More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on mandatory voting in canada
Essay on electoral reform in canada
Essays on mandatory voting in canada
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Canada’s democratic government, voting is a powerful way for citizens to communicate their values. The leader who is chosen reflects the power of the Canadians’ values. Thus, to the government, every vote matters, assuring Canadians that their opinions matter. Today, Canada recognizes voting as a fundamental right for all of their citizens. The Canadian Charter of Rights effectively protects this right of all Canadians, even minorities, through section 3. “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or a large legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein”. This ensures equality for vote to all Canadians. Equality is to allow all Canadians equal opportunity, even if they are of different race, religion, gender and etcetera. However, in the past, this fundamental right has not always been accessible to all. In fact, voting was considered a privilege where citizens had to qualify to have the ability to vote. The rules were so strict that only eleven percent of the past population of Canada could have voted, compared to today’s seventy-eight percent. Many of these rules of who could vote and who could not were very unjust. This was especially seen in minority groups who did not have the franchise, the right to vote.. In this essay, it will be seen that the inequalities to vote made racial exclusions, religious exclusions and gender exclusions more pronounced. It will be seen that the government treated certain races with intentional discrimination creating a lack of an opportunity to vote. As well, the government showed prejudice to certain religious groups, denying these groups their ability to vote. And, finally, it will be seen that views against women aided ...
... middle of paper ...
... women, it can be agreed that gender exclusion was a great effect of the inequality to vote.
In conclusion, it can clearly be seen that, because of the inequality to vote, gender, religious and race exclusions were pronounced side effects. Gender exclusions were shown through the inequality to vote due to the views of women in society. Religious exclusions were expressed through the uneven opportunities to vote through the prejudice set against the religions. And, racial exclusions were shown through the lack of the ability to vote be the intentional discrimination that these races were victims of. While others may say that these exclusions of groups can be seen through other actions, voting inequalities straightforwardly shows this. This is because when only specific groups can vote, it can be seen that the other groups are unfairly treated to their franchise.
In the year 1957, Canada elected its first Prime minister without English or French root, John Diefenbaker. While growing up in the city of Toronto, because of his German name, he was often teased. [1] He grew up as an outcast, and so he was able to relate to the discrimination and inequality many of the minorities in Canada felt. This essay will attempt to answer the question: To what extent did Prime Minister John Diefenbaker help promote equality to the minority communities. . The minorities in this time period were the women, aboriginals, and immigrants. During his time as the Prime Minister, he was able to help protect the rights of this group because many of their rights were being abused by the society. Diefenbaker also helped the minorities to stand up for themselves and other groups. Diefenbaker was able to bring positive change to the minority communities by making an official Bill of Rights and appointing people of discriminated groups to the parliament while other members did not.
The Quebec referendum that was held in 1995 was a second round of vote that was meant to give the residents of the Quebec province in Canada the chance to determine whether they wanted to secede from Canada and thus establish Quebec as a sovereign state. Quebec has had a long history of wanting to secede from Canada, considering that it is the Canadian providence that is predominantly inhabited by the French-speaking people, whose political relationship with the rest of the Canadian provinces, mostly inhabited by the English-speaking people has been characterized by conflicting ideologies . Thus, the 1995 referendum was not the first political attempt to have Quebec gain its own independence. The discussion holds that the Quebec 1995 referendum would have had both positive and negative implications. Therefore, this discussion seeks to analyze the political consequences that would have f...
