Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of voting in democracy
Importance of voting in democracy
The importance of political participation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of voting in democracy
Canada is not truly democratic because it has the Senate that supports the Prime Minister on every decision made, it uses First Past The Post (FPTP) that determines the leader based on each parties votes which is not the majority and it has a voter turnout that is low which shows that majority of the population don’t take part in voting. In a democracy the people rule which means that citizens have the right to vote, people have the right to run for office and majority rules. When a country is a democracy the opinion of the greater number should prevail, the rights of minorities will be protected, no one is above the law, all citizens have fundamental rights and citizens have a sense of responsibility to their community. However, there are …show more content…
countries that function as a democracy but have structures that weaken how democratic that country is. In Canada there is a Senate with senators that help improve the country. Many think that the Senate provides another strong argument representing Canadians to make the right decision for the country, but that isn’t always true. This isn’t true because the senators are not elected by the citizens and instead appointed by the Prime Minister which goes against the principle of democracy. Since it is highly likely that the Prime Minister appoints the senators who have the same political opinion it causes the senators to agree and support on whatever is said by him/her. This shows that they do not represent Canadians interests. Also, the Senate uses money from the citizens for their own expenses which is not fair for citizens. For example, Pamela Willan (a Canadian Senator) was arrested because she charged the Senate for her own travel expenses. It is important that the senators are represented equally so they get the majority of the help they can get for each area. However, in the Senate the areas are not represented equally, which causes a certain area to get more power. For example, the territories in Canada are represented with only 3 seats for each territory. Also, Ontario and Quebec have the most seats which makes it too powerful. This shows that most of the decisions made will be better for the area with the higher number of seats which makes the decisions be more biassed. The Senate as a whole gets too much power and don’t have the majority of the citizens supporting them which makes the Senate work against democracy. To sum up, the Senate and senators don’t show that Canada is truly democratic. FPTP is a voting system that is used in many countries including Canada to choose the winning part.
In a FPTP system, a candidate is required to represent a certain party in a certain area called a riding. However, each riding only equals to 1 seat in the house of commons. The party with the most seats is considered as the winner and the government for the next four years. Even though, the party with the most seats is considered as the government most of the votes are wasted which makes it non-democratic. Votes are wasted because the winner takes all. For example, in a horse race, the first one to pass the post wins even though the others tried with their best effort. In this system, the votes are counted independently and not together. When the votes are counted together the results show that the government does not have to be the majority’s choice. An example of this would be when a winning party gets 40 seats in an election that has 100 seats. In this case, the other parties all together have 60 votes. This shows that the majorities don’t want that party to win, but they will win because that party has the most votes compared to each individual party. In addition, the other votes become counted as nothing where it is shown that the majority does not matter in this case. This voting system proves the majority doesn’t matter which is a key feature of a democracy. FPTP is a good system used in most countries, but it makes a democracy less …show more content…
democratic. Voter turnout is a huge problem in Canada because it is too low.
In Canada voting is a key example for Canada not being truly democratic. Many think that voting is not important, but it is. Voting is fundamental to a democracy because it’s how citizens get to put their voice in and choose who governs them. Voting is also the only form of participation in which every citizen is equal and missing that chance decreases the equality given. It also doesn’t take many ballots to make a huge difference, but by not giving in a ballot that difference isn’t made. In Canada voting isn’t mandatory which cause the voter turnout to be low. When the voter turnout is low it means that there is a low amount of commitment and loyalty to Canada political system. Canada’s voter turnout is 60% compared to Australia’s which is 95%. Many believe that Australia’s voter turnout is high because their voting is mandatory. Even though, the voter turnout has increased in Canada over the years it still shows that the majority of the population aren’t voting. This explains the fact that only a small amount of the population are voting. Since a democracy is about the majority it cannot be a true democracy when so little people are voting. Many don’t understand that voting is important, but with a low voter turnout, Canada is less
democratic. A country can be called a democracy for many features like having the majority rule, protecting minority rights and many more. Despite the fact that, those features don’t always represent a country as truly democratic like Canada's Senate, the voting system and voter turnout. These features are important in a democracy, but when looked closely into they don’t represent Canada as truly democratic. In conclusion, a democracy doesn’t always function truly democratic, but by doing what you can like voting can help strengthen Canada as a democracy.
