More handpicked essays just for you.
Five Importance of representative democracy
An essay on representative democracy
An essay on the features of representative democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A reformed senate should reflect Canadian’s diversity, moreover better representing minority groups such as aboriginals and women (3). As it is now, most of the Canadian Senate is comprised of older, white men, however as Parliament is the body that represents Canada, it should be held at a higher standard (3). A proper proportional representation system would provide greater opportunities for smaller parties, minorities and women to win senate seats, which is very crucial in reflecting Canada.
This has a better possibility of working through a electoral process where elected members of the senate would consist of individuals who have campaigned and worked hard to become senator. This positive change for the Canadian senate would give individuals
…show more content…
a sense of accountability in the decisions they make while being a Senator. In 2006 Prime Minister, Stephen Harper pushed for the Senate Appointment Consultations Act, which was a legislation that called for Canadians to vote for their preferred candidates in their province or territory. This seems a like move in the right direction, however unfortunately it bill died before the second reading. It was again introduced in 2007 but did not make it past the first reading (cbc). Although the legislation was not passed, it would be a positive step to gain trust back from the people and should be revisited. A senate consisting of individuals appointed through the people, instead of the Governor General and the Prime Minster, would give Canadians more of a say. This further limits to ability of people being elected due to issues such as to political ties. Moreover, representatives could be chosen based on who is better qualified for the work by life experience and credentials. Perhaps even a turn out every decade or so would promote bettering the Senate. Always bringing in new individuals with different ideas and perspectives instead of the current situation. Right now, Senators are almost guaranteed in until he or she is 75 years of age without the thought of re-election. This allows individuals to sit in their position and not have to prove their need to be in Senate(4). In recycling Senators more often, it gives the sense of entitlement that a lifetime position creates. The Senate should be reformed so that it is effective for all of Canada. This is best done by having a elected Senate (6). By doing so, the Senate could reform its duty better if members had a democratic mandate. Additionally, another option towards a senate reform is financial transparency. This means that finances made will be more accessible to the public. Moreover, regular audits of senator’s spending should be done. There is an ongoing scandal regarding the expenses claimed by certain Canadian senators beginning in 2012. Stephen Harper discussed the scandal of his elected conservative Senators in which they used allowances they were not permitted to used (1). A selected few Senators claimed travel and living expenses from the Senate, which they were not eligible to do. Many Canadian’s watched closely as some Senators repaid their allowances taken, others retired or were suspended without pay(ref). With 73% of Canadian’s watching this scandal at home, it is no wonder there is a lack of trust of the system. As it stands now, Canadian’s have little access of knowing who is spending what and where. The spending goes without controversy. In doing so, Senators are held more responsible. Moreover, it is often suggested that the Senate itself spends an immense amount of money that could better go somewhere else which begs the popular question: should the senate be abolished?
This has been a popular thought among Canadian’s and the NDP also supports abolishing the Senate due to the extreme costs associated with the Upper House (ref). The Senate costs around $92,500,000 to run. For the work that they do it can be questioned whether or not the money can be better spent elsewhere. The average senator works only 71 days a year. Additionally, is the role of the senate really that crucial? It is proven that unicameral legislatures work well. Wall in his interview explains that provinces provide a counterbalance to the federal government. He suggests abolishing the senate and saving the near $100 million (4). Is there a need for a second party to check laws? Or would the House of Commons be successful in doing this on their own? Abolishing the Senate may seem like the intelligent thing to do, however the chances of that happening are very slim. The ability to debate legislation before it is passed is crucial in getting different perspectives. However, this can be better done under an equally represented Senate. In 1991, the Senate argued against the criminalization of abortion, and with that it was not passed (ref). Imagine how different Canada would be if that one law was passed. This shows how important debate and discussion of laws between the houses is important in forming and shaping laws that are free of error. The Senate plays a crucial role in this regard. Additionally, Senators act almost individually in that they possess the power to go against the views of the party. This is something the House of Commons cannot
do. Polls show that Canadian’s are almost evenly split between reforming the senate and abolishing it (1). Instead of making big changes in abolishing the senate, there needs to be gradual adjustments to the Senate. This is why a reform is the best path. Canadian’s feel a sense of disconnect and a lack of trust towards the Senate. The current senate is ineffective and should be reformed to better serve Canadians. A reform in which promotes diversity within the system would provide the Canadian Senate with different perspectives. Allowing for an electoral selection process would give Canadian’s a sense of connection to the senate as individuals would be able to vote for those who campaign and show dedication for taking on a senator’s position. Moreover, creating trust by allowing for financial transparencies is also a step in the right direction. These are practical ways to make the senate more vibrant and a central institution of parliament as it once was. The Canadian Senate needs to be reformed with a diverse and democratic goal.
