Electoral Constraint In Canadian Politics Essay

In a democratic system it is vital that citizens engage in their civic duty of voting; only then can a proper governing body be chosen to represent the will of the majority. Abraham Lincoln got to the core of democracy when he stated, “the government of the people, by the people and for the people.” In the last 50 years of Canadian history we have begun to see a decline in voter turnout; ranging from 80% of citizens voting in 1962, gradually dwindling to 59.1% in the year 2008 (Dickerson, Flanagan & O'Neill, 2010). It is important to understand why

Now that you are up to date with currents events I will briefly touch on some strong point of the Canadian democratic system. Citizens in Canada indirectly hold power in a free electoral system and are given better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than other systems of government. The freedom of speech, freedom of political expression, and the freedom of the media allow citizens to vote in favour of their own interest. Democracy in Canada is rooted on the grounds of equal rights; this gives people equality before the law, human rights, free and fair elections and so on. In comparison to the Third World, power is in the hands of the “Big Men”, the police and army are the ones who hold control not the people and where corruption is a norm, Canada may look like a utopia. Another strong point in the Canadian political system is everyone no matter race or sex has the right to vote as long as you are a Canadian citizen over the age of eighteen. Until the 60s/70s parties would make up electoral boundaries this was done to increase the number of votes in that location this is called gerrymander, this was unfair because certain parties had an advantage over others. However, now under the Electoral Boundaries Commissions this problem does not occur and no party has the upper hand over another. Interestingly the

The electoral system in Canada is also known as a “first past the post” system. “First past the post” means the candidate with the highest number of votes wins the congressional seat, whereas the other candidates with a lower number of votes don’t get any representation. There are many cons to this system that will be highlighted throughout this essay. I will argue that the electoral system requires reform due to the discrepancies between the percentage of popular votes and the number of seats won. Canada’s electoral system has many problems and is not seen as fully democratic since it has provided poor representation for both candidates that win and lose. Candidates can win seats with less than 50% of votes, meaning that even if the majority of the nation, or province did not vote for the candidate they still win the election as they consume the highest number of votes among the parties. FPTP allows two people in different ridings to get the same number of votes with the outcome of one winner since the distribution of votes and seats are unequal. The system can also encourage strategic voting such as not voting for whom you think is the best fit but voting for the candidate that seems most likely to win in order to beat candidate you dislike. FPTP leads to an imbalance of power and has the potential for corruption.

Federally, there is a commission put together each decade to reassess electoral boundaries; sometimes boundaries are redrawn, sometimes in the event of a population boom in an area – a move from rural to urban. Normally, “the number of voters per constituency should not… vary more than + or – 25% from the average,” (SFU.ca). The number of electoral district equals the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of that province; in New Brunswick, there are currently 55 seats in the Legislative Assembly. This means that, unlike some electoral systems, there is only one candidate running in each riding. For a potential Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) to win their seat, they must get a higher percentage of the vote – just one percent higher. Because one only needs one percent more than their contestants, rather than majority of the vote, SMP is sometimes referred to as “first past the post.” Finally, the party and leader can form the government if they have more seats than the other parties; this does not really take into account the popular vote. If the leading party won more than half of the seats it is referred to as a majority government; however, if less than half the seats were won it is called a minority government and, if the opposition and other parties so choose, they can vote to dissolve government, thus calling an election.

Harper used the weak liberal leaders to ensure he stayed in power and he was able to ensure that a coalition did not happen between the Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois. He remained strong when the possibility of his government being replaced by a coalition almost happened, he was successful by saying that the deal the liberals made was “‘a betrayal of the voters of this country… a betrayal of the best interests of our economy… a betrayal of the best interests of our country. And we will fight it with every means that we have’” (223). Harper kept his opponents divided and he showed Canadians that he was not going anywhere. Finally, he showed leadership after winning a majority by promising “‘major reforms’ in ‘a whole range of areas’ to ‘secure the sustainability of our key programs… for a generation to come’” (364). This showed that he was just getting started. Stephen Harper’s leadership style was to remain a strong leader while making as few headlines as possible. Harper did not like making headlines, “This helps explain why he has lasted. He lies low because he wants to last” (291). Harper was an effective leader because he knew how to keep a low profile which limited the amount of bad

