More handpicked essays just for you.
Describe the electoral system in Canada
The case against compulsory voting in canada becca mestechkin article
Why Canada tried to change its electoral system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Describe the electoral system in Canada
Canada’s Electoral System Surya Dev Singh 300252167 Dr. Jeanette Ashe Poli 1101
Canada is known to be a very decent country when it comes to politics. Canada’s electoral system consists of several different aspects. As it is important for the democratic government to reflects its political rules, if government ignores and disguised the rights of a voter then it will go against democracy. Canada’s voting system is very similar and is adopted by the United Kingdom system. With no doubts, it is clear that Canada is a democratic country; nevertheless there are some problems in this system. Various changes are in need to improve this political system. The system that Canada has is known as first-past-the-post
…show more content…
For example, if you are in the Burnaby territory, then you will run for that area in parliament. This makes Canadian government unfair and the parliament not totally represents the people rights and reflects their objectives. Every person views this different, individuals would want to run for an area that they wish to focus on and improve on and if they are only allowed to run in the area they live then the person wishing to run would have to change their address. However, some changes must be adopted by Canadian government for betterment of people of the country. Canadian electoral system should be fair, proportional, trustworthy, rational as well as representative. Canada uses the first-past-the-post which means whoever is running and receives the most ballots will win, this system is also used in the United States of America whereas other countries have different ones. The system should be fair, every individual should have the right to say what they wish and who they should believe in. That way it is only fair enough to all the citizens of Canada, because it is our right to express our mind and freedom and of course, …show more content…
Without involvement of people, no government can run over for a long time. Citizens are the backbone of each and every government, if government is not being capable to represent their public then public should also not walk on the rules given by the cruel government. According to Canadian Constitution, there will two votes for every voter one for list and another for MPs .There will be proportional voting at every place so that voting system cannot judge by the place or beliefs of
Canada is a society built on the promise of democracy; democracy being defined as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” In order to operate at full potential, the people of Canada must voice their opinions and participate fully in the political system. This is why it’s shocking to see that people are becoming less engaged in politics and the voter turnout has steadily been declining over the last 20 years. This lack of participation by Canadians is creating a government that is influenced by fewer people, which is detrimental to the democratic system Canada is built on.
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...
However, the proposed systems must be thoroughly examined for their compatibility with Canada’s needs and their ability to resolve the issues outlined in this paper. From distortion in representation to Western alienation and to making the voices of minorities heard, the new system must also ensure that Parliament fulfills its role in representing, legislating, and holding the government. More importantly, after the current government abandoned its promise on electoral reform, it is important for researchers and future governments to build on the knowledge acquired by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform as well as previous experiences of the provinces with electoral
What principles and ideals lie at the heart of a free democratic society? Canadians take pride in their country’s values of tolerance, inclusion, and respect, and over Canada’s guaranteed freedom of expression, including the right to vote (Thevenard & Orend, 2015). In democratic Canada, “all eligible citizens have the right to participate, either directly or indirectly, in making the decisions that affect them” ("Democracy Defined"). Voting, in essence, ensures all citizens receive an equal opportunity to express their views by selecting and supporting a political party of their choice. Such an approach provides freedom of expression for all eligible citizens, allowing for the political party with the most votes to take over the ruling.
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...
Canada has been claimed to be a country of democracy and fairness, where majority rules and everyone gets a say. Though this is evident in some areas of Canada, in The House of Commons and in the political background it is not. Members of Parliament are not as powerful as they are said to be and due to party discipline, the amount of power they actually have is very limited. Party discipline has taken Members of Parliament and trained them to obey whatever the leader of the Party and their whips say, just like seals. There are several arguments supporting this issue, such as Members of Parliament are forced to vote in whatever way their Political Party wants them to, even if they do not agree with the decision. This is seen in plenty examples of Members of Parliament complaining about decisions made and not being informed about certain legislation. Another argument would be the contrast of power between the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament. The amount of power the Prime Minister and his or her leaders supresses Members of Parliament to do what they wants regardless of what power each Member of Parliament has. Also, Members of Parliament cannot make any significant change by themselves. There are many Members of Parliament that want to make personal changes in society, but cannot because party discipline makes sure they stay focused on the main party’s agenda. These arguments will prove that Members of Parliament are called to do what the parties ask and obey without hesitation. Party discipline has taken over democracy in the Political realm and has made Members of Parliament have no power or control over the decision made. Politics in Canada trains Members of Parliament to be seals.