Burke, Marie. "Seven aboriginal senators: 40 years (looking back on the Senate's Aboriginal representatives)." Windspeaker Dec. 1998: 9. Canada in Context. Web. 3 Dec. 2013.
A proportionate electoral system (otherwise known as proportional representation or PR) grants its voters a voice in their vote. The way that the PR system works is that for every percentage of votes a party receives, they will be granted around the same percentage of seats in parliament. For example, if a party receives 35% of the votes, they would receive 35% of the seats in legislature. This is important for Canada because it gives smaller parties a better chance of retaining a seat. There are many different varieties of PR, due to the fact that at often times, the voting percentages do not evenly translate into the number of seats available (King, 2000). For instance, if a party receive 33.6% of the vote, they can’ receive 33.6% of seats. Because of this, numerous variations of the PR system have been created. The most common...
Since the turn of the twenty first century, in Canada voter turnout has made a significant and consecutive decline. In the last five federal elections on average only sixty-one per cent of eligible voters voted. If each eligible citizen voted in an election the government would be on par with the primary interests of the people. The easiest way to achieve this objective is by implementing a compulsory voting system. Mandatory voting systems are appealing because all citizens are affected by decisions made by the government, so it makes sense to have all those affected apart of the election process. As a result, the voting results would be more representative of the country and that would lead to an increase of stability and legitimacy. It would also be beneficial to Canadians because would cause political parties to address and focus on the needs of every socio-economic level. However, one of biggest problems that accompanies mandatory voting laws is that the choice to exercise the right to vote is taken away. Another primary concern about compulsory voting is that a large number of uninterested and uninformed voters are brought to the polls. Conversely, uninformed voters will become familiar with and learn the polling procedures and electoral system over time and uninterested voters are not forced to mark a name on the ballot. Compulsory voting laws would only make registration and attendance at the polls mandatory, not voting itself. Therefore the freedom to exercise the right to vote or not is still intact. A greater emphasis on alternate voting practices may be established such as electronic or online voting. Positive changes would not only be evident in the policies of political parties but also in the voting procedure. Th...
Senate reform in Canada has been a popular topic for decades but has yet to be accomplished. Since the Senates formation in 1867 there has been numerous people who call for its reform or abolishment due to the fact it has not changed since its implementation and does not appear to be fulfilling its original role. An impediment to this request is that a constitutional amendment is needed to change the structure of the Senate, which is not an easy feat. Senate reform ideas have developed from other upper houses in counties such as the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. From those two different successful governments emerges examples of different electoral systems, state representation, and methods of passing legislations.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
The Founders built certain protections for individual rights into this country's founding documents. The United States Constitution was one such document. In particular, such protections guard Americans who hold minority viewpoints from those who side with the majority. For example, the First Amendment protects the right of free speech to ensure that people who hold unpopular views have just as much freedom to express those views as do people who tend to agree with the majority. The United States Constitution, therefore, was intended to protect the individual rights of Americans from a tyrannical government and majority. However, today, the Electoral College does not represent the vibrant democracy into which the United States has grown.
...d I believe that proportional representation would be the most effective system to further the goals of democracy. If we use the single member plurality system we automatically ignore and exclude the voice of the people who didn’t win the election in a first past the post method. On the other hand in the proportional system rather than all seats being given to the party with the most votes every party gets the seats equal to the amount of votes they were able to obtain. This would allow all the people who voted to have their ‘”voice” represented in the government even though the party they voted for did not end up winning the election. This would encourage and engage many citizens to become involved in the political process; who otherwise would be discourage to vote at the fact that even if they vote, if their party loses their vote would be useless.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
The Role of the Senate and House of Representatives. The Congress of the United States consists of the Senate and the House. of Representatives, which means the USA is bi-cambial. The Congress of the United States was created by Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution, adopted by the Constitutional Convention in September.