The Canadian Electorate: Good, Better, Best
“There is a tendancy to believe that one’s own electoral system is the best way of choosing a government.” For this reason and the fact that Canada possesses an overall efficient and fair system, there is usually not too much controversy among the general public about the way political officials are elected to office. The fact of the matter is that the issues surrounding the First Past the Post (or Single Member Plurality) system are serious enough to be considering a better alternative. Canada would, in fact, be better served with a different electoral system. The party system suits Canadians well, due to its cultural, regional, linguistic and other diversities. However, it is the brand of party system that is incorporated which is slowing down the electoral system. To better understand where the current system (FPTP) could be improved, a discussion of some major flaws will be addressed followed by the offering of the Proportional Representation as the best alternative.
The first-past-the-post system encourages strategic voting which can be very compromising. Citizens are encouraged to vote for one of the two options most likely to win, even if it is not their most
. . .
Proportional Representation is a widely discussed electoral system which does just that and would be a good fit for the Canada. The PR system in general is more specific and draws more significance out of each individual vote. This would not only will encourage voters to be more honest with their vote and feel content with it, but may also encourage more Canadian citizens to attend polling stations come election time. Citizens become fearful that they will cast a ‘wasted vote’ and therefore choose the candidate who is in contention to win. Parties concentrating their resources provincially have better chances of winning seats than parties with national platforms whose support is widely diffused. An example of this type of voting could be easily recognized in the 2004 Canadian federal election; where many people were believed to have only voted for Liberal or Conservative, respectively, because one of these two forerunners was the ‘lesser of two evils’. The following is an illustration of the 2000 federal election results as they would have appeared under a PR system. His work eventually was recognized by his peers in the scientific community, and named Duverger’s Law. New Democratic Party leader, Jack Layton, expressed his concern immediately following the election that many potential NDP voters chose the Liberal alternative, only because of their distaste for the Conservatives. This phenomenon has been best labeled by sociologist Maurice Duverger who observed the effect through plenty of research in the 1960-70s. The seat tally would have been as follows: Liberals, 123 (instead of 173); Alliance, 77 (instead of 66); Bloc Quebecois, 32 (instead of 37); Conservatives, 37 (instead of 12); NDP, 26 (instead of 13); and six other parties would have won a seat instead of being shut out entirely. Proportional representation is a voting system that allocates seats in proportion to the popular vote. Had the Liberals won 40% of the popular vote, they would have received 40% of the total seats. The ‘second place’ position is also important because they attain the status of the official opposition.
Approximate Word count =
1043
Approximate Pages =
4 (250 words per page double spaced)
Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.
| CREDIT CARD |
ONLINE CHECK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOIN BY PHONE
|
|
|