Before World War I, equality for woman and men were very unfair. Woman weren’t even legally “persons”; they weren’t allowed to join parliament or the senate because they weren’t legally “persons”, therefore these jobs were occupied by men only. During World War I and World War II, many men had left for war, thus meaning there were many job openings that needed to be occupied as soon as possible, women then began to take on stereotypical male jobs which men thought women couldn’t do or couldn’t do as well. Women showed their capabilities and realized they shouldn’t be considered less than men. In retaliation of not being considered “persons”, women decided to take action. The famous five brought the persons case upon the supreme court of Canada in 1927, which was finally determined by Judicial Council of Britain's Privy Council in 1929. The “persons” case involved women not legally being “persons”. After the famous five won the case, women were legally considered “persons” then women began to join important jobs such as members of parliament and the senate. Along with becoming “persons”, women were beginning to get their right to vote in provinces slowly. In 1916, four provinces gave women the right to vote provincially and, finally, in 1940, the last province (Quebec) gave women the right to vote provincially. Later, in World War II, there was another change in
The discrimination suffered by the “ethnic Canadians” increased during the war was inflicted by both society and the government. An example of the discrimination suffered by “ethnic Canadians” is Sarah Mann, a Canadian-German living though World War 1. Before the people of the town knew she was of German descent, she lived a normal life. But, that all changed when they found out; they vandalized her house by breaking the windows, painting harsh words in red paint or blood, which is overall person to person discrimination. However, throughout the war, it was not just the Canadian-Germans who suffered from discrimination, all ethnicities either than English-Canadian or French-Canadian. Also, they did not only receive discrimination through vandalism, and other person to person discrimination, “ethnic Canadians” faced discrimination by the Canadian government. The governments’ discrimination was caused by the pressure of frightened public experiencing panic because of the Great War. Therefore, the government took action by passing the Wartime Elections Act and the Wartime Measures Act. The Wartime Elections act meant the “ethnic Canadians” would lose their right to vote. The “ethnic Canadians” would also be put into concentration camps or have to register to the police on a regular basis. The historical significance...
Do you know that despite Canada being called multicultural and accepting, Canada’s history reveals many secrets that contradicts this statement? Such an example are Canadian aboriginals, who have faced many struggles by Canadian society; losing their rights, freedoms and almost, their culture. However, Native people still made many contributions to Canadian society. Despite the efforts being made to recognize aboriginals in the present day; the attitudes of European Canadians, acts of discrimination from the government, and the effects caused by the past still seen today have proven that Canadians should not be proud of Canada’s history with respect to human rights since 1914.
Throughout American History, people of power have isolated specific racial and gender groups and established policies to limit their right to vote. These politicians, in desperate attempt to elongate their political reign, resort to “anything that is within the rules to gain electoral advantage, including expanding or contracting the rate of political participation.”(Hicks) Originally in the United States, voting was reserved for white, property-owning gentleman
One may be surprised to learn that the turnout rate of individuals voting in Canada's federal elections has never reached 80% (Elections Canada). In fact, it has been decreasing since the middle of the twentieth century, as shown by an increase in voter apathy. An electoral system is designed to provide those who live in democratic governments with the opportunity to vote – in an election – for the candidate whose platform coincides with their political beliefs. This can be achieved through a direct democracy, where citizens are directly involved in the decision-making process, or through an indirect democracy, where citizens elect a delegate to act on their behalf. In a direct democracy, all citizens would be present during governmental meetings and have the opportunity to give verbal input. As one may expect, this would be extremely difficult to coordinate with Canada's population of 34.88 billion (Statistics Canada). Canada uses an indirect democracy, which allows for two basic forms of electoral systems in which representatives are elected. In the simple plurality electoral system, the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes is elected, regardless of a majority or not. It is commonly known as the “first-past-the-post” system, which alludes to a horse race; the winner passes the post with the highest number of votes, and only need to garner more votes than their opponents. The successful candidate wins all the seats in their riding or constituency while the candidates who places second or third will receive no seats, regardless of how many votes they lose by. Proportional representation is the second form of electoral system used in Canada; the percentage of the votes received by a party is proportionate to the numb...
Although establishing rights for many different members of society, the voting rights act isn’t the end of this concern. We can learn from history that the interpretation of voting rights will always be in question by some new player. The best we can do is to understand that voting rights in American history has had much to with time and place, thus the reason for the ongoing change in the interpretation.
