Karen Bird's Representation In Representative Democracy

The rights of many people versus the rights of an individual is certainly a vexing concept. Like a delicate balancing act; if one side is favoured over the other it causes a rift in the already strained relationship between the minority and majority. Evidently, the justification of taking any side must be valid, according to the theories of H.L.A. Hart. In the past, Canadian law has violated the rights of minorities; however, these violations have decreased in their severity as time has passed on. Some cases where the balance between minority and majority rights is questioned is in The Canadian Indian Residential School System, Bill 101, Equality in the Workplace and The Public Service Act.

The authors further explain their reasons for calling America a “racial democracy” and how conflicted they are. Jason Stanley and Weaver explain how minorities

Over the course of the Revolutionary War, the people of the colonies fought for freedom, liberty, and a fair government. They were pursuing a better society, and wanted a non-tyrannical administration. They needed their government to reflect this. The Constitution addressed and embodied the ideals and opinions of the people during the Revolutionary Era, which included a need for a representative democracy, checks and balances on the government, and a protection for the citizen’s rights.

According to Elections Canada (2011), the right to vote is a major equitable right that is ensured by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the foundation of democracy. When we vote, we pick the representatives who will make the laws and strategies that represent how we live together. The authenticity of an administration lies in the way that it is chosen. Low voter turnouts may call into inquiry the legitimacy of authority. While democracy includes a great deal holding elections every five years, voting is an effective approach to make an impression on governments and legislators. The more votes, the more compelling the message is. Ultimately, each vote counts. To vote in Canada at any level of government, you must be a Canadian citizen. (“Why Should I Vote”, 2011) As a result, masses of adults who reside in Canada are denied the right to vote because they are not Canadian citizens. There is no question that the status of citizenship has been contested since the migration trend in Canada soared the past 20 years. (Siemiatycki, 2011) These residents work, pay local taxes, use city services, send their children to school but cannot vote. (Munro, 2008) Giving non-citizens voting rights would give permanent residents an opportunity to participate in decisions made on local services and issues, fostering a sense of

In the eyes of many Canadians our country is viewed as a historically racially-inclusive society. This idea is false, and there is very limited evidence to support the contrary. Many events in Canada’s history have shows that it is guilty of promoting racial hierarchies and cultural insensitivities. Throughout Canada’s development there has always remained an emphasis on promoting the supremacy of the white race, and Anglo-Canadian culture.

As a fellow delegate of the province of Ontario, I believe that the predicament of having only the government and its associates of having their voices heard upon, leads to an unrepresentative perspective view towards various events that occurred within the process of confederation. The numerous misheard voices of various ethnic and religious background, and even gender wise in confederation predominantly affects our government as a whole. A significant amount of bias is present, without the multitudinous perspectives of those’ points of view, creating significantly narrow perspectives for various situations. This matter is eminently crucial towards the province of Ontario, and most importantly, towards the dominion of Canada. They have their rights to have their say in the agreements and/or elections of various events, as they too, are formal citizens of this profound nation, whom is expanding and developing their population over periods of time

Trudeau’s three-phased Senate reforms give minority group leaders an opportunity to represent their communities. The reforms attempt to shift the focus from gaining support for the Liberal party, to a collection of different and diverse minds within the Senate. The first phase of the reforms focused on the “[removal of] all senators from the national Liberal caucus”, which inherently suggested that “senators [no longer] have formal or organic ties with the Liberal caucus, nor do they have any organizational, financial or other formal responsibilities within the Liberal Party” (Dion, 2015, para. 5). Going from there, the “[creation of] a new, nonpartisan, merit-based, broad and diverse process to advise the prime minister on Senate appointments” was the second item on the agenda (Dion, 2015, para. 6). Finally, the third phase targeted the inclusion of marginalized groups, such as women and minorities, in the Senate (Dion, 2015). Therefore, Trudeau’s appointments are changing the direction of the Senate to include historically-oppressed minorities and their representatives.

Representation inclusivity has therefore made large strides in provincial and federal parliaments, but elections remain the strongest way to increase inclusivity through the election of brand new members.

In politics, racial and ethnic backgrounds tend to outline the outcomes of public policies- especially in minority communities. Minorities in the United States yearly increase due to both legal and illegal immigration (Shaw et al. 332). The trend will continue and by the middle of the 21st century, the minority population, cumulatively, will surpass the so-called White majority in the United States. The definitions of pluralism and two-tiered pluralism differ between the person’s race and ethnic backgrounds. As for the minorities, it may both bring some advantages and as well as disadvantages in public participation and the passing of public policies; however, in current times, two-tiered pluralism is becoming more dominant in politics as the racial divide within the United States continues to worsen.

Canada is compared to America in almost everything, specifically racial inequality, and this Maclean’s article illustrates that Canada might have an even worse racial problem than America does. When discussing racial inequality in America, the treatment of African-Americans is highlighted, and in Canada the unequal treatment of Aboriginal people must be discussed. This article proves through many statistics, that the treatment of Canadian Aboriginals, is worse than the treatment of African-Americans in the United States, and yet this social problem is still ignored often by the masses. This article tries to figure out why this social problem persists in such a modern day society, and found that the inequality is represented in all different forms of Canadian institutions. Meaning that this social problem is perpetuated by the treatment, and sometimes lack of positive recognition, of visible minorities in the justice system as well as other institutions.

America was founded on the basic principle of democracy…right? Isn’t that the freedom we were searching for when the voyagers left Europe to form the US in the first place? The irony in this is that we are often taught to believe that the United States uses a true democracy. Over the years the United States has contradicted many of their basic ideologies and principles that we were founded on. For the most part, our Constitution has remained basically intact, other than minor exceptions here and there. However, our founding documents are extremely open ended and leave much room to change and interpret throughout time. Due to the flexibility of the United States founding documents the country practices a representative democracy rather

Canadian politics still operate under the outdated First Past the Post electoral system. Many believe that it is time for Canada to change its electoral system to a Proportional Representation system. This would be especially beneficial for Aboriginal peoples, as they remain severely under-represented and discriminated by the First Past the Post system. This essay will argue that the current First Past the Post electoral system in Canada is oppressive of Aboriginal peoples for these reasons: it creates barriers for Aboriginal candidates to be elected, it leaves

Historically in America, voting has been a relatively discriminatory practice. It has limited and deprived many individuals of many diverse races, ethnicities, and walks of life from casting their votes to select the individual who they feel is most educated, and skilled to represent their interests. Not only has this been proven to be wrong by discriminating minority groups in voting, it also has proved to be a process, which minimizes the largest growing demographics in the country. Furthermore, with millennials growing to become more politically active, minority groups are becoming more politically involved than ever. Taking this into account an important question that is raised by the author William Eskridge in his book “Legislation and Statutory Interpretation” is “Would minorities be better off with more representatives who had to pay attention to their interests because they are a powerful and organized constituency, rather than with a few representatives of minority districts who specialize in protecting only their interests?” (Eskridge,Frickley,& Garrett, 2006, pp.55).

A country built on immigration, Canada has long had a reputation of being culturally and ethnically diverse. While multiculturalism is meant to be built on equality and appreciation of different cultures, its concept has gained both support and opposition. On one hand, it allows for more assortment and the voices of minorities have a higher chance to be heard. On the other hand, loss of unity and conflicts may occur due to contrasting worldviews of the citizens. All in all, multiculturalism is a controversial policy that has both advantages and disadvantages, but has proven to be a successful strategy in Canada.

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