Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantage of the current electoral system of Canada
Advantage of the current electoral system of Canada
Describe the electoral system in Canada
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Advantage of the current electoral system of Canada
When a minority government is elected in Canada, the Prime Minister opts to form a single-party government instead of a coalition (Migneault, 2010: 2). Coalitions are governments that are formed by more than one political party, often in order to get a majority of seats in the Canadian Parliament (Migneault, 2010: 2). While coalition governments are fairly popular in Western countries, there has only been one coalition in Canada at the federal level since 1867 (Migneault, 2010: 10). Even then, the coalition of 1917 was only formed because of circumstances that were out of the ordinary; the First World War was raging on (Migneault, 2010: 10). The lack of coalition formation in Canada can actually be beneficial to the party in power (Paun, 2011: 448). Even if coalitions make it easier to obtain a majority of votes on a motion presented in parliament, they require a great deal of compromising and negotiating with members of the parties that form the government (Paun, 2011: 448). In contrast, a …show more content…
Over the years, a source of concern has been that minority governments don’t seem to last, that they can’t seem to remain in power as long as majority governments can (Bourgault, 2011: 512). Indeed, it is true that the shortest government to stay in power was the one of Meighen in 1926 whose parliament sieged for a grand total of three days before losing the confidence of the House of Commons (Migneault, 2010: 101). Be that as it may, this remains anecdotic and shouldn’t as a recurrent event (Migneault, 2010: 101). Nevertheless, it has been noted that, although majority government have commonly stayed in power for 48 months, minority government have managed to retain their place for 22 months on average (Migneault,
The Meech Lake accord was a set of constitutional amendments that were designed to persuade Quebec Province to accept the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 (Brooks 152). This accord derives its name from the Meech Lake, where these negotiations were held by Mulroney Brian, the Canadian Prime Minister, and the ten premiers of the ten Canadian Provinces (Brooks 211). By the time the Canadian constitution was being implemented, Quebec was the only province that had not consented to it. Somehow, the partition of the constitution in 1982 was carried out without Quebec’s agreement, but it was still bound by the same law. Attempts were made to persuade this province to sign the constitution, which it agreed to do but only after its five demands are fulfilled by the Canadian government. Unfortunately, these demands were not met and this accord failed in 1990, when two provincial premiers failed to approve it. This paper answers the question whether Quebec asked for too much during the Meech Lake Accord negotiations.
...n of their cabinet, while others may choose to create a new political path without consulting the views of their party. Mellon thinks that the Canadian government is under dictatorial scrutiny, whereas Barker contradicts this belief. The idea of a prime-ministerial government is certainly an over exaggeration of the current state of Canada. There are too many outside and inside forces that can control the powers the Prime Minister of Canada. Furthermore, there are several outside sources that indicate a good government in Canada. The United Nations annually places Canada at the top, or near the top of the list of the world’s best countries in which to live. These outcomes are not consistent with the idea of a one ruler power. Canada is not ruled by one person’s ideas, suggestions, and decisions, but by government approved and provincially manipulated decisions.
For a democratic country to thrive, they must have a proper electoral system in producing the party to oversee our government. Since its inception in 1867, Canada has been using the first past the post system during elections to decide their leading party. Although we have been using this system for an extended duration of time, the FPTP system is flawed and should be changed. The goal of this paper is to prove the effectiveness of shifting to more of a proportional system, while also exposing the ineptness of Canada’s current system. With other methods advancing and little change of the first past the post system, this system is becoming predated. A variation of the proportional electoral system is key because it empowers voters, increases voter turnout, and creates a more diverse environment. Canada should adopt a more proportionate electoral system at the federal level if we wish to expand democracy.
