Political Citizenship

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

Opposing the belief that a dominating leader is running Canada, Barker brings up several key realities of the Canadian government. He gives examples of several “… instances of other ministers taking action that reveal the limits prime-ministerial power,” (Barker 178). Barker conveys the fact that Canada is not bound by a dictatorial government, “…it seems that the prime minister cannot really control his individual ministers. At times, they will pursue agendas that are inconsistent with the prime minister’s actions,” (Barker 181). Both inside and outside government are a part of Canada and they can remind the prime minister that “…politics is a game of survival for all players,” (Barker 188). Barker refutes the misinterpretation of the Canadian government by acknowledging that a prime-ministerial government existing in Canada is an overstatement.

Many modern democracies have a bicameral legislature which is a body of government that consist of two legislative chambers. The bicameral legislature provides representation for both, the citizens of the country and the state legislature on a federal level. The Canadian parliament has two chambers, the lower chamber which is an elected House of Commons and the upper chamber which is the non-elected Senate. The Canadian Senate is assumed to be a “sober second thought” [3] on government legislation which is a phrase that describes the Senate’s role in promoting and defending regional interest. There has been an immense amount of the public outcry regarding the Senate after spending scandal that occurred during the recent election period. A question that has induced discussion in parliament is whether the Canadian Senate should be reformed or not? This issue divides the population in half because of differing views. Some political parties want the abolition of the Senate to occur while other parties would like to have an elected Senate because provinces are not represented equally. A method of deciding the faith of the current Senate, the functions of the Senate and objectives of Senate reform should be defined. The assumptions about the purpose of the Senate, problems of the current Senate, the goal of Senate reform and the method of achieving the reform may help provide a consensus on how the Senate should be reformed.

In theory, the Parliament is the most important institution in the Canadian government and all members of the parliament are equal. The Prime Minister is supposed to be primus inter pares, meaning first among equals. But over the years, the cabinet has become more institutionalized and less departmentalized. Hence the Prime Minister’s power has increased over the years. Canada is the one of the most decentralized federations in the

Basically, voters select one candidate from their riding, just like in an SMP system, but they also place a vote for which party they would like to form the government. This second vote determines the amount of seats that each party gains proportional to the amount of votes they collected in the countries. The representatives from each party are then made up of the elected representatives from each riding (if that party was able to elect any) and other members selected by the leader1. An STV system, which is what the Citizen’s Assembly recommended to the people of BC, can be found in Ireland, Malta, and in some levels of government in Australia. Voters rank candidates according to their priorities, choosing as many as they wish. For example, a certain voter could select a Conservative as his or her first choice, a Liberal as the second, a New Democrat as third, and then cast no votes for the Green Party. When each a candidate reaches a certain quota of first place votes, they are elected, and the extra first place votes that they did not need are distributed to the other parties according to their overall ranking. If a second candidate is then elected, his or her extra votes are then distributed to the remaining parties, and so on . This system is rather complicated, especially when compared to our current system, but computerized voting systems have generally alleviated any problems.

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

Today, Ontario and Quebec have maintained their 24 member senatorial status. The four Western provinces have 6 members each. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick both have 10 seats. Prince Edward Island was given 4 out of the original 24 Maritime senators. Together, Newfoundland and Labrador have a total of 6 members. Finally, Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories stand in the equation with 1 senator apiece. Along with the Senate`s original intentions, the principle of equality between the provinces is evidently lost. The Senate primarily fails because it was formerly created to balance out the representation by population which lies in the House of Commons however currently only seems to reinforce it. In fact, Canada’s central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, account for 60 percent of the seats in the House of Commons and almost half of the seats in the Senate at 46 percent.5 The inadequacy of regional representation is emphasized as the Canada West Foundation clearly states: “Canada is the only democratic federal system in the world in which the regions with the largest populations dominate both houses of the national legislature.“6 With an unelected Senate that no longer fulfills its role of equal regional representation and a House of Commons grounded on the representation of provinces proportional to their population, the legitimacy of Parliament has become a

