You missed a scenario ... NDP puts up a Speaker candidate in exchange for an agreed set of legislative changes (bans on contracting out health care services to private sector, investments in education, investments in green tech, repeal of the Sovereignty Act or whatever it was called, and continued prosecution of all pandemic related charges) ... Danielle Smith agrees, hard liners leave UCP caucus, chaos ensues, the government falls and there’s a new election ... Round Two commences.
Or another scenario ... Danielle Smith, thinking she’s in the US House of Representatives, puts her own name forward for Speaker ... a small rump of former-PC UCP MLAs band together with the NDP to make sure she is elected, the UCP elect a new leader but, moving quickly to regain power, Smith substitutes the rules of Simon Says for Robert’s Rules of Order as the Legislature’s operating manual, multiple MLAs are barred from the Legislature for not saying “Danielle says ...” before speaking in the chamber, chaos ensues, the government falls and there’s a new election ... Round Two commences.
I thought about that. And I tried to think of one sole MLA from either party (making some assumptions about who's in and who's out) and I couldn't come up with a name. Can you?
I thought that the only time a Speaker ever voted was to break ties. So in the 44-43 situation, the Speaker would be voting all the time which would be extremely unhealthy for the functioning of the Alberta Legislature.
This might also be an argument that provincial legislatures should always have an even number of seats, so that once the Speaker is chosen you have an odd number of voting legislators.
My implicit assumption (which is hard to fit in a flow chart!) is that by agreeing to have one of their MLAs serve as speaker, the NDP is implicitly ceding the election and would work out some sort of pairing arrangement. But it would be interesting to see if such a pairing arrangement could survive a full four years.
One suggested modification: In the event that a 44-43 split breaks in favour of the UCP there is no need for the LG to ask the UCP to “form a govt.” UCP is already the govt - they would continue in office. Dissolution prior to the election dissolves the Legislature, not the govt.
I love the flow charts, Lisa. Keep them coming.
You missed a scenario ... NDP puts up a Speaker candidate in exchange for an agreed set of legislative changes (bans on contracting out health care services to private sector, investments in education, investments in green tech, repeal of the Sovereignty Act or whatever it was called, and continued prosecution of all pandemic related charges) ... Danielle Smith agrees, hard liners leave UCP caucus, chaos ensues, the government falls and there’s a new election ... Round Two commences.
Or another scenario ... Danielle Smith, thinking she’s in the US House of Representatives, puts her own name forward for Speaker ... a small rump of former-PC UCP MLAs band together with the NDP to make sure she is elected, the UCP elect a new leader but, moving quickly to regain power, Smith substitutes the rules of Simon Says for Robert’s Rules of Order as the Legislature’s operating manual, multiple MLAs are barred from the Legislature for not saying “Danielle says ...” before speaking in the chamber, chaos ensues, the government falls and there’s a new election ... Round Two commences.
I’ve got others :-)
#2 sounds like a plot twist!
What about a “cross the floor” flow in your chart?
I thought about that. And I tried to think of one sole MLA from either party (making some assumptions about who's in and who's out) and I couldn't come up with a name. Can you?
I thought that the only time a Speaker ever voted was to break ties. So in the 44-43 situation, the Speaker would be voting all the time which would be extremely unhealthy for the functioning of the Alberta Legislature.
This might also be an argument that provincial legislatures should always have an even number of seats, so that once the Speaker is chosen you have an odd number of voting legislators.
My implicit assumption (which is hard to fit in a flow chart!) is that by agreeing to have one of their MLAs serve as speaker, the NDP is implicitly ceding the election and would work out some sort of pairing arrangement. But it would be interesting to see if such a pairing arrangement could survive a full four years.
One suggested modification: In the event that a 44-43 split breaks in favour of the UCP there is no need for the LG to ask the UCP to “form a govt.” UCP is already the govt - they would continue in office. Dissolution prior to the election dissolves the Legislature, not the govt.