Canada is a prospering country that is a great democratic society to reside in. Being well known for its popular province Ontario, many decisions go for the benefit of Ontario. As a country and province, we have evolved into a modern era of politics that includes many bumps along the road. As a democratic society, we allow many things to get the better of situations, such as the influence of money and accepting the traditions that have worked in the past. Though it is believed that we should respect our traditions but as a growing and evolving society, some old systems such as our electoral system, is not compatible with our society today. Therefore, because of this, reforms are needed. Ontario is a growing province but as a democracy, it is …show more content…
Easily, the amount can sway and get a person many things. In politics, it gives the person that is providing a party with an allowance influencing the party to pick laws that benefit those who have provided the party with money. In Canada, there are two ways that a party is given money to spend on their expenses. Indirectly and directly is the term that is used for party expenses (1). Directly is what is called an allowance that is given to the party judging from the number of votes they receive (1). Indirectly, the money that party receives is from the taxpayers, to cover expenses (1). Those who contribute get tax cuts and are considered to be politically active (1). This way of gaining money for a party is ethical but does play a part of favouritism to those who donate their money to a party. This may stir up an influence and sense of loyalty to the type of families that commonly helps the party out. The access that some party leaders have when it comes to tax payer’s money should be used that does not abuse their position. In 2006, citizens were asked questions if parties are influenced by those who have a lot of money; 77% agreed that that was the case (3). If 77% believe that this is what is happening then why do we allow this to happen? The law shows that there is no limit to how much a third party can give to political parties. Though the liberal, publicly, convinces voters that they want to limit that
For a democratic country to thrive, they must have a proper electoral system in producing the party to oversee our government. Since its inception in 1867, Canada has been using the first past the post system during elections to decide their leading party. Although we have been using this system for an extended duration of time, the FPTP system is flawed and should be changed. The goal of this paper is to prove the effectiveness of shifting to more of a proportional system, while also exposing the ineptness of Canada’s current system. With other methods advancing and little change of the first past the post system, this system is becoming predated. A variation of the proportional electoral system is key because it empowers voters, increases voter turnout, and creates a more diverse environment. Canada should adopt a more proportionate electoral system at the federal level if we wish to expand democracy.
In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.
...r votes elect individuals who will represent their values and interests. While many will argue between whether a minority or majority government better represents Canadians, this essay has shown that regardless of the type of government, the Prime Minister is able to use his power to control his MP’s, media, and opposition members in order to fulfill a personal or hidden agenda. The sheer manipulation that is possible by a Prime Minister completely undermines the transparency and accountability of true democracy.
Furthermore, the issues of representation in the House of Commons are even more evident in terms of the alienation of certain provinces. Western Canada has experienced political alienation due to the dominance and influence of Ontario and Quebec over policy-making as both provinces contain the founding Cultures of Canada (Miljan, 2012, p. 53) Also, the fact that Ontario and Quebec make up more than 60 percent of Canada’s population attracts policymakers to those provinces while marginalizing the interests of westerners (Miljan, 2012, p. 53). Thus, policymakers will favor Ontario and Quebec as these provinces harbor the most ridings as well as the bigger electors’ base. In fact, Western Canada is also underrepresented in both the House of Commons and the Senate when compared to the Maritime provinces as the Maritime provinces are overrepresented compared to their population. Also, many western Canadians are turned off by the federal government as they have been alienated from major political action and discussion due to low representation (Canada and the World Backgrounder, 2002). In other words, Ottawa does not address the needs and hopes of Western Canada
Different states have various ways of ruling and governing their political community. The way states rule reflects upon the political community and the extent of positive and negative liberty available to their citizens. Canada has come a long way to establishing successful rights and freedoms and is able to do so due to the consideration of the people. These rights and freedoms are illustrated through negative and positive liberties; negative liberty is “freedom from” and positive liberty is “freedom to”. A democracy, which is the style of governing utilized by Canada is one that is governed more so by the citizens and a state is a political community that is self-governing which establishes rules that are binding. The ‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ allow Canada’s population to live a free and secure life. This is demonstrated through the fundamental freedoms, which permit the people to freely express themselves and believe in what they choose. Canadians also have democratic rights authorizing society to have the right to democracy and vote for the members of the House of Commons, considering the fact that the House of Commons establishes the laws which ultimately influence their lifestyle. The tools that are used to function a democratic society such as this are, mobility, legal and equality rights, which are what give Canadians the luxury of living life secured with freedom and unity. Furthermore it is safe to argue that ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’, proves the exceeding level of efficiency that is provided for Canadians in comparison to other countries where major freedoms are stripped from their political community.
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 the vote has come into power. Already, three provinces have attempted to vote on electoral reform; however, the vote did not pass in any of them. British Columbia (BC) and Prince Edward Island (PEI) both held their first referendum on the subject in 2005, BC's second referendum was held in 2009. Also, Ontario held their referendum in 2007. Because none of the referendums passed, it is clear that Canadians are not quite ready for electoral reform. Regardless, it is evident that a spark has ignited in the brains of citizens nation-wide; with recurring evidence that suggests the current electoral system horribly represents the majority of Canadian citizens, the public is beginning to realize that there is something terribly wrong.
Milner, Henry. First Past the Post? Progress Report on Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces. Ottawa: Institute for Research and Public Policy, 5(9), 2004.
