If Stephen Harper does "get away with" calling a snap election without incurring some political cost, it will be because journalists like Lawrence Martin drove the getaway car.
On the question of contradicting his own election legislation, [Mr. Harper] said: 'We are clear. You can only have certainty about a fixed election date in the context of a majority government.' That's true enough, though he probably wished he'd made it clearer when the law was passed.
Imagine a counter-factual in which everything is the same, including Bill C-16, but Harper has a majority government. What would there be to stop him from doing exactly what he is hellbent on doing now--dissolving parliament and calling a snap election? If you answered nothing, you guessed right. The only thing, the ONLY thing C-16 changes is that a government can no longer drag their term out into a 5th year. And this fact was obvious way back when the bill was first passed, even if they didn't clue in at the G&M until this morning.
Update: Even Radwanski's drank the koolaid over there.