Tragedy In Canada

Canadians seem to follow in the footsteps of the Americans, but change it to make it better. In, Canada, our system of government is a blend of British and United States practices, with some Canadian additions, made to fit our own particular needs. Of course, British, United States, and Canadian governments all have a lot in common, since both Canada and the United States learned from Britain the all important idea of responsible government, which rest on the rule of law and the consent of people. We, paid close attention of the problems that were raised in the United States federal system and changed it considerably for Canada, to avoid what they we thought were its weakest points and make it fit better with the practices of British

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.

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.

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 political parties that occupy the Canadian house of commons have changed dramatically over the past several few decades. Although none more so than the creation and evolution of the Bloc Quebecois from a small group of disillusioned parliamentary members of the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties. To go on and found the Quebecois separatist movement that would prove nearly catastrophic in the several referendums they held to succeed from the Canadian nation-state and establish themselves as their own sovereign nation. You could see how well this nationalistic party has flourished due to the level of attachment that the Quebecois people hold towards being a part of Canada, with the Quebecois often asking what does the ““attachment” or, for that matter, “identification” mean?” towards being a part of the Canadian state; when they themselves feel far more

For many years, there has been an ongoing debate as to whether or not the Senate should undergo a reform. Many Canadian citizens are unsatisfied with the fact that the Senate is not elected. How are citizens to be sure that they are being properly represented when they are not able to choose who represents them? Although the Senate is an integral part of the governmental system, many Canadians are leaning towards the idea to completely abolish the Senate. The credible, David C. Docherty, outlines the previous attempts for the Senate reform while describing the mindset of Canadians and where the reformation of the Senate currently stands in his article “The Canadian Senate: Chamber of Sober Reflection or Loony Cousin Best Not Talked About.” The previous attempts for the Senate reform while describing the mindset of Canadians and where the reformation of the State currently stands.

Docherty addresses criticism both internally and externally of the governing party. Internally Docherty suggests that while advances for nonpartisan selection of specific roles, such as the Speaker, have been successful in achieving some neutrality, party discipline and loyalty to the executive remain incredibly strong in Canada making internal dissention both politically and strategically unwise for members of a governing party. Externally of the government, parties and individual MP’s do not receive the same type of research support as well as funding as those which hold particular positions such as Ministers or meet standards set by the Board of Internal Economy. While oppositions can scrutinize in the form of Question Period (QP) or Private Members Bills (PMB) these measures have become more symbolic and theatrically politicized than they have been historically leading to more talk and much less action.

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.

Canada 's biggest concern encompasses the degree of power to which the Prime Minister is in possession of, coupled with the matter of proper implementation. Accordingly, a survey conducted by Nanos Research displayed results which state 42 percent of Canadian 's believe that the PM should have less power. In extension, polls attest that concerns regarding too much power within the PM stand considerably higher than concerns within any other section of the government (Clark, 2012). In order to adequately comprehend the troublesome overabundance of power placed upon the Canadian Prime Minister, the following four components are to be understood; the influence of Supreme Court judgments, the responsibility of appointing both cabinet ministers

In this essay, I will demonstrate that the Prime Minister is powerful and can cause many potential dangers by analyzing different elements inside and outside of our government over the period of different Prime Ministers throughout the Canadian political history.

Throughout Canadian history, a responsible government depended on the act of the nation working together to apply appropriate public policy. William Lyon Mackenzie King, the prime minister of Canada in the 1920s (and again in the 1930s) once said, “Where there is little or no public opinion, there is likely to be bad government, which sooner or later becomes autocratic government.” This is true even almost 100 years later. A democratic society operates in relation to the voices of the nation. The Canadian government consists of many sectors to enforce this particular style of policy making, including the House of Commons, the Senate, the Cabinet, and of course, the prime minister. Many citizens may argue that these important sectors of government are aspects reflecting true democracy. On the other hand, some citizens might argue that the prime minister has significant control over Parliament alone, sometimes without the need for other voices. Government responsibility lies in the heart of the prime minister and can have significant control over different policy areas if he or she feels the need to do so. This often flies in the face of a democratic society.

A democratic government has long been favoured as the most fair and representative government for a country to have. This essay will explore the advantages and disadvantages of both minority and majority government (for example efficiency, compromise, and power) and argue that in fact neither offers a fair representation of Canadian’s due to lack of both transparency and accountability.

As a member of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, the role of my political party in my career as a legislator is an important and influential one. Members of the House of Commons are party oriented and loyal to their political affiliation. As a member, I would strive to advance and increase my party’s presence in Parliament by acquiring safe seats, whether I belong to one of the major parties like the national Conservative or Labour party (Roskin 53). The role that my political party would undertake over my career would also be demonstrated by the way I would vote for the legislation. Party loyalty and discipline cannot be entirely assured but as a career legislator, I would have to follow the party line when placing my vote (Roskin 39). If I fail to follow the party line in a vote, I would then risk losing nominations for reelection (Roskin 39). It is evident that a political party could have a great role in my career as a member of the House of Commons. On the other hand, as a member of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, the role that my party would have in my career as a legislator is more distinct. Unlike other countries, as a member

“The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within”. (Gandhi, Coward, H. G. pg. 31, paragraph 1). A democratic country is one where it listens to its people and considers their interests rather than imposing their own will on others. Political culture is a term which is used in social science and it means to have a shared set of beliefs, feeling and values about the political system and that connects the citizens and the government. Canadians value peace, order and a good government. They are more of an individualist instead of collectivist which identifies how Canadians like to work. They are also respective of authority however the status effect in organizations is very low in Canada. Canadians are critically egalitarian and they care very much about equality, rights and freedoms. Regionalism is the diversity of geographic and economic concerns that are important to politics. This is also part of dualism because of the relationship between the two major cultures in Canada, Anglophone and francophone. Both of these are protected by the federal law. These factors immensely shape the political culture of Canada. Public opinion impacts the society’s political culture. Democratic governments exist to serve the public which makes the public opinion important to consider. Canada is a participant political culture which should be the case in a democratic country. Although the citizen’s opinions matter, it does not make or change the policies

Under a minority government, no one party dominates policymaking and legislative processes like a single-party majority. In the Canadian parliamentary system, the principle of responsible government requires the political executive to respond to criticism in the legislature (Thomas, 2007). In a complexity of potential cooperative agreements between opposition parties, the governing party can maintain confidence. For example, in countries including Canada, contract parliamentarism, where opposition parties agree to support the government in return for policy on other concessions, is used (Akash et al., 2010, p. 216) . Parties are still able to retain discretion to decide their own position on most matters. Therefore, parties work together in order to secure minority agreements that often survive a full parliamentary term (Akash et al., p. 216). The minority government must accept responsibility for actions taken by them to retain the “confidence”