let's see if this helps. CapnZapp (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Also note the discussion over at Talk:Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011#"Uses"_of_the_Act. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we really need to use qualifiers with the expression fixed term. A fixed term in this context is "fixed" as opposed to "variable". To be fixed is not necessarily to be immovable. A shelf does not have to be impossible to take down for it to be considered fixed to a wall. When we talk of a fixed-term election we are typically trying to identify systems where the duration of an administration is not simply bounded by a maximum time limit which can be reduced at will. Instead these are systems where an administration continues for a fixed duration unless (in some instances) conditions for an earlier election are fulfilled. It is, of course, possible to distinguish between those fixed-term systems where an early election is possible and those where it is not. But these are both examples of fixed-term electoral systems. As for the definition in this article, it is clearly confusing and I'll try and come up with an alternative first paragraph. How about:

A fixed-term election is an election that occurs on a set date which cannot generally be changed by the individual or assembly subject to the election. Legislation governing fixed-term elections varies from country to country. In some cases early elections may be held under specific circumstances, such as a successful motion of no confidence in a government or parliamentary deadlock over a bill.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it boils down to us failing to make it clear that any extra elections does not change the fixed term. That is, in an example system where you hold elections every four years, such as in 2018, and end up having an extra election in 2019, the difference is between the next (third) election being four years from the first, standard, election (2022) or the second, extra, election (2023). Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's certainly an important distinction which would differentiate between two different types of system. A number of systems (both fixed-term and non-fixed-term) reset the clock to its standard n-year cycle after an early election (in the case of non-fixed-term systems an early election would be an election that occurs before a maximum limit has been reached). And of course there are systems that run on an inflexible timetable. I'm trying to think of an example of the third sort – a fixed-term system where an early election is an "extra" that leaves the long-term electoral timetable otherwise unchanged. I can't figure out if any of the Australian elections have that property. Can you help with this? -- Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm neither Australian nor an expert :-)

So what you're saying is that the defining feature of a fixed-term system isn't whether extra elections impact the next ordinary election date, but simply that the PM (or whomever) can't announce an election at any time (possibly restricted by a time limit), and must instead abide by the preset period. Doesn't this make the current UK system... nothing at all then, given how Theresa May has clearly demonstrated that you *don't* need to abide by the preset period?

That is, are you saying there is no other definition available than "the next election is at fixed date, except when it isn't"? CapnZapp (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that an election system is fixed-term if those elected by it aren't free to choose the election's date under normal circumstances ie: they have to use an exceptional mechanism such as a no-confidence motion or a supermajority. It resembles the way that a constitution typically cannot be changed at will by a majority in a legislature, but in some cases (South Africa, US etc) it can be amended by a supermajority. I think that's why the existing definition says "...cannot be changed by a majority of incumbent politicians" (perhaps it should say something like "...cannot merely be..." to be clearer). An early election needs more than just a majority in parliament – it needs an additional element such as a no-confidence motion.

The UK's Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 requires a no-confidence motion or a supermajority to bring about an early election. The fact that a supermajority was easy for the UK's PM to obtain in 2017 does not mean that it's not an exceptional mechanism – I can't think of another event in the UK parliament that requires one. It's possible that in the future supermajorities will appear whenever a UK PM wants to call an early election. It's equally possible that they won't. But if they do, the result would be a fixed-term election system where early elections are very common. It would be rather like a supermarket where prices are fixed (you can't haggle) but price reductions are very common.

-- Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

References

I like your phrasing and will make a stab of working it in. Just noting what is needed in a particular case (such as requiring a no-confidence motion or a supermajority) is not only specific, but also "hides" the main takeaway, that these mechanisms are exceptional. CapnZapp (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed-term elections

I submit this article should be at "Fixed-term elections", not "Fixed-term election". Plural, not singular.

The concept is about the "basic type" of Elections, not any single election of that type.

Explaining that "A fixed-term election is an election that occurs on a set date" feels very wonky. Isn't all elections on set dates? I don't think there's anything special about the actual elections under the fixed-term scheme - it's all about the interval between two or more of them.

Point is, having elections of the fixed-term type means having elections that happen with some regularity whether politicians want them to happen on those dates or not.

It would feel much more relevant if the page was moved, and we could instead start the lead with something like:

Fixed-term elections is when elections are held at fixed regular intervals; the politicians doesn't get to decide when to have an election.

