Pros And Cons Of A Majoritarian Government

Under a minority government, no party has ultimate control of making policies, it instead rules on consensus with the other parties, conversely, in a majority government, a single-party dominates the legislative process. Though complex agreements between opposition parties, the governing party can maintain confidence. For example, countries including Canada use contract parliamentarism, where opposition parties agree to support the government in return for policy on other concessions (Akash et al., 2010, p. 216). While this promotes collective responsibility, parties are still able to decide their own position on most matters. Therefore, parties collaborate to protect minority agreements that “often survive a full parliamentary term” (Akash et al., p. 216). This can result in motions being passed that cover a broad variety of different topics that ultimately can address issues that all parties see lacking in

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

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.

Majoritarian government is a good idea in theory but this system would not last. When you think about a government ruled by majority, you tend to think that it would be a good thing because it is simpler than the electoral college and it would be what the majority of America wanted. However, you have to think about the downsides of this idea. It would not create a lot of stability in our government. It is no secret that we elect our president and the idea is that the majority of America favor that presidential candidate. Still, you see all the time that people are not happy or satisfied when their preferred candidate is not elected. I believe that majoritarianism would make this problem worse. It would allow for minorities to be excluded easily because if they did not have the majority support then they would never be able to win representation in government. Quickly, the government would end up being overtaken by a specific party. A big danger would be a political party becoming too powerful if they continue to control representation in election after election. The reigning majority could end up just becoming like a monarchy if they stay in power long enough.

Section 3 of the Charter grants all Canadian citizens the right to fair and free elections, allowing them to select a legitimate Member of Parliament (MP) to make decisions and fairly represents them. Canada 's First-past-the-post (FPTP) system provides a simple and effective way to do this, allowing for the creation of a stable, efficient government. Although the First-past-the-post (FPTP) system has served Canada well for numerous years, many flaws exist within it, and have created pressing problems for Canadian representative democracy. Instances, such as the Conservative Party winning majority with 39.6% of the votes , reveal that this system does not accurately reflect the voter preference, but instead can distort it. The outcome between the votes cast and the seats assigned is disproportional, usually over-representing the leading party and penalizing minority parties. This is further exacerbated in a case like the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois, where the concentration of party support led to misrepresentation in seats. In addition, under-representation also exists in relation to gender and ethnicity. The FPTP system favors broadly acceptable parties and candidates, thus excluding minority parties and women from parliament. Although benefits of the FPTP system exist, the shortcomings lead to problematic, distorted representation, citizen dissatisfaction and decreasing voter turnout, and the undermining of national unity.

Representing Canadians Abby The two types of government, majority and minority come with specific advantages and disadvantages. In majority government, a major advantage that comes with it is that the winning party has more than half of the seats in the house of commons. This entitles the winning party to be able to make laws based on their own judgement because they do not need the other parties to vote with them for the laws to flow through. A disadvantage of majority government is that things can quickly start to become a dictatorship rather than a democracy.

Voting establishes choice; it allows opportunities and variety to be discovered amongst individuals. In Canada, voters choose to elect one Member of Parliament in their riding. The political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons becomes the government’s ruling party. If this party wins more than half the seats, it forms a majority government. If they win less than half the seats, it results in a hung parliament, which can either, be a minority government or a coalition. Canada mostly forms minority governments, which are made up of cabinet ministers from the party alone and the rest is left up to chance that opposing members will support their plans. I agree with the statement that minority governments are preferable to majority governments because in order to remain in power and maintain confidence in the House of Commons they have to negotiate with other parties. Since they do not have a majority, they cannot use “party discipline” to confirm support in legislature. (Minority Governments in Canada, 2007) Due to this, they must work with opposition parties in order to garner support for their government legislation.

Canada’s political system is bases on a democratic constitutional monarchy It is a political system referred to legislature, which is created to lower the power and monarchy. In Canada, the legislative branch includes the House of Commons, the Senate and the governor general, which refers to the part of the government that create the laws Canada's legislature system is democratic, which allows members to suggest and propose laws. Before becoming a law, a bill must pass through several stages, throughout these stages, the members of the minister can improve the law The House of Commons and the Senate must both equally approve the bills before it is processed as a

In knowing this, skeptics note that if these theories are legitimate, the government would organize such chaos for their own interest. Population control would benefit them greatly (Brennan). An example of this in other countries would be the law they have in China where they are only allowed to have one child. More people are being born than are dying and resource depletion has become a growing concern with the worldwide population tipping seven billion. Experts gather that what was once gathered to be a boundless amount of nonrenewable resources is expected to be exploited within the next century. With New York City hosting nearly eight million people, why would not the United States government target this breeding ground for millions more

I think having a proportional representation would be the best course of action. The number of representatives would be proportional (corresponding in the size, to population of each states), which would be the most fair. I think this government is better because the smaller states ,such as Rhode Island, won ́t get as many votes as a bigger state like Virginia. I feel that it is unfair to the bigger states that the smaller states, with less people, get the same amount of votes than a bigger state, with a larger population. Having the Virginia plan, which was a proportional representation government,with 2 house legislature,(a deliberative body of persons, usually elective, who are employed to make, change, or repeal the laws of the country

In Introduction to Political Science: How to Think for Yourself about Politics alternative principles of representation were presented, but let’s focus on Majoritarian and Proportional. In a majoritarian system, delegates are chosen by gaining the popular vote and are believed to have the most backing. Voting in majoritarian systems uses an electoral method which gives the right to appoint all the representatives of the majority of the electors, denying representation to all minorities. In a proportional, the goal is to have diversity represented in the group through two different kinds of list systems. The first is an open list meaning, a specific representative within a party is voted into “parliament. The second is a closed list, where a

The Chinese majoritarian democracy is definitely more concentrated than the British one, if they are to be compared. The main decisions are made by the CPC Central Committee. From a Western view it is severely against the principle of democracy, which is the division of power. Admittedly the defects are disturbing. However, there are also some indisputable advantages with this model, and the result is significant.

In this day in age, Politics have a vast impact on the world we live in. Leadership, on a macro-level, has mantled the world through all of time. These consecutive political systems have developed to become a government. Each government varies throughout each country. Thus, created different forms of government: Autocracy, Monarchy, Socialism, Communism, Theocracy, Plutocracy, and Pluralism. These forms of government are created based of one’s absolute routes, means of production, elimination of inequalities, religious views, wealth, and compromisation. There are seven forms of government but no single group holds dominant power. This act of power classifies each countries government to be democratic or nondemocratic. From the system of beliefs, mostly democracies, subsequently created political parties for public policy. Having a choice in a political system, is a great benefit for an election. The function of the two party system has been the most effective throughout the modern political era.

He proposes ten criteria to distinguish the majoritarian from the consensus in the two dimensions: “executives-parties dimension” and “ federal-unitary dimension”. Finally, Lijphart (2012) argues that consensus is “more democratic than majoritarian” in most aspects (p. 7), because consensus model is described by “negotiation democracy”.