Canada is a parliamentary system with single member districts. That means Canada works on a voting system called first past the post, representatives can get elected even on small amounts of public support as long they receive more votes than other candidates. Ultimately, this system of government has its pros and cons. Harper called an earlier election because he presumed this electoral system would favour his party to win. Plurality systems tend to underrepresent small parties in parliament. Typically, why voters lean towards voting for candidates that they know would win rather than the candidate they want to win (Blais, 2002). This is because first past the post allocates seats in geographical areas. Smaller parties have the short end of the stick because it works in favour of parties with centralized support, which show why it might have been more likely Conservatives would have won. In addition, smaller constituencies boundaries have important effects on how an election would result encouraging gerrymandering. Eric McGhee describes gerrymandering as “a process of packing one’s opponents into as few districts as possible and seeking to win the remaining districts by the barest of margins” (McGhee, 2014). However, strategic voting made it less likely Harper would become elected. Since a bare amount of plurality votes is required to win seats, other parties votes are deemed ‘wasted’ votes thus voters manipulate votes to other
Under this system, the MP for each constituency is the one who gained the most votes. Many claim that this wastes votes, and is unfair. For example, in the 2010 General Election, the Conservative Party gained 36% of the vote and gained 47% of the seats in the House of Commons. Simply put, this demonstrates a lack of democracy- with the representatives of the people not being those chosen by the electorate. Yet, it can also be argued that FPTP is a healthy aspect of the UK system, as it ensures that extremist parties are unlikely to gain power, and it tends to create strong, majority governments.
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...
"There is a reason for the country to embrace mandatory voting, and it may be the most compelling: democracy cannot be strong if citizenship is weak," _William A. Galtson_. Mandatory voting, or compulsory voting, is a law wherein citizens are required to vote, or suffer the consequence. Australia has had compulsory voting since putting it into effect in 1924. "The turnout of Australian elections has never fallen below 90 percent since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924," _Australian Electoral Commission_. Achieving over 90 percent of the citizens voting for nearly a century shows that mandatory voting is working in regard to getting people to vote. Governments should have mandatory voting because the people will educate themselves
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.
Firstly, the idea of compulsory voting that involves every citizen having a civic duty, rather then a right to vote, which has been introduced in over 20 countries worldwide, a good example being Australia. In Australia, the system has been a success, producing an impressive turnout of 94% in the 2013 election, which therefore means that the Australian government will have a much higher level of legitimacy compared to the UK. However, critics of compulsory voting argue that such a system is undemocratic by itself as it does not provide a citizen with a choice on whether to vote or not, resulting in a serious debate around the issue. However, I must agree with the critics of the system, as the people voting because they have to, are likely to be less passionate and well informed about the person they have to
are legitimate laws that people follow and there has been no dictatorship yet! Canada is a stable
Barnes, Lithwick, and Virgint explain: “Canadians appeared to prefer the current FPTP system to a system which includes proportional representation. However, the consultations also found that respondents were “open” to considering change, including a voting system in which every vote for a party counts” (p. 1). As previously mentioned, the MMP system still aligns with FPTP in the way that it still uses a single member to represent each constituency, and the first vote which a citizen casts for a candidate will still use FPTP principles to calculate the winner. The main difference between these two systems is the party vote, which is used to fill the remaining seats and compensate for any discrepancies would allow Canadians a greater say in who is
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...
Should Canadians turn to compulsory voting for answers? Many democracies throughout the globe, including Australia, Belgium, Greece, and Luxembourg, employ mandatory voting and report an average turnout rate of 90 percent ("Canadian Parliamentary Review - Article"). In light of this, establishing electoral participation as a civic duty seems pretty reasonable. Particularly considering the guaranteed increase in voter participation, it seems like the perfect solution. When examined father in-depth, however, one will discover the issue poses some
Different states have various ways of ruling and governing their political community. The way states rule reflects upon the political community and the extent of positive and negative liberty available to their citizens. Canada has come a long way to establishing successful rights and freedoms and is able to do so due to the consideration of the people. These rights and freedoms are illustrated through negative and positive liberties; negative liberty is “freedom from” and positive liberty is “freedom to”. A democracy, which is the style of governing utilized by Canada is one that is governed more so by the citizens and a state is a political community that is self-governing which establishes rules that are binding.
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.
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.
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.
First of all, let us start with First Past The Post. FPTP is the current voting system which is used for electing MPs to the House of Commons. Using this voting system voters choose one candidate they wish, by putting a cross in a box next to a candidate’s name. A candidate wins if he or she gets the most votes in the constituency. Plurality voting and Simple majority voting are two other names of FPTP. This voting system is easy to understand and gives voters possible view on which party might win elections. However, Liberal Democrats argue that FPTP has many disadvantages and beneficial only for Labour and Torries. That is why Liberal Democrats proposed an alternative for FPTP, the system named Proportional Representation (PR).