The Government Pros And Disadvantages Of A Minority Government

Pluralism is based on the ideology that “competition among interest groups produces compromise and balance among competing policy preferences”. (Paletz, Owen, and Cook) Politically, pluralism the distribution of power throughout a government. A misconception is that pluralism

In his book Divided We Govern, he challenged the well-established idea that divided government causes gridlock. After combing through legislative wrap-ups and works of specialists in the field, he discovered that there isn’t a causal relationship between divided government and gridlock. He brings up numerous cases where divided governments have passed more legislation than unified governments, and vice versa. He argues that just because a government is divided or unified, doesn’t mean more or less legislation will be passed by default. In addition, he argues that divided governments don’t produce worse laws than unified governments. According to Mayhew, other variables such as election politics play large roles in how legislation will be passed.

Divided government is a term used in the United States to describe the situation of one party ruling the presidency and the other party ruling Congress. Divided government occurs due to the executive branch and the legislative branch being voted separately. Two factors that increase the odds of a divided government are independent voters and split ballots. All this leads to the public resenting the bickering and little accomplished.

No matter who you are, where you came from, or how old you are, everyone is in a minority group. A minority group is a group that experiences a pattern of disadvantages or inequality, has a visible identifying trait, and is a self-conscious social unit. People with disabilities are a minority group because of their disadvantages and visible characteristic. For example, a child with down syndrome, autism, nonverbal learning disorder, and cerebral palsy will be put in a separate class and area of the school because they are not like the other students. As a person who has first handily seen what they do in school, they are definitely a minority group. They are treated differently by being stuck in one class all day and they aren’t really being taught like the other “normal” students. This disadvantage goes on into these people with disabilities adulthood as well. It harder for them to find jobs, if they are able to work. They are sometimes treated as less because people may feel like they cannot do certain things. They are basically treated as less because people automatically underestimate them because of the disability they are born with

If a page is taken from Tocqueville’s book, and America examines another country as an example, England is a good model for dealing with this situation. In England, their Parliament is made up of several parties (many interests), that form alliances for majority power. While it is a majority, it is very diverse and thus, prevents it from being absorbed with one sole mission.

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.

Since party politics began in Canada, the style in which leaders are elected is comparable to a horse race. Using the single member plurality (SMP), more commonly referred to as “first past the post,” method of seat allocation in both the House of Commons and each province's Legislative Assembly, whoever gets the most votes is asked to form the government; this only takes into accounts the number of seats a party wins, not the overall popular vote. In a political system not limited to two parties, like the United States, many times over 50% of Canadians do not want the party that won, to win. In this current electoral system, votes are wasted, smaller parties are terribly misrepresented and, in some cases, a party with a lower percent of

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

Britain, for instance, one of the most stable parliamentary systems within our society does present an example for a parliamentary government in many aspects. For one, their parliamentary system creates clear access points to power with in the government. There is a much smaller breakdown of the “parts” of the government: The prime minister, and his political party, elected before him. The only other significant factions would be regulatory agencies, who are under the direct control of the majority. In Britain’s case the secretary of state, i.e. foreign minister are actual legislatures and therefore are more capable of introducing and even

A parliamentary government is a democratic form of government which operates on a party system. It is the most popular and widely adopted form of democracy. A state that operates on a parliamentary system is run by two executives, firstly the head of state who is either a monarch or president who then appoints a prime minister as the head of government. A parliament can be run by either a single majority political party or as a coalition government in which more than one party collaborate to form the government. In this essay I will be assessing the key strengths and weaknesses associated with a parliamentary government. In doing so I will conclude that whilst a parliamentary government has weaknesses its strengths outweigh these and therefore it is the superior form of democratic government.

Advocates of the parliamentary form of government suggested a few competitive strengths of this system of government. Since it has gained a stable parliamentary majority, the government is able to smoothly process its legislative project. In addition, the government is adequately furnished that it could still choose to adopt measures designed to support the national interests while many strong sectional groups oppose such measures (Dyck, 2012). The prime minister is the leader of this type of government, who is obliged to be responsive to all its people’s demands. Also, the people have the right to vote and replace the prime minister due to any incompetency of governance that does not address and fulfill their desires. This is known as the non-confidence vote; the government may be removed when it has lost confidence in the parliament, and cause the head of state to resign a new government (Dyck, 2012). An example of such measure occurred in Britain on March 28th, 1979. When James Callaghan’s labour government was defeated in the House of Commons just by one vote, it was forced into an early election that was won by the opposition leader Margaret Thatcher (Dyck, 2012). In this case, it can avoid or at least reduce the period of legislative gridlock, because of its flexibility in elections and the power is centered in the country’s prime

The two-party system is said to promote governmental stability because a single party can win a majority of political offices and, with less bickering between differing and partisan legislators, govern more efficiently. In a multiparty country, on the other hand, the formation of a government depends on the maintenance of a coalition of parties with enough total strength to form a political majority. The weakness of the ties that bind the coalition may threaten the continuance of a cabinet in power. The stability shown by the government of the United States has not been entirely due to its party system, it has been argued, but has been promoted also by the fixed tenure and strong constitutional position of the president, as well as checks and balances built into the constitution to prevent one branch of federal government from becoming too powerful.

The majoritarian model is currently being used in Canadas political economy, however, Canada’s would be better off with a shift to the consensus model as it included all minority groups and represented the true meaning of democracy. The consensus model represented the people in a society by including minority groups, using a federal or decentralized government and a multi-party system. The consensus model ensured the inclusion of groups in plural societies, where this was absent under a majoritarian ruling. A majoritarian model of government only made decisions in the hands of a select few, whereas, in a consensus model the power was divided in a federal or decentralized government. Finally, a consensus model allowed for multiple parties to run for election under the multiparty system and voting was done under proportional representation. However, in a majoritarian government, there are two parties running for office which operated under a disproportional election.

Ever since the advent of democratic systems of political decision-making in Ancient Greece, one of the primary concerns about democratic functioning has been the principle of majority rule. Whether a majoritarian system is divisive in its essence, paves the way for demagoguery, or obstructs minority groups from having a fair say in public affairs, criticisms of majority rule have and still persist nowadays. Indeed, notorious political figures such as Hamilton, Madison or Mill expressed concerns about the potential threat of a tyranny of the majority which would infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover and recently, the outcome of the Brexit referendum has renewed the debate around majority rule and its flaws. However, within the context of the contemporary world in which democracy prevails, majority rule is the norm many states follow. Why is this so; how can majority rule be defended and what are its limits? In order to provide an articulate and coherent answer, it is first necessary to lay down some premises to the functioning of the democratic process. Then, after arguing for majority rule, its flaws shall be assessed before eventually drawing potential alternatives from such dysfunctions.

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