More handpicked essays just for you.
Chapter 1: Canada’s Federal Political System
Chapter 1: Canada’s Federal Political System
History of party discipline in Canadian politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Parties are key in western democracies for elected parliament. These parties are generally linkages between the state and society. A party’s purpose is to be an interest aggregator with the intention to try to collect a group of common interest that represent a large group of people so that members in parties can work together to obtain similar goals. A collection of parties form a party system that is defined as a stable pattern of relations between parties. Quebec has historically been a two party system but is evolving into a new type of party system that is still not defined due to the volatility of parties in Quebec. In first-past-the-post plurality electoral system, Duverger’s law suggests that they Quebec would be a two party system, …show more content…
Prior to 1970’s the right leaning parties had only lost power for a brief five years in 1939 to the Liberal party. This domination of one right leaning party at due to the Union Nationale who played as a brokerage party from both members of conservative and liberal parties. This party disintegrated in the 1970’s leading to a new two party system in the province. The two party system that started in 1970 in Quebec’s political landscape stayed until 2002. This system was created out of a merger of dissident provincial liberals, led by Rene Levesque, with a small, right wing separatist party, the Ralliement national creating the Parti Quebecois. The Parti Quebecois and Parti Liberal du Quebec won almost 90% of the popular vote together. They had almost every seat in the national assembly. There was one instant in this era that the UN tried to make a comeback but it was very short …show more content…
Coming up to the 2003 elections the ADQ were leading the pre-election polls because of a dissatisfaction between the PQ and PLQ. The ADQ were able to play brokerage politics and give the Quebecers what they wanted. Quebecers had lost the desire for sovereignty and a charismatic ADQ leader had stepped in. The 2007 Election gave the ADQ official opposition with a PLQ minority as the PQ’s platform was no longer appealing to the Quebec population. ADQ also ran a campaign designed to target the demands of Quebeckers as brokerage politics suggests by talking about private healthcare and taking a hard stance on the $5 daycare topic. This led to a 2.5 or 3 party system where there are two parties such as the PLQ and ADQ in this case and another party the PQ being somewhat of a contender, but not a liable victor, in the political race. As Duverger’s theory follows in a plurality system this should not be the case but it is due to the fact brokerage politics is at play in
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.
Although Quebec is in Canada, a majority of Quebecers do not identify with the national identity of Canada. Both societies create a sense of identity as well as nationalism (Hiller, 295). Hiller mentions two approaches to assessing Canadian identity; the unitary approach and the segmentalist approach (Hiller, 277). The unitary approach suggests that society consists of people who regardless of their ethnic back ground, identify as belonging to the national society, while the segmentalist approach concentrates on groups and communities that share racial, linguistic, occupational, or cultural similarities (Hiller, 28). While most Anglophones are more unitary or pan-Canadian, Quebec heavily identifies with the segmentalist approach. This dissimilarity of identity perspective may be problematic for the country, at the same time however, it can also be viewed as a struggle where contradictory parties find a way to compromise and reshape Canadian society together (Hiller, 277). Canada’s former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau made it his objective to unite Quebec with the rest of Canada. In 1969 Trudeau’s government implemented Bill C-120, otherwise known as the Official Language act, which made French an...
Stevenson, Garth. "Canadian Federalism: The Myth of the Status Quo." Reinventing Canada: Politics of the 21st Century. Ed. M. Janine Brodie and Linda Trimble. Toronto: Prentice Hall, 2003. 204-14. Print.
Both parties will tend to be broad-based and attempt to target as many groups as possible: this is because any smaller parties will not stand a chance in competing in most districts, hence causing parties to consolidate in order to be viable (ACE Project, 2012). This analysis by the ACE Project shows how larger parties may tend to squeeze out smaller ones, and cause smaller parties to be excluded relative to their actual level in government, hindering their ability to act on a national stage, providing a normative basis for their exclusion in Canadian
...ment plays an important role in determining the relationship between its politicians and electorates. It also “[calculates] how votes are translated into seats of political power... it... also affects the party system, political culture, the formation of government and the structure of the executive” (Trac 5). Most importantly, candidates in an SMP system can be elected with minimal amounts of public support as they do not require a majority of the votes. To be elected to the legislature in the PR system, a candidate must have “at least 3% of the party vote across the province” (Ontario Citizens' Assembly 3). In contrast to the SMP system, the PR system better represents the views of the citizens, supports a stable and effective government, and is a simple yet practical voting system. It successfully caters to the needs of the voters, unlike the traditional system.
