Untitled document (18)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Guelph *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2300
Subject
Political Science
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by SargentFang5161
-
POLS 2300 Long answer exam -
-
Practice relevance
-
Two part question – 1.5 marks for definition and 3.5 marks for relevance
-
Do not spend more than 10 minutes on each question
-
-
SECTION II – DEFINE AND GIVE RELEVANCE ANSWER
-
One member, one vote (OMOV) is a method of selecting a leader within a political party in Canada. Under this method, all members of the party cast a ballot directly for their preferred leadership candidate. It is now the main way that federal parties select leaders. All federal parties use a preferential
or ranked ballot, where the winner needs an absolute majority (50% plus 1)
to become the leader. For instance, Pierre Poilievre won the Conservative leadership on first ballot with 68% in 2023.
-
-
SECTION II – DEFINE AND GIVE RELEVANCE ANSWER
-
OMOV is relevant to understanding Canadian politics for a couple of reasons. First, OMOV, as a form of leadership selection, matters because of how important party leaders are in Canadian politics. Leaders become PMs, premiers and/or leaders of opposition who perform roles in the House of Commons (e.g. Question period) and elections (e.g. leaders’ debates and tours). More specific, OMOV has significantly increased the number of people involved in leader selection. Over Canada’s history, leaders have been selected by caucus (~1867 – 1920s) and then by delegates (1920 – 1990s). As such, OMOV has created significantly more internal party democracy by allowing all members to participate. Third, this is only one of a few activities that party members can actually participate in
a political party. The other main activity is candidate selection and, potentially, supporting that candidate in an election. Many people join political parties just to participate in leadership selection. Finally, leadership
convention are important events for parties, by attracting a lot of media attention.
-
-
SECTION III – LONG ANSWER
-
For each grouping of two, answer both questions. Each answer should be 2-4
-
paragraphs in length. Be sure to define all key concepts (explicit or implicit), justify all arguments, use specific examples where applicable and
answer all components of the question. If more than one question is answered from a grouping, only the first question will be graded. Each question is worth 12.5 marks for a total of 25 marks.
-
-
SECTION III – LONG ANSWERS
-
The Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords were attempts by PM Brian Mulroney to get Québec to sign the 1982 Constitution. Which was a better deal for Québec? In your answer, be sure to (i) provide a brief overview of each Accord, (ii) discuss how each Accord addressed Québec’s constitutional concerns, and (iii) provide a justification for which Accord was a better deal for Québec. All questions in this section discuss more than one idea, and often from different units 20 minutes question
-
-
The Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, both proposed by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, were attempts to address the constitutional concerns of Quebec and gain its formal acceptance of the 1982 Constitution. The Meech Lake Accord, negotiated in 1987, aimed to address Quebec's concerns regarding the recognition of its distinct society and increased powers in areas of immigration and constitutional amendments. However, it faced opposition, particularly from Indigenous groups and other provinces, ultimately failing to be ratified by all provinces.
-
-
The Charlottetown Accord, proposed in 1992, expanded on the Meech Lake Accord by addressing Indigenous rights and emphasizing the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. It included provisions for provincial vetoes on constitutional amendments and increased powers for provinces. Despite extensive negotiations, the Charlottetown Accord faced significant opposition in a national referendum, leading to its rejection.
-
-
In evaluating which Accord was a better deal for Quebec, it is essential to consider the factors that contributed to their successes and failures. The Meech Lake Accord fell short due to its inability to garner unanimous provincial support. On the other hand, the Charlottetown Accord, while addressing some of the shortcomings of Meech Lake, faced widespread public rejection. From Quebec's perspective, both Accords had limitations, but the Charlottetown Accord offered a more comprehensive approach by attempting to address Indigenous rights and expanding the recognition of Quebec's distinct status. However, its ultimate failure in the referendum
suggests that neither Accord was entirely satisfactory for Quebec.
-
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help