It was said that Canada’s MPs’ power is been minimalize completely by the Prime Minister (Kilgour, 2012 p.1). The reason for less restriction of party discipline is to give them the permission to vote according to the public and personal belief rather than under the influence of the party whip, which will result in freedom of vote for general public. The reason that members of parliament are there are that: they are the representatives of the sections; they are the voice of the people. In Canada we do not elect our MPs to be a puppet solely to be govern under the prime minister. Our country is a democratic country where there’s freedom of speech and freedom to vote. In reducing the hold on party discipline allows the governmental personnel to openly state their opinions without sparking an unnecessary controversy. Which will benefit both opposition and government in power to discuss the controversial debates and will speed up the process of decision making.
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.
Trying to apply new reforms to the Canadian constitution has been no easy task. The mixture of the parliamentary/monarchy powers denies the citizens’ direct participation in the government’s decision-making process and does not allow the existence of a complete, free democratic system. A true democracy simply cannot fully exist with a restricted monarch selecting type of government and any reforms must be applied to make Canadian constitutions’ laws based on democratic principles. The deficiency of the Canadian electoral system decreases the level of democracy in the Canadian constitution. Canadian citizens are known for being active in political matters whether it relates to them specifically or not.
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.
The Prime Minister of Canada is given much power and much responsibility. This could potentially create a dangerous situation if the government held a majority and was able to pass any legislation, luckily this is not the case. This paper will argue that there are many limitations, which the power of the prime minister is subject too. Three of the main limitations, which the Prime Minister is affected by, are; first, federalism, second the governor general and third, the charter of rights and freedoms. I will support this argument by analyzing two different types of federalism and how they impact the power of the Prime Minister. Next I will look at three of the Governor Generals Powers and further analyze one of them. Last I will look at the impact of the charter from the larger participation the public can have in government, and how it increased the power of the courts.
Milner, Henry. First Past the Post? Progress Report on Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces. Ottawa: Institute for Research and Public Policy, 5(9), 2004.
In 2012, the Canadian Senate became embroiled in a scandal that is still ongoing, and still having an effect on Canadian political life today. At times in the 20th century, there have been calls for the reform, or even the abolition of the Senate completely. The current scandal has resulted a renewal of the frequent calls for reform that have frequently accompanied the many questionable actions of Senators. The structure of the Senate, and its outdated rules of appointment and procedure are also frequently the target of reformers in Canada. It is the contention of this paper that the Canadian Senate be reformed to represent the democracy that is Canada in the 21st Century, as this body is outdated and representative of entrenched party interests, as well as of a system that dates back to the days of aristocratic and upper-class privilege.
Democracy is defined as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system (Democracy, n.d.). Canadians generally pride themselves in being able to call this democratic nation home, however is our electoral system reflective of this belief? Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy that has been adopted from the British system. Few amendments have been made since its creation, which has left our modern nation with an archaic system that fails to represent the opinions of citizens. Canada’s current “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system continues to elect “false majorities” which are not representative of the actual percentage of votes cast. Upon closer examination of the current system, it appears that there are a number of discrepancies between our electoral system and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other nations provide Canada with excellent examples of electoral systems that more accurately represent the opinions of voters, such as proportional representation. This is a system of voting that allocates seats to a political party based on the percentage of votes cast for that party nationwide. Canada’s current system of voting is undemocratic because it fails to accurately translate the percentage of votes cast to the number of seats won by each party, therefore we should adopt a mixed member proportional representation system to ensure our elections remain democratic.