Yeah the Greens poll around

Yeah the Greens poll around 10% or more all the time, the problem is they are only lucky to get half of what they poll come election day.

I dunno if this would work or not, the Libs are selfish and full of entitlement and would they share cabinet spots? I know Dion was but Iggy? I doubt it. Iggy could of been PM but he turned it down. Then went on and supported Harper until he grew a partial spine last fall.

Would the NDP want to get into bed with two right wing parties too? Libs have not been centre since Chretien or left since Trudeau and maybe Dion. The Greens are conservative with an environment plan..

Conservatives are incompetent, Liberals are crooks gawd.......no wonder the list of non voters increases every election...

Working alliance

Preferrably the opposition parties would announce that they have agreed to a coalition formal or otherwise before the next election.
Canadians outside of Quebec reacted negatively to a coalition government (legal or not) and will not be too happy should the opposition parties decide to manipulate the election process to ensure the defeat of the Conservative party. We have a first past the post electoral system and even with its flaws serves the country well. Because the opposition parties cannot convince the electorate to vote for them in sufficient numbers is no reason to hijack the system.

Elections determine who we want, not who we do not want in power

From a 'distinguished prof': "Roughly 65 percent of Canadian voters do not want a Conservative government"
When I last voted, I do not recall that selecting the party that I do NOT want in power being an option.
The good professors comment in that regard is nonsense.
Similarly it is just as meaningful to state that 70 percent of Canadians do not want a Liberal government, 84 percent do not want an NDP and 95 percent do not want a Green government. No bias with these 'teachers' is there?

Regardless how they do it,

Regardless how they do it, they should work out some kind of a cooperation between them to get rid of Harper, the biggest threat Canada has ever faced.

If Harper ever gets a majority, we can kiss any independence goodbye and welcome some kind of a continental, corporate dictatorship. Just look at his professional history, including his last pre-politics job as the head of the Citizens Coalition, set up originally to destroy medicare and any form of public services and ownership, plus his recent visit to the World Economic Forum, the biggest brigands in existence.

The policies advocated by the advertising agency called the Fraser Institute, the selling off everything, show the future under a Harper majority.

Ed Deak.

Coalition is not a bad word!

This is a face-saving attempt at making a coalition acceptable to the masses.

You are dreaming if you think that any agreement will make people vote for a party they do not believe in!

What is needed it willingness by the leaders to accept their own standing after an election, and take appropriate action.

Do people not realize that the Conservatives are one big coalition with many different views?

Time to grow up for political leaders and work with the votes you garnered and do your best to create a new coalition parliament where everything gets debated and sensible solutions agreed upon.

A lot of people forget that

A lot of people forget that it was a coalition Government that ran Great Britian from 1940 to 1945. If anything had happened to Churchill he would have been replaced by the leader of the Labour Party (his name escapes at the moment).

An academic pipe dream

It sounds good in theory, and I for one have tried my best to promote the idea, but the reality is that none of these parties can put aside their traditional hatreds long enough to craft a meaningful response to the North American neo-conservative agenda.

So puff sagely on your pipes and dream on, as we cruise slowly into the safe harbour of Neo-Democracy. I'm sure there's a better word for that, but I don't want to disturb your technicolor reveries.

Not so Lewis.

We generally vote because we don't like the other party more and against those we don't want. That is the reality. Therefore a coalition of those who have actually have been chosen as the least of a lot of evils by the most people may be preferable. It should have happened last year but Iggy had delusions of grandeur.

Stupid from start to finish

There are more than a few problems with this idiotic "strategy." I'll just focus on the two most glaring.

The Liberals, while they talk pretty, are not and never have been a progressive party. While their rhetoric is always progressive, their record in government is consistently right wing unless they feel threatened by a strong NDP. The RECORD of the most recent Liberal government was actually to the RIGHT of Stephen Harper on child care, the environment and Afghan detainees. (The Harper child care plan and Clean Air Act have been merely inadequate. The Chretien Martin ministry did exactly nothing on either the child care or the environmental file. For several years, the Liberals allowed Afghan detainees to be turned over with no assurances against torture. While the Tory protocol has proven inadequate, it was the Liberal Party that bears the greater guilt.)

.