Democracy is defined as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system (Democracy, n.d.). Canadians generally pride themselves in being able to call this democratic nation home, however is our electoral system reflective of this belief? Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy that has been adopted from the British system. Few amendments have been made since its creation, which has left our modern nation with an archaic system that fails to represent the opinions of citizens. Canada’s current “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system continues to elect “false majorities” which are not representative of the actual percentage of votes cast. Upon closer examination of the current system, it appears that there are a number of discrepancies between our electoral system and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other nations provide Canada with excellent examples of electoral systems that more accurately represent the opinions of voters, such as proportional representation. This is a system of voting that allocates seats to a political party based on the percentage of votes cast for that party nationwide. Canada’s current system of voting is undemocratic because it fails to accurately translate the percentage of votes cast to the number of seats won by each party, therefore we should adopt a mixed member proportional representation system to ensure our elections remain democratic.
Canada is a society built on the promise of democracy; democracy being defined as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” In order to operate at full potential, the people of Canada must voice their opinions and participate fully in the political system. This is why it’s shocking to see that people are becoming less engaged in politics and the voter turnout has steadily been declining over the last 20 years. This lack of participation by Canadians is creating a government that is influenced by fewer people, which is detrimental to the democratic system Canada is built on.
As a nation that identifies as a constituency, Canada is divided into 3 levels of government – each having to abide by the objectives of a responsible government (Brooks, p.169, 2015). As a citizen, it is normal to hold high standards and expectations inside the Canadian government; with these standards in mind, it is well as important to understand how our everyday lives are impacted by the three levels of government – federal, provincial, and municipal. The Canadian government has various responsibilities that must be satisfied through each branch. With these various duties, I not only expect the branches to honor the way decisions are made, created and/or interpreted/applied, but I as well expect them to comply with their assigned roles. I expect the federal level to implement plans to ensure public safety is in order, the provincial level to be accountable for health care and education, and the
In Canada’s democratic government, voting is a powerful way for citizens to communicate their values. The leader who is chosen reflects the power of the Canadians’ values. Thus, to the government, every vote matters, assuring Canadians that their opinions matter. Today, Canada recognizes voting as a fundamental right for all of their citizens. The Canadian Charter of Rights effectively protects this right of all Canadians, even minorities, through section 3. “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or a large legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein”. This ensures equality for vote to all Canadians. Equality is to allow all Canadians equal opportunity, even if they are of different race, religion, gender and etcetera. However, in the past, this fundamental right has not always been accessible to all. In fact, voting was considered a privilege where citizens had to qualify to have the ability to vote. The rules were so strict that only eleven percent of the past population of Canada could have voted, compared to today’s seventy-eight percent. Many of these rules of who could vote and who could not were very unjust. This was especially seen in minority groups who did not have the franchise, the right to vote.. In this essay, it will be seen that the inequalities to vote made racial exclusions, religious exclusions and gender exclusions more pronounced. It will be seen that the government treated certain races with intentional discrimination creating a lack of an opportunity to vote. As well, the government showed prejudice to certain religious groups, denying these groups their ability to vote. And, finally, it will be seen that views against women aided ...
Canada is a parliamentary system with single member districts. That means Canada works on a voting system called first past the post, representatives can get elected even on small amounts of public support as long they receive more votes than other candidates. Ultimately, this system of government has its pros and cons. Harper called an earlier election because he presumed this electoral system would favour his party to win. Plurality systems tend to underrepresent small parties in parliament. Typically, why voters lean towards voting for candidates that they know would win rather than the candidate they want to win (Blais, 2002). This is because first past the post allocates seats in geographical areas. Smaller parties have the short end of the stick because it works in favour of parties with centralized support, which show why it might have been more likely Conservatives would have won. In addition, smaller constituencies boundaries have important effects on how an election would result encouraging gerrymandering. Eric McGhee describes gerrymandering as “a process of packing one’s opponents into as few districts as possible and seeking to win the remaining districts by the barest of margins” (McGhee, 2014). However, strategic voting made it less likely Harper would become elected. Since a bare amount of plurality votes is required to win seats, other parties votes are deemed ‘wasted’ votes thus voters manipulate votes to other
...n of their cabinet, while others may choose to create a new political path without consulting the views of their party. Mellon thinks that the Canadian government is under dictatorial scrutiny, whereas Barker contradicts this belief. The idea of a prime-ministerial government is certainly an over exaggeration of the current state of Canada. There are too many outside and inside forces that can control the powers the Prime Minister of Canada. Furthermore, there are several outside sources that indicate a good government in Canada. The United Nations annually places Canada at the top, or near the top of the list of the world’s best countries in which to live. These outcomes are not consistent with the idea of a one ruler power. Canada is not ruled by one person’s ideas, suggestions, and decisions, but by government approved and provincially manipulated decisions.
The rich people run the Party. The people who run our government come to power through campaigns. And what do campaigns need? Money. And where does money come from?
Abdirahman Hassan US Politics 1130 Debate Brief #3: Does Money corrupt elections and the political process? Money makes the world go round, you’ve heard this saying before haven't you? In politics money is a big resource. Money does not always have the power to corrupt elections and the political process but money can have an impact on elections and campaigns. Without money campaigning would be a lot tougher.