Canada’s friendly neighbor to the South, the US, has an electoral system that is composed of 3 separate elections, one of them deciding the head of state. The president elected by the people and he or she is the determining person of the country’s political system. In the US runs like a majority system” In Canada, however, elections are held slightly differently. Citizens vote for a Member of Parliament in a 308-seat house and candidates win not by a majority, unlike in the US, but by a plurality. This means that a candidate can actually win by simply having more votes than the other candidates. This method of representative democracy, in general, does not cause too much controversy in a global scope but has

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

The first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system used in Canada poses several constraints on political parties, benefitting some and hindering others. Under the FPTP system a winning candidate simply requires one more vote than the next candidate to win the seat, thus emphasizing the importance of regionally concentrated constituent bases (Dickerson & Flanagan, 2009). This structural constraint is inherent to the FPTP electoral system and benefits the Conservative party, who have several regions of concentrated support across Canada. Alberta

How can the Canadian government be dominated by one ruler when it has democratic elections with many competing parties? Mellon believes that Canadian elections have low voter turnouts and even lower public interest. Canadian elections are essentially sporadic. Finally, Mellon also believes that prime ministers “…are supported by a growing circle of advisors, pollsters, and spin doctors that help protect their position,” (Hugh 175). The main focus of Mellon’s argument is this idea of a prime-ministerial government.

Canadian electoral system is largely based on the single member plurality (SMP) system which was inherited from its former British colonial masters. The system dates back to several years before the formation of the Canadian confederation. Some of the common features of the Canadian electoral system include election candidates to represent designated geographical areas popularly known as” ridings”, counting and tallying of the votes casted on the basis of the districts as opposed to the parties of the candidates (Dyck, 622). Finally, a candidate only needs a simple majority over the other candidates in order to be considered a winner, even if the winner has a small percentage of votes. This system has however been heavily criticized for its winner takes all way of judging victory. Critics argue that if the winner takes over the whole system, it may result into unfair representation of the various social groups, but it may also bring into power unstable minority participation in government. For example, a candidate can win even with barely 25% of all the votes casted, while the small parties may end up with no seats in the parliament.

The Four Political Parties of Canada       In a country as vast and as culturally diverse as Canada, many different political opinions can be found stretched across the country. From the affluent neighbourhoods of West Vancouver to the small fishing towns located on the east coast of Newfoundland, political opinions and affiliations range from the left wing to the right wing. To represent these varying political views, Canada has four official national political parties to choose from: the Liberals (who are currently in power), the Progressive Conservatives, the New Democrats, and the Reform Party. What is particularly interesting is that none of the latter three parties compose Her Majesty's Official Opposition in the House

Although, recent national election polls clearly show Stephen Harper could win a fourth term as Canada’s Prime Minister, Mr. Harper will in fact have a difficult time explaining a senate scandal, an economic crisis, and insensitive domestic and foreign policies. Therefore, this election could very well be the end of Mr. Harper’s term as Prime Minister.

There is a fundamental problem with the democratic process in Canada. This problem is rooted within our electoral system. However, there is a promising solution to this issue. Canada should adopt the mixed-member proportional representation electoral system (MMP) at the federal level if we wish to see the progression of modern democracy. The failure to do so will result in a stagnant political system that is caught in the past and unable to rise to the contemporary challenges that representative democracies face. If Canada chooses to embrace the MMP electoral system it will reap the benefits of greater proportionality, prevent the centralization of power that is occurring in Parliament and among political parties through an increased

In 1971 when the Conservatives ended the Socred hold on power, the Conservative Party succeeded by “neutralizing ideology and focusing on ‘safe change,’ that is, a change of faces but not policies.” The 1971 election brought into office the Progressive Conservative Party under the leadership of Peter Lougheed; Lougheed than served as premier until 1985, when he was replaced by Don Getty. In 1986 general election, Alberta PC win the election with 61 seats, NDP getting 16 seats, liberal getting 4 seats in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and Alberta PC also win 1989 general election of Alberta. Getty’s decision to resign in 1992 “ushered in the leadership election that provides the point of departure.” Alberta’s electoral history

Canada is one of the largest and most culturally diverse countries in the world. These characteristics make the democratic governing of the country a difficult task. A democratic model is needed that respects the fundamental rights and freedoms of various diverse cultures, and unites these cultures over a huge land mass as Canadians. To do this the Canadian government is one which is pluralist. Pluralism is the ideology that groups, (in Canada's case political parties), should rule in government. These parties help protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone living in Canada, regardless of their ethnicity, or religious beliefs. The role political parties play in Canada is vital for