(Just an outline, perhaps you can find a nice definition somewhere)

CapnZapp (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

PS. I could move the page myself (the destination page doesn't exist) but am asking for input first (without setting up a formal move request).

I notice that other articles' titles ending with the word "election" (Election itself, Snap election, Recall election) are singular, so it would probably be useful to keep in line with those. WP guidelines for article titles at WP:PLURAL suggest that singular should generally be used – most WP articles are about a "basic type" rather than a single example and still use a singular: "Dog, not Dogs". Of course, a few articles do use plural titles, such as classes of specific things. This last might cover your idea as it includes things like Rivers of New Zealand. This article itself is little more than a list of administrations where fixed-term elections take place, so the article could possibly be converted into a list article called something like List of administrations using fixed-term electoral systems.

Your point about the ongoing problem with the definition is a good one: "...a set date..." is far too general an expression. I would suggest something like "A fixed-term election is an election that occurs on a date which is set in advance by legislation or constitution as part of a schedule of regular elections".

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Afterthought: another way to focus the article on mechanism rather than event could be to rename it Fixed-term electoral system. The main difficult I can see with this is that the term electoral system is more often used to indicate the way the votes are counted rather than the frequency of elections, but technically it does apply to both.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The UK

Our definition of fixed term is: A fixed-term election is an election that occurs on a set date, and cannot be changed by incumbent politicians other than through exceptional mechanisms if at all.

Thus it is clearly false to claim the UK's FTPA introduces Fixed Terms to the country, since the legislation can be circumvented by a simple bill, which is by definition not exceptional at all.

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the idea is that primary legislation would normally be classed as "exceptional" to a process which otherwise is handled by ministers and civil servants. To pass an amendment to an act is clearly not the normal working of the act. For example, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 allows the Secretary of State to set the rate of the minimum wage without recourse to parliament. Parliament can, of course, introduce legislation to create an exception to this, such as allowing a judge on Strictly to set the rate for one year instead. In this case the legislation needed would generally be considered an "exceptional mechanism". Perhaps the problem is with the word "exceptional". The legal term is, I believe, "extraordinary" (not ordinary) but that sounds a bit silly in this context. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that we are (and should keep) using natural language directed at non-expert readers. There is no good reason to use the word "exceptional" if it doesn't mean what you or I think it means. (Sure we can use technical jargon, but only if we link to an explanation. Even then, it would be better to rephrase to explain the technical term using, again, natural language right on the page). The underlying problem, it seems, is that our explanation of Fixed-term election is... original research. No really. We don't have an authoritative source defining it for us, and I hope we agree the WP:BLUE argument is no longer applicable in this case. Talking about the UK situation, maybe now, after recent events have made it starkly clear the bill's requirement for a greater majority than a simple one can be circumvented, which is not what a reader of this article would have expected was possible, somebody will write up such a source for us to use. This article needs to make it clear to readers that fixed term means a range of "fixedness" to politicians from different countries. CapnZapp (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You have a good point about the lack of references. There are currently only two given in the article despite its being fifteen years old, and one of them was recently added by me. Neither mentions the expression "fixed-term election". An Internet search reveals the term being used inconsistently, if at all. Most fixed-term election systems are not described as such in the sources. I think it's quite possible that this whole article is a piece of WP:ORIGINAL research. I mean that, although the form of words "fixed-term election" is sometimes used, there are insufficient WP:RELIABLE sources with information about it to justify an article on it i.e. it fails the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). It's a bit like "UK Prime Ministers over six feet tall" – there clearly have been some, and biographical sources can confirm which. But that does not mean: '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content'. Do you think we should put the article up for WP:AFD? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the concept does merit an article. The term is even written into law in the UK FTPA! I can't see us deleting an article that so clearly meets all three of our WP:COPO. What could be a candidate for OR, however, is using this article to supply info for every other country than the UK. That is, for countries that really apply do fixed terms (per our definition)! Obviously, such expansion is very understandable, and merely deleting the content is not helpful. (In fact, it would be inexplicable, and I foresee lots of drive-by editing to add some or all of it back again)...

What we really need to explain here is that the country talking about fixed terms does not have them, and that the countries not using the term are the ones that have it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Of course, barring a source for this we can only claim a case of WP:BLUE, which is a stretch, at best. What would really be good, is the attention of an expert. CapnZapp (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)