The Senate was established for predominately two reasons: act as a check on legislation passed by the Executive and House of Commons and as scholar Shamus Reid asserts “it was meant to enhance the intra-state nature of Canada’s federalism by offering a regional perspective in federal government policy-making.” Most academics would agree that the Senate has done reasonably well fulfilling its first obligation. However, the Senate has not acted as admirably on the latter role; this stems from the “Prime Minister [being] given free reign in the Constitution to nominate any individual believed to fit the Senate’s mandate, allowing for the reparation of potential deficits of professional perspective in the policy-making process. () Consequently, this results in Senators that are inherently loyal party members and partisan rather than fervent regional advocates and may result in Senators representing the interests of the party instead of a region. Because of the deficiencies present in the current system under which the Senate operates, the Triple E Senate Reform movement from Alberta grew in political strength and espoused the the Senate as not just a “sober second thought” but also to fulfill its obligations to the lower population regions of Canada.

The Canadian Senate has been a long standing problematic section of the Canadian government and since its creation in 1867 and has been scrutinized for its effectiveness and purpose. In recent years, concerns have been raised and approaches have been suggested into reforming the Senate. Those in favour of taking drastic measures to reform or even abolish the Senate agree that the Senate is not functioning and not a trustworthy part of Canadian government. However, there are those who view that the Senate can still be saved say it has a purpose in the Canadian government since it serves a vital function in passing Canadian legislature. Nonetheless, maintaining a government body that is non functional needs to be addressed and revised and gone

The love or lust for a specific individual is a common conflict in personal rivalries today. A universal understanding of the term rivalry is the competition for the same objective or superiority in the same field. Many rivalries are established in the chronicles of the Salem witch trials. These often correlate to the lust or love rivalries or personal rivalries between two or more characters. Arthur Miller's timeless classic The Crucible demonstrates the fight between good and evil of rivalries through an engaging plot. Personal rivalries are a major component in the theme of Arthur Miller's play.

The Senate plays a key role in tandem with the House of Commons, in the operation of Canada’s government, some people think that the Senate should be abolished; however without the Senate, “The right to bear arms” could become true for Canada. The Senate should be reformed; abolishing or keeping the Senate at its current state would be unjust. The current Senate is not elected, effective, nor equal.

Citizenship can be defined as the position or status of being a citizen in a particular country (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). This definition is not very broad, nor does it cover the many aspects of citizenship that exist in the 21st century. It is not only about being a legal citizen of a particular country, it is also about being a social citizen. You can be a citizen of Australia but choose to live elsewhere for the majority of your life. In terms of citizenship it is relevant on a political and social level. If you are actively contributing to the country in which you live in some ways you are fulfilling your duties as a citizen.

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.” Without the right that the Constitution brings us, we wouldn’t have rights therefore the United States wouldn’t be a good place to live in. The Constitution brings us the right of freedom of speech (first amendment) , the right to bear arms (second amendment), and the right to protect against unreasonable government actions such as search and seizure of person property (fourth amendment). Being an American citizen means that you have rights that they would like you to fulfil. As an American citizen is it voluntary to vote, but others are required such as obeying the law and paying taxes. The Magna Carta, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, and the Petition of Rights explains the rights and the responsibilities of an American citizen.

SIN office had done our best to coordinate all local operation for this damaged case.

“Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me, I once was lost and now I’m found…” Newton’s tune echoed through the church choir as one walks down the aisle next to the pews. Still to this day, millions of common people step foot into places of worship every Sunday, this behavior was a huge part of life in the middle ages. The church played a large role in the lives of the citizens in the middle age society. It gave a sense of routine into their lives as well as certain expectations. This somewhat strict lifestyle gave the common people a sense of judgement and prejudice for those who did not live by these standards.