More handpicked essays just for you.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
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.
Why
…show more content…
Specifically, all citizens receive entitlement to conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication, peaceful assembly, and association ("Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982"). Compulsory voting takes away from those fundamental rights by forcing individuals to express an opinion or make a choice they may not necessarily agree with conscience-wise. In other cases, they may not even wish to concern themselves with politics due to lack of time, lack of interest, or simply, lack of political concern. Mandatory voting, though seemingly innocent and reasonable at first glance, goes on to violate democratic freedom, encourage voter apathy, and spark insincere voting, especially amongst uninformed …show more content…
Voting represents a right. Under a democratic system, citizens have the right to vote and make decisions. Compulsion, on the other hand, exemplifies something entirely different – a duty. Perhaps there are those who may argue that voting should be a duty rather than a right. Regardless, however, the word right is included in the very definition of democracy. Taking away the right not to vote takes away from the very meaning of democracy and everything the Canadian society stands for. Why should someone be forced to vote when they do not wish to? Maybe they are not interested, maybe they just do not care, or maybe they wish to leave the decision up to people who have done their research and understand politics better. In order for voting to remain a right, it must not be motivated by
In Document D, it tells us that although Italy has a compulsory voting system in place, it “ranks low” in political satisfaction among western countries. In addition, many voters have “unfavorable attitudes towards their electoral system”. When citizens are required to vote, their attitudes towards voting can become negative. In addition, in places like the US, where voting is optional, voters have the “highest voter satisfaction rates with their political institutions”. So, citizens are much happier with their government when they are given the choice to vote, not when they are forced to do it. The government doesn’t want their citizens to be unhappy; in the past, unhappy citizens has lead to revolts against the government. Citizens being unhappy about compulsory voting is shown in Document E. In Peru, citizens are required to vote and will receive a penalty of US$35 if they do not vote. Because of this penalty, 13% of ballots cast are blank or null. These citizens either “spoiled” their ballots or refused to vote for any of the candidates. It is clear that these citizens were unhappy about being forced to vote and they were unhappy about the penalty for not voting, so they voted, but they voted by casting ballots that were blank or null. Is it really better to have citizens that vote when they are submitting blank or null ballots? No. If citizens are so against voting that they will submit blank or null ballots, they should just be allowed to not
In document C, John W. Dean who was legal council the the U.S. President Richard M. Nixon said, “While compulsion of any kind is a restriction, so is the compulsion to drive only on the right side of the road. Requiring citizens to vote is no more restrictive than requiring them to register for the draft. And it is far less restrictive than requiring us, for example, to attend school; to serve on juries, possibly for weeks or months at a time; to pay taxes; or to serve in the military when drafted”(Dean). That shows the multitude of laws or requirements in America that are less important than voting, but are required. Voting is for the good of the country, yet people won't vote, but won't bat an eye when they are forced into jury duty.
There is a way that is already put in use to increase voter turnout in Australia is to make voting mandatory. People in Australia are forced to vote or they will be fined, or even jailed if they do not vote repeatedly. It is very effective in term of improving voter turnout; however, there is still some argument against it. One of them being people would only vote because they have to, so they are ignorantly voting for the candidates just to be done with it. I completely agree with this idea. The voter turnout can be really high, but it would be meaningless if the people just vote to escape from the punishments. Yale Law School Professor Stephen Carter also suggested that, instead of punishing people do not vote, we should reward people who vote. It is the same with the mandatory voting. I think it will only be effective in increasing the voter turnout, but the results will not. People should vote voluntarily for the best and fair outcome. To have more people voting, I believe we should take a look at why people do not vote. We must assure people that if everybody thinks their vote does not count, then no one would vote. We should be able to change their attitude about their own votes. If people cannot vote because they are busy with work or schools, we should have a national day off on the election day. By doing so, much more people will be able to participate in voting. There should also be
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.
The electoral system in Canada has been utilized for over a century, and although it has various strengths which have helped preserve the current system, it also has glaringly obvious weaknesses. In recent years, citizens and experts alike have questioned whether Canada’s current electoral system, known as First Past the Post (FPTP) or plurality, is the most effective system. Although FPTP is a relatively simple and easy to understand electoral system, it has been criticized for not representing the popular vote and favouring regions which are supportive of a particular party. FPTP does have many strengths such as simplicity and easy formation of majority governments, however, its biggest drawback is that it does not proportionally represent
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...
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 right to vote for non-citizens has become an increasingly controversial topic due to the strong and often divisive opinions of permanent Canadian residents. The capacity to vote is one of the most important and valued freedoms granted to individuals. Although the acceptance of non-citizen resident voting is frequently encouraged in order to propel self-governing justice and immigrant inclusion, opponents claim that it is in a nation’s best interest to delay voting rights to non-citizens. According to this claim, by preserving voting rights to citizens, non-citizens would have the social responsibility to actively learn the essential community services and self-ruled obligations necessary to earn their citizenship. In spite of this claim, non-citizens should be allowed to vote because the right to vote offers immigrants a more welcomed chance to contribute in the decision-making processes that take place in Canadian legislature. Seeing that this legislature administrates the rights and freedoms of the immigrant populations, it would only be just if immigrants had the right to elect candidates who spoke on behalf of their best interests.
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.
Since party politics began in Canada, the style in which leaders are elected is comparable to a horse race. Using the single member plurality (SMP), more commonly referred to as “first past the post,” method of seat allocation in both the House of Commons and each province's Legislative Assembly, whoever gets the most votes is asked to form the government; this only takes into accounts the number of seats a party wins, not the overall popular vote. In a political system not limited to two parties, like the United States, many times over 50% of Canadians do not want the party that won, to win. In this current electoral system, votes are wasted, smaller parties are terribly misrepresented and, in some cases, a party with a lower percent of the vote has come into power. Already, three provinces have attempted to vote on electoral reform; however, the vote did not pass in any of them. British Columbia (BC) and Prince Edward Island (PEI) both held their first referendum on the subject in 2005, BC's second referendum was held in 2009. Also, Ontario held their referendum in 2007. Because none of the referendums passed, it is clear that Canadians are not quite ready for electoral reform. Regardless, it is evident that a spark has ignited in the brains of citizens nation-wide; with recurring evidence that suggests the current electoral system horribly represents the majority of Canadian citizens, the public is beginning to realize that there is something terribly wrong.
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
Heath, Joseph. "The democracy deficit in Canada." University of Toronto. homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~jheath/democracy.pdf (accessed October 17, 2013).
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.
People should not be forced to vote. I know people that their religion does not allow to vote or to get involved in political affairs’. People liberty right, as well as freedoms of morality, opinions, and expression, are part of political principles. Having the right to vote is not equivalent to exercising it.
Some people have lack of awareness that voting is very important in order to develop their country. people need to know that their voting may change a lot of things to be best. in the other meaning, People should realize that not voting for the right person will give the opportunity to people who do not have the skill to occupy leadership positions in their community. One of the most important signs of some people's lack of awareness of the importance of participating in the elections is that some people think that their voting will not change who will be win in this voting. When everyone think like that , the result will be very different from what people want. The government should help people to know that each person plays important role in the voting through edification on the importance of voting for a person who deserves through the media and in schools and universities. In addition, people should change the wrong belief which is the voting is useless due to manipulation of results . This misconception among some people that prevents them from participating in the vote also indicates a lack of awareness that the elections are conducted according to the highest standards of credibility, especially in developed countries. Raising awareness and correcting some beliefs about voting will increase the proportion of people participating in