The young as well as the older people of Canada seem to be in a deadlock. The question of if the federal government should or should not lower the voting age is a question debated surely around the dinner tables of families in Canada, as well as in the ranks of the government. Some people even suggest that the age needs to be raised. What would make people want the voting age to be lowered to an even lower age than the young adult age of 18? On the other hand how can the youth of Canada who have their own individual views be able to make a difference without being able to vote? Both sides provide for an intriguing look into the facts and resolutions for an appropriate way to either change the voting age or keep it the same. Throughout this paper I will look at and analyze the arguments of the youth who claim to be 'disenfranchised', as well as others who see the lowering of the voting age to be detrimental rather than an improvement to the Government of Canada's political process. In 1854, before Canada became a responsible government the only people allowed to vote were people who had a high value of land which they owned, and had a high income. Women and people with other ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs were also denied the right to vote. This did not mean that these people did not have their views and beliefs on who and what they wanted in their government but rather they were denied the right. These laws have changed since then drastically and Canada has become a democratic country (rule by the people). However, the frustration of not being able to vote and support their ideals and politicians does live on in the hearts and minds of thousands of young Canadians under the age of eighteen. The...
The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
The contentious little book titled Women, Power, Politics maintains politics to be devalued, acknowledging the fact that only few people do vote, and women are unable to achieve within the realm of Canadian politics. Sylvia Bashevkin, the author of the book argues that Canadians have a profound unease with women in positions of political authority, what she calls the "women plus power equals discomfort" equation. She evaluates a range of barriers faced by women who enter politics, including the media's biased role of representing the private lives of women in politics, and she wonders why citizens find politics is underrepresented in Canada compared to Belgium. In clear, accessible terms, Bashevkin explains her ideas on how to eliminate “low voters turn-out,” “devaluation of politics,” "gender schemas," and "media framing.” She outlines some compelling solutions to address the stalemate facing women in Canadian politics which are; contesting media portrayals, changing the rule of the game, improving legislative quotas, electoral reform, movement renewals, and so on. This response paper would addresses the reality of a political mainstream, actions which should be taken against the oppressive elements of reality, and the awareness it brings through economic, social, and political environment.
It has become widely accepted that Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. However, this system may not be in the best interest of Canada any more. There are many reasons why Canada should change its electoral system to a mixed member proportional one, a variant of proportional representation. With a first past the post system, the elected officials will always be of the majority and this excludes minorities from fair representation. Adopting MMP can create stronger voter turnouts, more personal campaigning, better individual representation, and better party selection. John Hiemstra and Harold Janson, are both in favour of a MMP electoral system. They understand that with the switch, the citizens will get more representation in parliament, their preferred choice will have some say in the House of Commons, and finally someone can be held accountable which creates a closer knit between citizens and Members of Parliament. Nelson Wiseman argues against the MMP system because he feels that there is nothing to be fixed in Canada. If the current system has been working well thus far, there is no need to change it. MMP would allow smaller parties to have their voices heard. Unfortunately first past the post tends to have an over representation of regional parties; contrary to first past the post system, MMP lets Canadians have advocates and legislators who the majority of citizens agree with. Another advantage of MMP is the elimination of strategic voting. With MMP people can finally vote for who they want to rather than choose who the majority may prefer. A change in the electoral system of Canada will create a more fair and just Parliament governing the citizens.
Systemic discrimination has been a part of Canada’s past. Women, racial and ethnic minorities as well as First Nations people have all faced discrimination in Canada. Policies such as, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial and federal Human Rights Codes, as well has various employment equity programs have been placed in Canada’s constitution to fight and address discrimination issues. Despite these key documents placed for universal rights and freedoms Aboriginal and other minority populations in Canada continue to be discriminated against. Many believe there is no discrimination in Canada, and suggest any lack of success of these groups is a result of personal decisions and not systemic discrimination. While others feel that the legislation and equality policies have yet resulted in an equal society for all minorities. Racism is immersed in Canadian society; this is clearly shown by stories of racial profiling in law enforcement.
Nakhaie, M. R. (2006). Electoral participation in municipal, provincial and federal elections in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 363-390.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...