Stupid from start to finish part deux

The other problem is the foolish assumption that deceitful backroom deals would appeal to Canadians. The math of these deranged and drug-addled schemes depend on the baseless assumption that Liberal, NDP and Green supporters would do as they were told by their party elites.

In the last election, there were only 55 seats where the combined Liberal, NDP and Green vote is greater than the Conservative winner. In order for the proposed coalition to gain a majority, the leading coalition party would need to have greater than 70% NET retention of voters from the other parties.

There are two significant things standing in the way of this.

First, some portion of those voters would either vote for minor parties or stay home. Canada Election Studies indicate that could be significant subset. Every one of these voters reduces the potential pool. If 10% stay home, the leading coalition party must now take 70/90 or 78% of the remaining voters.

Second, some of those voters will actually vote Conservative rather than for the leading "coalition" party. For every one of these voters, the leading party would need to take two votes in order to make a gain. Thus, in the riding discussed above, 10% of those voters stay home and 10% of those voters support the Conservatives, the leading coalition party now needs to retain 100% of the remaining voters

Stupid from start to finish part trois

Given that Liberals, in much of the country, are MORE likely to vote Conservative as a second choice, the "strategy" proposed probably means the loss of at least nine NDP seats (London - Fanshawe, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay - Superior North, Welland, Edmonton - Strathcona, Western Arctic, Burnaby - Douglas, New Westminster - Coquitlam*, Vancouver Kingsway).

The greens have no seats.

The greens have no seats. Zero. Why would either party give them anything? It is a recipe for looking like an idiot. Look how it worked for Dion.

Stupid from start to finish

At the end of the day, there are three types of people who propose this sort of backroom dealmaking:

1. People who don't understand politics.

2. People who don't understand arithmetic.

3. People who want to see the NDP and Greens commit political suicide in order to maintain the present right wing duopoly of Liberatives and Conserverals.

Anyone remember December 2008?

Canadians are uncomfortable with coalition government, particularly, if it has the feel of everyone else "ganging up" on one party (in this case the Conservatives). I don't know why this is, maybe as a country, we're just a naive bunch who've learned politics watching American TV. In particular, I think the idea of parties cutting deals to only run some parties in some ridings will backfire in the long term. I think this plan is the best way to produce a Conservative majority.

A far better idea is proportional representation. It will produce the conditions for coalition government but it will do so naturally by eliminating the potential for artificial minorities. It will also stop rewarding regionalization. The Bloc Quebecois get far more seats than they should based on their share of the popular vote.

Correction

In the above post, artificial minorities should have said artificial majorities

"Negative Voting Options"

Skywalker,
Speak for yourself, the vast majority of the electorate, vote for who they want in power. In any case, there is no way that one can vote against a particular party and there never has been in our history, it is not an option.
If we were to have such a system as you suggest that we now have, there would have to be as many choices as there are political parties in each constituency. Then Skywalk how would one vote for an independent candidate without any party affiliation? Would you call this a multiple choice negative voting system? Where in the world is there such a crazy system? (there isn't).

The authors and many of the commenters

The authors and many of the commenters appear to have missed the essential point of any alliance which does not find a way to come to grips with the BQ. That's the Canadian dilemma - compounded with the dishonesty and radicalism of the current Prime Minister...who, demonstrably, doesn't even respect his own laws.

In fact, it was the phony hammer of 'separatist sympathy' that Pee Wee used against the December coalition - not any inherent dislike of coalition government in this country.

Save that dishonesty (and Michael Ignatieff's stupidity and pride) the Reform/Conservative 'coalition' (because that's really what it is) would not be in power now.

Amazing how short some peoples' memories actually are.

Grassroots will have to do it

It is not very likely that the parties will agree with the proposal to withdraw their candidates from particular ridings. The voters, if they are serious about removing Harper and conservatives from power, will have to target these 60-80 ridings themselves and vote strategically for whichever party's candidate came in 2nd last time. That's what I'll be doing and it will be the first time ever that I will not have voted for the party or candidate I personally prefer. Furthermore, I will be volunteering on behalf of the runner up's party in a current Conservative riding where they are vulnerabile. This is also a first for me. I can only hope there are more like me out there.

Why Not!

64% of the population are left wingers, and have no power.
That's nice and Stupid!
Harper is not my Prime Minister, and a vote for Harper is not a vote for Jesus...