Stevenson, Garth. "Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations." Canadian Politics in the 21st Century. Ed. Michael S. Whittington and Glen Williams. Scarborough, Ont.: Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000. 85-1
The spread of democracy has been one of the largest and most widely heralded trends in government worldwide – its prevalence and impact has been the subject of much political discussion and debate. In many cases, however, fewer observers focus on the electoral system used by the democratic governments themselves, which are in many cases equally important to the ultimate shape of the government formed. In general, the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system that is used in Canadian Federal Elections has excluded and prevented third parties from having a large impact on the national stage post-WWII, forcing a bipartisan system of government. Central to this paper is an analysis on how third parties, in this case minor broad-based parties
Firstly, the bicameral system started in the 17th century and has been set up in many countries since. This system is justified on its standard of checks and balances on the governing party. The members of the two houses are elected or appointed to their positions depending on what method the country decides on. Canada is one of the countries with a bicameral parliamentary democracy, which was modeled off of England’s House of Lords. (Supreme Court 2014, pg. 720) One of the important factors of the bicameral system is the upper house of Parliament called the Senate, which has a long history and distinctive structure within Canada.
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
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
It is cold hard fact that Canadian government is not entirely democratic. The question remains of how to deal with this. Canadian government, as effective as it currently is, has major factors in their system that have a negative effect on Canadians. Our current voting system favors the higher-populated provinces and creates a tyranny of the majority. Our Senate is distinctly undemocratic as it is an assigned position. Our head of State, the Prime Minister, holds too much power. Unless we resolve these issues, our government will remain far from a perfect governing system.
First, some background on the subject. Canada is divided into 308 ridings, and each riding elects one person to represent all the citizens in that riding. The party that wins the most ridings forms the government, and if that party has gained more than half the seats, as is usually the case, they form a majority and have the ability to pass any bill in the House of Commons that they wish, regardless of the opinions that other representatives have. This SMP system has remained unchanged in Canada since Confederation in 1867. On the other hand there is proportional representation, which is broken down into two main forms: Mixed Member Proportionality (MMP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV). MMP was first put into use ...
Proportional representation is almost always acknowledged as the fairest electoral system. With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair representation and devalues citizen’s votes. Canadians must make a choice between the value of effectiveness and the values of justice and equity. Although a switch is not anticipated in the near future, Canadian citizens can hope that it is at least in the minds of many voters and on the discussion list of the government.
Frist, federalism is the division of power between the provinces and the federal government (Cutler 2010, 3). As well, Federal systems tend to be made up of multiple parts, which do not necessarily work together (Brock 2008, 3). There has been an increase on the study of federalism in recent years, which has created a more in-depth look at how federalism impacts the government. (Farfard Rocher 2009, 294). There are two aspects of federalism and both of them put limitations on the influence of the prime minister. The first is called political asymmetry; this encompasses the various attitudes of the different provinces such as the culture, economic, social and political conditions and how it shapes the relationship between the provincial and federal governments (Brock 2008, 4). This can create a problem for the federal government because it means that they may ha...
May, E. (2009). Losing Confidence: Power, politics, and the crisis in Canadian democracy. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.
With the opposing sides at almost equal size, it is important to come to a final decision. Before possible violence breaks out within the province. Bibliography Doran, Charles F. “Will Canada Unravel?” in Foreign Affairs. Sept-Oct 1996 v75 n5 pg97.
They systematically exclude some voices in the electorate and over-reward the winner of an election, producing an ‘elected dictatorship’ which does not need to compromise with other parties (Norris, 1997: 10). The average winner’s bonus under MES is 12.5%, versus 5.7% under PR, i.e. to be assured of a parliamentary majority of seats, a party under PR would need to win 46.3% of the vote, but only 37.5% under MES (Norris, 1997: 8). In 1992, Sir Russell Johnston was elected in an SMP British constituency with only 19% of its support (Farrell, 2011: 16-17) and in that year’s general election, 40% of elected MPs did not have an overall majority of votes in their constituency (Farrell, 2011: 17-19) – that figure was 64% in 2005 (Farrell, 2011: 24). Indeed, the last time a governing party in the UK won as much as 50% of the vote was in 1935; Margaret Thatcher had a large parliamentary majority in 1983, but only 30.8% of the vote (Norris, 1997: 3). After the war, British governments received an average of 45% of the popular vote but 54% of seats in parliament, and even in close elections, almost never had to form coalitions (Norris, 1997: 6).