So...why hasn't THIS been done yet?

Ken Burch wrote:

Alternately, why not have a provision that, if a candidate were removed after the deadline, the situation would be treated the same as if a candidate had died-that there would be a by-election after the regular election, in which the withdrawn candidate would be replaced by another and all candidates who were on the general election ballot could either fight on as their party's nominees or 

I can see how this might be open to abuse: minor party candidate (or independant) "takes a dive" so people can see the national election results before they vote locally.

Sorry I disagree. If your party tries to run the wrong person then you pay the price. Riding associations are responsible for their actions and it is at that level that we are supposed to be getting candidates.

So if your scenario is in place who gets to pick the replacement and using what process keeping in mind the very real time constraints.

Then there is the problem of printing more than one set of ballots for a riding. It is one thing to think of reprinting ballots if you lose one of the candidates for a major party but in Canada we have so many registered parties fighting in various ridings that it could lead to chaos or slackening of security processes to get the ballots printed on time. But I guess when the Rhino candidate has to back out and they want to run a replacement it seems like a minor expense.

You cannot allow a party or candidate to postpone the election in a constituency at their discretion. The potential for abuse is huge and I can guarantee it would be abused.

Saturday, October 5 appears to be the earliest day for advanced voting. You simply cannot have a paper ballot system (and I don't support anything else) with a smaller window between the close of nominations and voting.

The thing is Ken, as krop said above, if a party chooses the wrong candidate, then that party should experience the consequences. By allowing another election to take place, that protects the party. To use an analogy, if you are stopped for speeding, is the poilce officer going to give you a second chance to drive that stretch of road or simply write you a ticket? Likewise, if the central office for any party keeps pulling this kind of stunt on local riding associations, eventually the local riding associations will stand up and push back.

There is another problematic aspect to this idea. Campaigns take many resources, which is even more taxing if you delay the election. Now you have to rent a building longer, you have expenses for paying more staff, and you are also taking a toll on local volunteers who also have other non-political things to do in their lives. This can also contribute to election fatigue in the local area. If this happens across more than one constituency, this can cause problems with smooth functioning at the legislature, as the elected members would come in waves, there's oreintation, etc. If the general election fails to produce a clear majority and there are empty seats, that also has implications for the stability of the government, its effectiveness, and creates unpredicatabiilty because people don't know if the government we just "elected" will survive until next month.

Delaying elections should only be done in extreme circumstances, such as the death of a candidate. Any consequences borne by candidate selection issues for a particular party should be borne by that party alone. There's no need to punish every other campaign that was prepared enough to have its act together.