Lewis

Have you ever asked somebody why they voted for an independent? Have you ever asked a Reform/Conservative why they voted for Harper? That's why Harper does not get a majority. The Greens are mostly a protest vote as well. Put all of the opposition together and the end result will be a compromise most of Canada will be happier with that they are now. Get the Bloc onside and you may just neutralize any separatist leanings by giving them a greater voice, initiating some electoral reform including senate reform.

Or look at it another way. If we had a run off ballot, how many of those Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Green voters would switch to Harper on their second ballot. I'd say a few but not enough.

No, again.

For all of the excellent reasons mentioned above, this is a terrible proposal, one that has been dismissed repeatedly.

My primary problem with it is the idea that it's okay for us to disenfranchise people as long as we say that we're doing it to improve democracy. If there is one NDP supporter, or one Green supporter, or one Liberal supporter in any riding, they should not have the right to vote for the party of their choice taken away from them via any sort of "arrangement" made by the parties (whether it is the grassroots or leadership of those parties is irrelevant).

It is terribly simplistic to assume that the electorate would join in this scheme to any great degree. Were my party of choice removed from the ballot, I know for a fact I would stay home rather than hold my nose. That would only help the Conservative incumbent in my riding, no one else.

Lastly, what is the matter with you people who keep insisting the Liberals are any shade of progressive? Did you completely miss the 90s?

Mimi

So what is democratic about a minority of votes being the governing power because all the no voters (the majority) didn't want the other option but were divided into four other party groups. They all didn't want Harper but they are stuck with him because that is your version of a democracy?
You're joking right?

keep trying

god knows we've tried.
give up the party egos.
hold a pre election, election and agree to vote for the one with the most votes.
or form the BROWN party: red, green and orange

I Agree with Mimi

I agree with Mimi, if you take away people's choice at the ballot box, even less will bother to vote.

After the election its up to the individual parties to form a colalition gov't based on whatever deals they can work out between themselves. This is perfectly legal and logical, it happens with gov't all over the world. If it pisses people off, too bad.

One other change I would insitute is to abolish the confidence vote. You were elected to serve for 4years, now do so. This would provide stimulus to encourage the formation of coalliton gov'ts. Just my thoughts

a coalition would never happen

too much difference between the libs, ndp, and greens. only way it could work is to dissolve the greens and send the market-oriented to the libs and the statist to the ndp. possibly, the libs could pick up some stray pc's dissatified with the neo-conservative harper. the lib's would have to move to the right, but it appears that this is were the country is at presently...possibly, a stronger federal green initiative could attract some bloc & conservative support in quebec?

I can't vote for the NeoCons, but I can't vote for parties

which support a fraud. Until the Libs and the NDP drop the carbon nonsense I don't want any part of either.

Forget the Greens! I think they would taint a coalition far more than than they would help.

Skywalker

So, we should throw out the election results of our electoral system until we get a result that you would be happy with? As long as Harper wins then the election is not valid and needs to be dismissed? And keep doing this until someone besides Harper wins, and then the results will be valid? Is that what you mean?

Sorry, but i didn't see the option of "coalition" on the last ballot i marked. Did you?

And what would you have to say if all three of the parties, Lib, NDP, & Grn, ran on a coalition ticket and Harper still won? Would that election be valid enough for you?

So either those three parties combine into one, and i can see the fighting over what to call themselves already if that were to happen, or you continue to run as a candidate of whatever party you want to represent. But if you start to selectively run candiddates in selective ridings in the sole hope of beating Harper, do you not then lose the right to call yourself a National Party? How then can you say you represent the interests of the Nation when you deny parts of the nation their rightful choice?

So either run as a coalition in every riding in this Country, or call yourself a rump party.....

I don't see the logic presented in the statements that only 35% voted for Harper, so he should not be PM... less voted for each other party seperately, so don't throw numbers around loosely. You cannot argue that more voted for someone else, because the other votes were not for your "coalition". There was no "coalition" on the ballot. Until there is, then the arguement is pointless.

Steppeup

Apparently you don't believe in parliamentary democracy.

The December coalition has as much right to govern this country as Pee Wee does - more in fact, Pee Wee was defeated in the house and the coalition was simply trumped by a dictator.

Nice friends on your ticket - the man is both a moral and a democratic wreck.

