Should Canada Use A Fair Electoral System?

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

Proportional representation is almost always acknowledged as the fairest electoral system. With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair

The Canadian electoral system is criticized for using the single member plurality (SMP) system more commonly known as first past the post, we adopted system from the British because at the time there were only two political parties in Canada. The current problem now is that many people feel that the system is unfair given that a party is able to gain a majority government even if they received less than fifty percent of the vote. As long as they have the majority of the popular vote, that party wins. However, the first past the post system has been able to establish a clear line of accountability between the elected representative and the voters. Yet, the public still feels that a proportional representation system would be

The second reason why FPTP should not be used for elections to the House of Commons is that it is not representative, meaning that the percentage share of votes is not proportional to the percentage share of seats, because of single member constituencies. This is a weakness as it means that there is not a fair level of representation within the House of Commons, which makes the system less democratic as not everybody’s views are entirely represented in Parliament. For example, in the 2010 general elections, the Conservative party won 36% of votes, but a staggering 47.1% of seats, whilst UKIP gained 3.1% of votes, but 0% of seats, indicating the tendency of FPTP to radically distort the relationship between votes and seats. Due to the fact that FPTP is a plurality system, rather than a majoritarian one, MPs can win the seat by as little as 1 vote, meaning that

FPTP is the voting system used for the election of MPs to 'seats' in the UK Parliament. It is a system in which the 'winner takes all' and usually gives a clear majority both at constituency and national level. This means that a candidate in a constituency only needs one more vote than the nearest rival to win the seat. Similarly, political parties only need to win one more seat in the House of Commons to have a majority.

Since the turn of the twenty first century, in Canada voter turnout has made a significant and consecutive decline. In the last five federal elections on average only sixty-one per cent of eligible voters voted. If each eligible citizen voted in an election the government would be on par with the primary interests of the people. The easiest way to achieve this objective is by implementing a compulsory voting system. Mandatory voting systems are appealing because all citizens are affected by decisions made by the government, so it makes sense to have all those affected apart of the election process. As a result, the voting results would be more representative of the country and that would lead to an increase of stability and legitimacy.

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

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 (FPTP) system is also known as the 'winner-take-all' system, in which the candidate with the most votes gets elected. FPTP voting methods can be used for single and multiple member elections. In a single member election the candidate with the highest number, not necessarily a majority, of votes is elected.

The system that the Law Commission ultimately recommended was the mixed-member proportional electoral system. In the MMP system a portion of representatives, usually between 50 and 60 percent, are elected from single-member districts, similar to FPTP, with the remainder of seats being elected from party lists, based on the party’s share of the popular vote (Law Commission 22). Each voter gets to cast two votes, one for the party that they support and another for the representative member that they prefer. Party lists can be either closed, where voters are not able to influence the order of candidates, or open, where voters have the ability to influence the ranking of candidates. A threshold for representation is usually set in order to prevent fringe and extremist parties from gaining seats in government. This system is used in Germany, New Zealand, Venezuela and Lesotho (Joseph 113).

The federal electoral system, also known as the voting system, is a way for citizens to choose their political representatives. Canada’s federal election takes place every four years, with Canada currently consisting of 338 electoral ridings. The party that is elected with the most ridings in the federal election will be in charge of forming the new government, with the leader of that party being declared the new prime minister of

Election day in Canada comes around again, but, like many others, Mr. Low decides to stay home. He thinks that there is no point in voting, since the results in his riding are always the same and the candidate he votes for never wins. One may think that he is just being a sore loser, but he has a very valid point. In Mr. Low’s riding, there are three main parties; Liberal, NDP, and Conservative. Mr. Low favours the Liberal candidate, but he knows he has no chance of winning as the outcome is usually either the NDP or Conservative candidate. Mr. Low can tolerate the NDP, but he really does not like the Conservative. Therefore if he were to vote, he would vote for the NDP, not because he genuinely wants to, but because he wants to prevent the Conservative from winning. This is called tactical voting, a type of strategic voting whereby a voter supports a candidate other than his or her first choice in order to prevent an undesirable outcome. This is just one of the many negative effects that the current electoral system, first past the post, creates. Canada is split up into 338 areas called ridings of which each elects a member of parliament. First past the post, or winner takes all, is a political system whereby whoever wins the most votes in a riding becomes the local MP and earns a seat in the House of Commons (‘’Electoral Systems’’). The leader of the party with the most MPs then becomes Prime Minister. A majority government is formed when a party wins over half the seats,

Election Day arrives and we’re ready to vote. And the winner we say is the one who takes most. But when 13% goes down to point three. Is our system as fair as we believe it to be? First Past the Post is a common single winner voting system used in such countries as Canada, Nigeria, Bangladesh and the United Kingdom, in which whoever wins a plurality (the most) of first choice votes, wins. In First Past the Post, parties do not need a majority of votes, merely more than their competitors. Due to this parliament often does not represent the will of the masses. After years of struggle, of fighting, for votes for women, for votes for all, we still don’t have a democracy that values all. We don’t have a government that is fair. Even if you don’t agree with me on this, First Past the Post has a host of other drawbacks which is why it is time for Britain to change our electoral system to one that promotes proportionality and fairness.