The State 's Electoral System

“The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within”. (Gandhi) A lawful and fair democracy is one that represents the people, where the will of the people is done not where the government’s will is enforced. Here in Canada we believe a democratic government is well suited for its people but like any other system it has its flaws. This country was a model democracy. Canada’s wealth, respect for legal, human and civil rights almost promises that this country has the potential to uphold a legitimate democracy. Reading headlines today concerning the state of democracy in Canada we can see how our political system is slipping. A democracy should uphold the rights of its people rather than the rights of a

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

It has become widely accepted that Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. However, this system may not be in the best interest of Canada any more. There are many reasons why Canada should change its electoral system to a mixed member proportional one, a variant of proportional representation. With a first past the post system, the elected officials will always be of the majority and this excludes minorities from fair representation. Adopting MMP can create stronger voter turnouts, more personal campaigning, better individual representation, and better party selection. John Hiemstra and Harold Janson, are both in favour of a MMP electoral system. They understand that with the switch, the citizens will get more representation in

The electoral system in Canada is also known as a “first past the post” system. “First past the post” means the candidate with the highest number of votes wins the congressional seat, whereas the other candidates with a lower number of votes don’t get any representation. There are many cons to this system that will be highlighted throughout this essay. I will argue that the electoral system requires reform due to the discrepancies between the percentage of popular votes and the number of seats won. Canada’s electoral system has many problems and is not seen as fully democratic since it has provided poor representation for both candidates that win and lose. Candidates can win seats with less than 50% of votes, meaning that even if the majority of the nation, or province did not vote for the candidate they still win the election as they consume the highest number of votes among the parties. FPTP allows two people in different ridings to get the same number of votes with the outcome of one winner since the distribution of votes and seats are unequal. The system can also encourage strategic voting such as not voting for whom you think is the best fit but voting for the candidate that seems most likely to win in order to beat candidate you dislike. FPTP leads to an imbalance of power and has the potential for corruption.

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.

On the other hand, the Canadian electoral system has also been accused of being undemocratic and unrepresentative in many aspects. Although the Canadian single member plurality

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.

While it remains to be seen if Canada’s election system will receive an overhaul, proportional representation could be the future system Canada uses to elect our government. First-past-the-post and Proportional representation are two very different systems; electoral reform that adopts proportional representation would

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 Canadian political landscape has a rich and complex history spanning from ‘sea to sea’, just as the nation itself. Chronicles of dominance, leadership, and association by the United Kingdom, France, and the United States has ultimately shaped the Canadian national consciousness, resulting in the political ideologies and governance we see today. To best describe the characteristic of Canadian politics, one can refer to ‘Fragment Theory’ where a colonial nation, such as Canada, is predominantly influenced from their historic origins. However, recent immigration and economic trends have drastically reshaped the Canadian political spectrum across provinces. The following essay will briefly analyze the evolution of political ideologies across Canada, primarily focusing on the conservative/ neo-liberal model.

Throughout Canada’s history, citizens have had an interest in electoral reform. The issue has been continuously brought up in both national and provincial elections for the last couple of decades. Does this mean Canadians are unsatisfied with the current first past the post system or does it mean that they are just following the ‘trend’ that has been brought forward? This question has recently been acknowledged by the government of New Brunswick and as such, has produced a discussion on whether it is a necessary for the province to participate in a referendum to reform its electoral system.

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

Not only is this system simple to understand, it has a strong geographic representation, excludes extremist parties, and usually assures majority governments in parliamentary systems. For example, the first past the post system contributed to our party’s win in the 2001 federal election. We pulled a majority win in that election with only 39.62 percent of voters who voted for our Conservative party (Keller). This was made possible because the first past the post formula only takes into account the number of seats won when deciding who the winner is. Subsequently, in an extremely close race, if a party wins a riding by one percent, then that party will take the riding, with the runner-up party ending up with nothing—“winner take all”. This is the best arrangement for our party. Since the merger of Progressive Conservative party and Canadian Alliance that resulted in the formation of our party in 2003, our Conservative party has been the only party in Canada that leans towards the right of the three left and center-left parties (Keller). As a result, the alliance of the right and disintegration of the left result to a lot of narrow wins in ridings for our party. Since narrow wins counts for just as much as landslide wins, our party gets a considerable advantage from the first past the post