Furthermore, neither he nor you really understand representative democracy....

results

And as for the results of the last election, how can anyone say the Conservatives do not reprsent us?

In Western Canada we have 71 cons elected. 7 Libs and 14 NDP. I think that shows me who represents Western Canada. ( the elected Libs Mostly come from Vancouver).

In Ontario we have 51 Cons, 38 Libs & 17 NDP. Most of the libs were elected in and around Toronto, the Cons from all the rest of the province. I guess we know who Ontario prefers...

Quebec elected 10 Cons and 13 Libs with 50 Bloc... Pretty even for both parties there, with all the Lib votes pretty much coming from Montreal...

Far eastern Canada and the NWT were a combined 10 Cons, 17 Libs and 5 NDP...

So basically all the elected Liberal candidates in the last election came from three cities, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Most of the Conservitive elected candidates came from the rest of the Country. So how can you say our Government is not ligit?????? Take off the Harper Hater glasses please....

coalitions

The party leader egos are too strong for any agreement so the people have to do this for themselves.
How about a movement to elect independents.?
If enough Independents could be massed in Ottawa they could move en bloc to support whichever party with the everpresent option of dumping them if they don't behave.

Hmm

My Canada includes the whole country. Even the cities - which, apparently yours doesn't.

What kind of a 'Canadian' are you my friend.

And why can't you recognize that Pee Wee has been illegitimate since he lost that vote in the House?

Not to mention the fact he even broke his own law to hold the last election.

How soon they forget!

Hmm

Mine includes the cities also. But i don't think that these three cities speak for all of us....

And no, i don't think that Harper is illegitimate. Do you really think that they had any right to overturn the results of an 8 week old election and install as prime minister a man who just lead his party to the worst defeat in their history? And all with a seperatist party holding final say on any and all government policy? You really think that would be best for the country? Sorry, but everyone who is not a Harper Hater should have their votes respected. And under absolutely NO cercumstances should a party whose sole purpose is the destructin of Canada as we know it have the final say on govenment policy for this country. That cannot be allowed to happen.

Hmm

Defeat the government and run as a coalition, or respect the results of an election, as simple as that.

3 problems with that nice theory

1. Liberals had 3 sucessive majority governments even though the majority of voters (59%,60%, and 62%) did not vote for them.

2. You are assuming that all Liberals would still vote Liberal if they knew ahead of time that a coalition was in place. I'm guessing a great number of Liberals could not stomach the idea of the NDP and Greens having even the slightest bit of say in how this country is run.

3. You are assuming the Conservatives and Bloq would just sit by and let this happen. You might just see the Conservatives make their own coalition. There is enough common ground between the 2 parties to make it happen. Let's start with massive de-centralization of the Federal gov't which would have broad support among the base of both parties.

Coalitions aren't illegal

Setppeup, its not illegal or against parlimentary procedure to form a coalition of parties any time you want to.

Think of this way; Coalitions are formed on an issue by issue basis. Sometimes the Liberals and NDP decide to support eachother, ie Bill C-300, and other times they don't.

If two, three or four parties decide to form a full-time coalition, that is their right to do so and they aren't obligated to inform the public before an election that they may do so.

I think the people of Canada are now aware that coalitions can be formed and hopefully they will vote accordingly. Myself, the more coalition gov'ts the better.

Steppeup

As usual you make stuff up.

Your Cons got only a third of the vote, that means they don't represent the majority of the country.

The Coalition did have the right to dump Harper as PM because they represented the majority of the votes in the House of Commons. That's how it works in Canada. No one outside of one riding voted for Harper.

The Bloc did not have final say on government policy, turn off your talk radio.

"And under absolutely NO cercumstances should a party whose sole purpose is the destructin of Canada as we know it have the final say on govenment policy for this country."

That is what happened, Harper and his merry band of neo-cons is the worst thing that could have happened to Canada.

We need a government that puts Canada and Canadians first
instead of one that seconds them to the interests of the financial sector and foreign interests.

Frank

"We need a government that puts Canada and Canadians first instead of one that seconds them to the interests of the financial sector and foreign interests"

I'll take that any day over a party that steals money from tax payers to fund their elections.

steve1035

Oh sure, I can see why a Conservative would prefer a system where corporations, many of them foreign owned, and the "haves" who want to pay less tax, can overwhelm the majority of the people with ads in every form of media.

