Defining democracy has varied throughout history. One of the more accepted interpretations comes from Austrian-American Economist Joseph Schumpeter. In his book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter describes democracy as “Institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions which realizes the common good by making the people itself decide issues through the election of individuals who are to assemble in order to carry out its will” (Schumpeter).
The varying models of democracy can be divided into two primary pillars: presidential and parliamentary. Throughout the course of their respective histories, the two forms have been well debated in regards to which allow for a more efficient system, or which provides a more democratic process.
Between the two forms of democratic governments, parliamentary systems allow for faster and more efficient passing of legislations, and create better stability within the government and among political parties. Both capabilities give parliamentary systems the advantage in efficiency. Parliamentary systems are also structured in such a way that there is a clear relationship among branches of government, thus building safety nets that can prevent government-derailing political deadlocks. Finally, parliamentary systems exhibit its superior democratic capabilities with its wider division of powers and accountability through Responsible Government. It is also of note that both systems often use indirect elections, but there are cases in presidential systems where elections contradict the very principles of democracy.
A parliamentary system is a democratic form of government where the ruling party is the one that receives the most representation. Meaning the leader naturally belongs ...
... middle of paper ...
...oral College is Bad for America, George C. Edward III says that the lack of a one-person one-vote principle contradicts the very nature of political equality, and ultimately fails to be a sufficient way of exercising democratic rights (Edward III).
There is no consensus on whether parliamentary systems are ultimately better than presidential systems. But many political scholars have supported the case of parliamentary systems. The efficiency and smooth process of policy-making exhibited in parliaments, as well as the presence of an intrinsic, accountable relationship between the executive and legislative branches give parliamentary systems the edge in effectiveness. Furthermore, the wider division of powers, concept of Responsible Government in Britain and Canada, and the flawed Electoral College in the U.S. also give the edge of democracy to parliamentary systems.
One may be surprised to learn that the turnout rate of individuals voting in Canada's federal elections has never reached 80% (Elections Canada). In fact, it has been decreasing since the middle of the twentieth century, as shown by an increase in voter apathy. An electoral system is designed to provide those who live in democratic governments with the opportunity to vote – in an election – for the candidate whose platform coincides with their political beliefs. This can be achieved through a direct democracy, where citizens are directly involved in the decision-making process, or through an indirect democracy, where citizens elect a delegate to act on their behalf. In a direct democracy, all citizens would be present during governmental meetings and have the opportunity to give verbal input. As one may expect, this would be extremely difficult to coordinate with Canada's population of 34.88 billion (Statistics Canada). Canada uses an indirect democracy, which allows for two basic forms of electoral systems in which representatives are elected. In the simple plurality electoral system, the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes is elected, regardless of a majority or not. It is commonly known as the “first-past-the-post” system, which alludes to a horse race; the winner passes the post with the highest number of votes, and only need to garner more votes than their opponents. The successful candidate wins all the seats in their riding or constituency while the candidates who places second or third will receive no seats, regardless of how many votes they lose by. Proportional representation is the second form of electoral system used in Canada; the percentage of the votes received by a party is proportionate to the numb...
The original Parliamentary System was created in Great Britain. This form of government includes a leader known as a prime minister, usually from a legislative party. The prime minister then selects a cabinet from their legislative majority party. Their objective is to focus on the daily operations caused by the government’s bureaucracy. The parliamentary government is in charge of initiating and passing all legislation created. The advantages of this system is that there is a unified government, there is no veto power, and the party is responsible for the decisions, consequences or rewards of policies that are passed. The Cabinet must “maintain the confidence” of parliament. Some disadvantages of this method is that divided governments are Constitutionally impossible to control. In addition to that, power is from this system falls all on the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They rule with the entire trust of parliament on them. If something goes wrong, it’s solely their
The current plurality voting system in Canada is regularly attacked for unfairly representing the popular vote and giving some parties a disproportionate amount of legislative power while leaving others with none. Opponents contend that other electoral systems would be far superior and provide a better democracy. Proportional representation (PR) is usually cited as the best alternative; the debate of proportional representation versus plurality often hinges on the balance between fairness and efficiency. Without attempting the political calculus to determine the rate at which fairness should be sacrificed for efficiency, this paper will address the very claim that PR is more fair than the plurality system. The proponents contend that PR is a more accurate representation of the electorate's vote, that no votes are wasted, and that the will of the people translates into government better than the plurality system; however, the experience of New Zealand challenges that assertion. This paper will establish that the current plurality system produces a government that is more effective, better represents the people, and is more transparent than the proposed alternatives, namely proportional representation.
