Gordon Brown's recent deliberations over a possible snap election that never was has unleashed a debate on whether such a weighty matter should be left up to the prime minister - who may have personal or political, rather than national, interest at heart.
Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, believes matters would be improved if the final say rested not with the Queen, but parliament.
The issue of parliament being involved in a future dissolution decision was included in the government's Governance of Britain green paper. It suggests the convention be changed so the prime minister is required to seek the approval of the House of Commons before going to the Queen.
Any new arrangements would have to consider what would happen in a hung parliament if the largest party failed to form a government and MPs refused to back a dissolution.
Another option would be to introduce US-style fixed-term elections. The Liberal Democrats favour this as the best means to curb the scope for political manipulation available in the current system.
They have put forward a bill that would fix the date of the next general election (they would go for May 7 2009) and all subsequent general elections (four-yearly intervals, on the first Thursday in May). It would forbid the dissolution of parliament at times between those dates but allow the House of Commons to change the day of the week on which general elections would be held.
It receives its second reading next Friday but is unlikely to be backed by the government or the Conservative party - whose PMs have been as guilty as Labour ones of calling general elections at a time of their own choosing.
The Conservative party conference revealed that the Tories did not yet know what their official position was on fixed-term elections, having not fully digested the recommendations of the Tory democracy task force spearheaded by Ken Clarke.
But what do you, the voting public, want?