Kinda ensures you'll never have to worry about a party that focuses on poor people getting any attention.

The real scary issue for Harper conservatives.

It is why they are opposed to any coalitions. Harper is so far to the right of the political spectrum that none of the other parties would want to form a coalition with him if say the Liberals got a minority. Yet coalitions prevent extremes in government and they prevent extreme shifts of the political pendulum. Coalitions may be more democratic than anything so far.

Frank

Why is that the leftist/socialist type always forget that it's these:

"corporations, many of them foreign owned, and the "haves"

that are the ones who pay the taxes to fund social programs and create the majority of jobs for the have-nots.

Coalition

Please,,,please give us a coalition to vote for and get rid of Harper once and for all!

Votes..

I’ll hate Harper all I want thanks. Sorry Harper’s Dream Police State doesn’t exist yet.
Harper has made coalitions on every bill and motion he has put to a vote, he has to, he doesn’t have the majority it would take to be in power by himself, Thank God!!!
The Bloc has backed Harper numerous times, but if the Liberals and NDP talk with the Bloc well that’s Treason and the country is going to hell. The Conservatives are such hypocrites. Bibles and Bullets.
To me the sole purpose of any government is to care for the people, it is a socialist mechanism, that runs free Libraries, free police, free fire departments, etc. Harper hates anything with the name social in it. All I see in Harper is a man that cares for the top 2% of the population at the expense of everyone else. Tax cuts for the rich, and shoot all gays, build jail cells for 5 year old kids so when they turn 19 they’ll have a place to call home. I don’t see a happy bright future with conservatives.

Harper's Coalition Partners

... included separatists and socialists when he thought it could help him:

[letter to the GG/ 9 Sept 2004]

Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We
believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the
opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

A Changed Dynamic

There are a number of problems with this approach which may not necessarily produce the result the athours expect. First of all, the Greens are essentially a one act play centred around the environment and in fact a soliloquy rendered by Elizabeth May. She could only be environment minister and are her views representative of say Michael Ignatieff's stated position on the oil sands?

Leaving aside the Greens, if the Liberals and NDP were to announce a coalition how would they reconcile their differing positions and determine which candidate would run in a particular riding. To make it work they would effectively have to merge which would take a lot more than the just determining who would run in a particular riding.

More to the point, the Liberals and NDP running as a coalition, or effectively a merged party would change the race from the present 3 or 4 party race into a 2 party race similar to the United States. This would probably change voting patterns significantly from a simple extrapolation of existing votes and reallocating those to the Liberals and NDP to a bipolar race with entirely different electoral dynamics.

While the best approach might be to announce in advance of the election that the parties would be willing to consider forming a coalition based on the results even that would likely cause the Conservative to run their campaign against a coalition government by the Liberals and NDP. These two parties might then be in even worse shape because they will not have a strong basis for defence against Conservative accusations.

A some point we may get a coalition government but it will probably not occurr without "much knashing of teeth."

STV would "solve" two

STV would "solve" two problems. We could vote for whom we wanted. And those elected would be constrained to make appropriate coalitions. Too bad the parties objected (and, the populace, of course).

Defending against Conservative Accusations

... doesn't have to be difficult:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe-DFZA6pR0&feature=related

After all, the hapless Harper has to run on his record.

It cant get any worse can it?

Cannot help myself, federal liberals will not play well with others. They are untrustworthy criminals,Just like gordo in BC. conservatives wont realize they are making mistakes because we the people voted them in, more than once. the greens? why dont we just support Jack and the NDP? It cant get any worse, can it? Dont answer that, I am backing the NDP again. no to a coalition!

Yes, Coalition

Harper & Campbell must be removed from power. He and his cronies are an intergalactic embarrassment whose rampant self interest reaches the further most stars. He and his financial terrorist buddies are keen on robbing the middle class of all our wealth, houses & land, they want a disarmed public, an Orwellian police state, our rivers, oil, a neutered internet, and then stick us with the bill. He must be removed, there is no alternative... the only alternative is that it gets worse, and worse.

He has bowed down before the dark throne in the middle east and the financial terrorists which he holds more allegiance than the people of Canada.