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 caused controversy in a Canadian scope. With many critics of the Canadian election system calling it archaic and non-modern, the idea of reforming the election system has been in discussion numerous times. In 2004 by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, created by the government of British Columbia, brought into question the current first past the post system. In an alternative state at which the Canadian election system is changed, a different set of questions is brought to the table. How can changes to the electoral system affect how the House of Commons is run and its respective procedures? In this essay, I will be discussing the possible effects of changing the Canadian electoral system on the House of Commons.
Canada runs on a democratic model of governing based on the British parliamentary system. Its parliament is thus divided into two chambers: the House of Commons and the Senate. Elected politicians are seated within The House of Commons while the Senate occupies qualified citizens which are appointed by the Prime Minister. Parliament’s purpose is to hold responsibility for passing legislations and the choosing of government, referring to the political party with the largest amount of seats. Depending on the results of the election, Canada has the potential of having either a majority, minority or in the rare case a coalition government. Customarily, an election in Canada usually ends up forming a majority government. The party with more than
Most democratic countries have a multi-party system where many different ideologies are represented in government. Multi-party systems provide a broader representation of the people and give voters more choices at the polls, however, can lead a party to form a coalition, which can dissolve easily causing instability in the government. The United States electo...
In addition, due to the establishment of the three branches the negative effects of factions have been discouraged. One of the numerous institutions that have helped with the discouragement of factions is the Legislative branch. The Legislative branch is comprised of two parts, The House of Representatives and The Senate. The House is composed of Representatives elected by the people within a district and is determined by population, thus the more people in a state, the m...
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary Democracy is a form of government by the people; especially: rule of the majority(Webster). This is what the United States is represented as, and this is based on the United States Constitution from which the United states draws all legal powers. In Robert Dahls book How democratic Is the American Constitution? He challenges this idea by trying to appeal to his readers in a way that they may view the United States Constitution in a different light. Dahl does this by pointing out flaws that the Constitution has and, draws on facts based on the other democracies around the world that the United States is compared too. He points out how many democratic ideas and innovations have a occurred since the conception of the American Constitution yet it has only adopted some of those idea.
Although there are many different forms of democracy, in a true democracy the power is in the hands of the people. In a representative democracy the nations “restrict popular decision making to electing or appointing officials who make public policy” (Text, 4). According to this definition, democracy is a form of government in which power and responsibility reside with those who have been appointed to make decisions for the good of the whole.
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are in constant debate all over the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary system with presidential democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a
Key differences between the two systems include the extent to which the powers of government are separated functionally between branches of government, how each system defines the conditions for removing the executive and dissolving the government, and the influence that the governing system has on the structures developed by the parties in the legislature.
More specific arguments originate from the participatory theory of democracy and the critique of a lack of responsiveness and legitimacy of representative (party) democracy. The two sets of democratic institutions are distinguished by basic features of direct participation: (1) direct democracy focuses on specific issues, in contrast to voting on candidates and general programs for long terms of office, and (2) citizens themselves act as decision makers rather than delegating these powers. Like electoral systems, a variety of procedural forms, designs, and regulations are likely to influence processes and outcome. One must also keep in mind that direct-democratic processes cannot operate in isolation but are always linked to the structures of an overall political system that includes major representative institutions. Thus, interactions between the two types of institutions will be an important challenge for analysis. For instance, as George Tsebelis notes, referendum voters can be seen as an additional veto player. Some authors contend that direct democracy may undermine representative democracy, while others focus on the deliberative functions for a democratic public sphere and the capacity for integrating citizens in the democratic process. One can also assume that basic
“It has been said that one of the greatest political problems of the time is to reconcile representative institutions with good government.” With this problem in mind, the cabinet form of government, which is nearly synonymous with the parliamentary form of government, has been established to lessen the gap between representative institutions and good government or, if possible, make them one in the same through its unification of powers.
In the United States, president is in charge of the executive branch and he initiates the legistlation, but he is dependent on the the legislature to pass it into law. On the other hand, he can veto anything the legislature has passed into law. If we compare this system with a parliamentary s...