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
system produces conflicts between the Congress and the President and promotes very outdated beliefs that stem from the Constitution. A vast majority of the American population has the stern belief that the Constitution does not need to be changed in any way, shape, or form. This belief, however, is keeping the country from progressing along with other countries around the world. These single parties are holding control of multiple branches of government at once and monopolizing the power during their respective terms. The government “faces an incapacity to govern since each party works as a majority party” and believes there is no reason for innovation (Dulio & Thurber, 2000). The two parties are seemingly always clashing about one thing or the other, making it difficult for things to get accomplished, and proves the thesis correct that the two-party system is ineffective for a growing country.
In Canada, party discipline is defined as the ability of getting support from its own political party for their leaders by using party policy (2016, Wikipedia). In a social order like ours, it is usually referred as the legislative control of the leaders have over its members. Under the system of responsible government, party discipline is the reason that gives voters ability to vote effectively (1993, Reid). Party discipline is the middle ground in between the opposition and main government; it requires consent in both sides. One is the view point constituency of each party and the other is the responsibility that the members of parliament has in voicing their opinions and votes (2006, Parliament of Canada).
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.
A two-party system is a political system in which only two parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected officials end up being a member in one of the two major parties. In a two-party system, one of the parties usually holds a majority in the legislature hence, being referred to as the majority party while the other party is the minority party. The United States of America is considered to be a two-party system. A two-party system emerged early in the history of the new Republic. Beginning with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans in the late 1780s, two major parties have dominated national politics, although which particular two parties has changed with the times and issues. During the nineteenth century, the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the two dominant parties in American politics. As the American party system evolved, many third parties emerged, but few of them remained in existence for very long. Today the Democrats and Republican still remain as the dominant parties. These two parties hav...
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.
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.
Britain's and this becomes particularly important when looking at the years after 1979. If you look at the period between 1945-79, it seems fairly clear that a two party system exists. However, successive Conservative victories between 1979-97 make this proposition seem less credible. Another flaw in the two party concept arises when parties which have not had a sufficient majority to have any real parliamentary power have been assisted by a smaller third party in order to remain in government. Whilst falling short of becoming true coalitions, these alliances have taken place down the ... ...
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
Canada and Quebec have always been in conflict from the confederation of 1867 to the Supreme court judgement on the secession of Quebec in 1998. Quebec faces several challenges in terms of constitutional relations with the rest of Canada. Quebec is seeking a special status to preserve and protect its culture and language, while the rest of English-speaking Canada accepts the view of provincial equality. There have been attempts to recognize Quebec's concerns through constitutional amendments, but these attempts have not lived up to Quebec's expectations and for the most parts have failed. Quebec has threatened Canada throughout history with separation from Canada. These threats have not been ignored, the rest of Canada realizes the devastating impact economically and politically if Quebec did separate but they cannot reach a compromise. Canada has as tried to encourage Quebec not to separate from Canada. In 1995 Quebec held its second referendum on sovereignly and the separatists narrowly lost the province wide. The province brought the case to the Supreme court of Canada to rule on the legal guidelines of unilateral secession under Canadian and international law, in the end some say the federalists (those not wanting to separate) came out on top. In this essay I will discuss the various historical attempts made by government to keep Quebec a part of Canada. I will also attempt to explain the impact of the Supreme Court Ruling on the Quebec secession. Many argue that the federalist won in the decision but that statement is debatable. Both Quebec and the rest of Canada won in the ruling. I believe that English Canadians should spend some time getting to know their French neighbors and vice ...