This video isn't bad, give it a watch: Police State Canada: The Emergence Into Fascism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDQIIMC53yg

Two years and there is still a news blackout on the existence of Canada’s Israel Allies Caucus, an entity that exists within Canada’s Parliament - presumably to guide the government in a pro-Isr-el direction - something which Canadians have certainly seen with Harper’s codling behaviour towards Isr-eli war crimes during the Gaza atrocity.

It is so hard to get news about the Zionist influence on national politics, that Canadians had to get this information from an Isr-eli paper!
It's disgraceful for Canada and an insult to Jews (NOT ZIONISTS).

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Canadian-Policy-The-Jerus-by-Bahija-Reghai-100125-265.html

Lewis

You should take into account that nearly 1/2 the voting population didn't bother to vote - mostly because there isn't a provision on the ballot for "none of the above".............

Need alternatives in the absence of pro rep

I thank the authors for bringing up the issue of coalitions and any out-of-the-box solutions to our sadly undemocratic political system. I expect that many of the people who responded negatively to this article support pro rep. So they should realize that coalitions, cooperation and other approaches to working together are the stuff that pro rep governments are made of. We won't see pro rep for a long time, so we need to find other ways to build a more representative democracy. Coalitions are one of those ways. Senseless arguments that boil down to "I couldn't stomach being in the room with someone with that ideology" or comparisons between where different parties sit on an archaic, arbitrary right-left scale are not getting us anywhere. We need to stop our partisan ways of thinking and take a fresh look at some options. Coalitions can take many forms -- time limited, restricted to certain issues, agreements on who will sit on cabinet, etc. Let's get on with it.

Need alternatives in the absence of pro rep

If NDP/ Liberal and Green could cooperate enough to get together and develop a proportional representation electoral system, in future we would not be having these discussions. Cooperation between various parties on an issue basis would become the norm, not the exception.

Time for Coalition

Some earlier comments referred to No Coalition, for various reasons.
IMO, we socialists can benefit from a coalition.
If Iggy causes any problems, after the coalition is in power, it will expose him for the right of centre ideologue he is.
Then the Liberals performance will be exposed and we should gain more seats in the following election.
Right now the problem is to get rid of Harper.

Politics 101

Rick why on earth should I take the 'non voters' into account in determining anything. They had the chance to exercise their democratic rights in voting but decided not to,it is called voter apathy snd it is not unique to Canada.

So if there was a "none of the above" on the ballot and that option received the most votes, who would govern. Rick your 'not very bright idea' would result in "anarchy". You and Skywalker must be from the same school and it is obvious that neither of you is taking or has taken poly sci. Go back to school, this subject is beyond you.

60-80 seats; several in BC, decide the future.

Voters in key districts in BC have enormous influence and may not be aware of this. Cons. won 22 of 36 BC seats in '08 to 9 NDP and 5 Lib.
The cons. are vulnerable in at least 7 seats where strategic voting by lib/ndp/green supporters would impact not just local results, but the national outcome. Liberal and NDP incumbents in 4 to 6 seats face defeat if centre-left splits allow cons narrow wins.
I believe more people will vote strategically if one of the candidates has deep roots in the district. BC has a long history of trusting local politicians regardless of their party or national trends.
The NDP, Liberals and greens should work hard to put foward these type of candidates in who often turn out to be our finest mps with long careers.

No Lewis

"None of the above" would simply mean that no seat in the House would be occupied. That in itself would mean that particular riding would have no representation - something that ridings which elect opposition memebers experience now anyway.

You're not very bright, are you?

Run-Off Votes

between the lst and 2nd candidates would ensure the election of a majority winner. But that would not necessarily reflect an accurate pov of the electorate generally.

What's necessary is a system of required voting, using the same system that political parties use to select their own leaders - repeated votes with the lower tallies being progressively eliminated until the leader achieves majority (50% plus 1).

This method allows a voter to cast a first vote against an incumbent but doesn't lock him/her in to a specific schedule. The voter can change his/her mind, depending on the circumstances as they arise.

Another consideration would be to remove the national aspect of a federal election, sending newly-elected or re-elected MPs annually to Ottawa from one-sixth of the ridings across the country which would turn over Parliament itself every six years. Each year the electorate would see the direction the government is taking and would be able to signal a correction, changing from a majority to a minority, or vice versa, or indeed to force an incumbent to heed the will of the people instead of the backroom boys.