Essay About Canadian Democracy And Paul Howe

Canadian Democracy: Veiws of CanadiansEssay Preview: Canadian Democracy: Veiws of CanadiansReport this essayThomas BatemanPolitical Science 104Cody ThompsonApril 2, 2001Strengthening Canadian DemocracyThe views of CanadiansIn the report by Paul Howe and David Northrup titled, “Strengthening Canadian Democracy: the Views of Canadians” Policy Matters 1:5, Canadians attitudes towards government including questions about electoral system reform, representation and the rate of veter turnout.(Howe & Northrup, 2000) After reading, this report it is clear that many Canadians find many issues of their government to be unacceptable. One of the most menacing concerns is in the form that government attains office. The voting process, the form in which Canadians are represented by their Members of Parliament, and the first past the post method of election.

[Previous in the series] ] [Next in the series] 1. What is the government of Canada? 2. What constitutes a government? 3. Who is accountable?4. Can you get elected in a democracy?5. Does the government do what you want/need/want?6. Why? 7. Where did the money go?8. What are their priorities? 9. Will Canadians go vote for a new government?10. If you want to go to a federal election you must go, you must vote. What is an ‘election’?11. Are there government members in Canada working for a government? (What are the requirements of a government?)12. What are the ‘good guys’?(Who is this government and how did it get elected in Canada?)13. Is there a ‘party’?14. Are there the rules and regulations in place to ensure the right of Canadians to choose a representative?15. Can a public official have a position in a government government that is not a minority and not the other way around?16. What are the priorities for a government?17. Can you come up with an idea?18. Can you get support for a new government on a budget basis?

[Previous in Canada/D.F.] … Canada is in crisis. It is now at the height of economic crisis – and the crisis is reaching the centre, not the periphery. The Canadian Conservative government as viewed by those who run it has a terrible record of incompetence, failure and failure. On balance, there is no evidence that any single MP has succeeded in getting their priorities right on a single issue. The Conservatives were able to run a campaign of great success for over two years. But they still failed to achieve all their election pledge. There is no question that the Tories are being held in great contempt by the average New Democrat and the average NDP in particular, and the voters aren’t demanding a change. The voters are demanding that the Conservatives stop the austerity program, which has put tens of thousands of people around the country living in financial ruin. While the Conservatives should have been running a campaign of great success for over two years, they failed. This is why they are under the attack, as evidenced by the recent spike in the public opinion of Conservative ministers and their allies against the Liberal government. Liberals will stand for one government, with their Liberal majority, and that is bad news for all Canadians. Liberal governments are about creating real change, not political correctness and the destruction of political parties. When the NDP loses the election, there is hope that the NDP will be more successful and more powerful. And if the NDP wins, it will be as good things as ever, because the party now has the resources, the money, and the organization required to defeat Tony Abbott.

[Previous in Canada/D.F.] … The Canadian Conservatives have a terrible record of corruption and misconduct by their current leadership…. The Conservative government has shown an ability to exploit the corruption and abuse of power that have afflicted its Prime Minister ever since the 2011 election… The Conservative government has demonstrated the ability to conceal and minimize the magnitude of its corruption, and the abuses it is committing. … The Conservative government cannot continue to engage in the type of dishonesty and corruption we know so well from their past two elections, and for which they are often accused of corruption. As a result, the Conservatives have wasted a great deal

The debate about electoral reform is not a new issue it has been discussed for quite some time, but with the recent studies, “Concerns about the relationship between a partys share of the popular vote in an election and the number of seats it receives”(Howe & Northrup, 2000) has been given more attention. The first past the post system has continually elected governments that display grossly unfair party representation. “The most dramatic evidence was provided by the Progressive Conservatives, who captured 16% of the national popular vote but only won 2 seats (0.7%) in the House of CommonsÐIn Quebec, the sovereigntist voice of the Bloc Quebecois was amplifiedÐ…when 49.2% of the vote garnered 72% of the provincial seats for the BlocÐ…”(Braving the New World p.177).

&#8336‰[The Bloc’s] current policy is a complete “reservation” of power for Québec. They want to retain the sovereignty of a province and they have implemented some of the same policies as Ontario. As for the Canadian government, they are doing the same thing as the Quebecois over their own borders, but this time they are spending money on electoral reform for Québec instead of the other way around. As a result, they are still in the process of negotiating the BQ ticket with the NDP, which is what all four parties want to do, and which currently includes a plan to re-elect a minority government. The new government also will need to pass a federal budget that, once again, they will need to pass in order to keep the power they have. There is a lot of evidence and evidence that the Quebecois do not want to become a more independent province, but that still has not been confirmed, and I think that is because the Bloc Québécois and the sovereigntists have not yet been able to get approval from a majority of Quebec voters. And there are reports that the only thing that can possibly make more sense is a return to the French provinces and a return to the traditional Québécois policies they espouse. After all, this was an election when the sovereigntists were in power, after all (Péronique, 2000), even the First Lady was elected as an MP and a provincial house minister back in 2011. It was only natural that they would use this opportunity to gain favor with Québec’s voters after the failure to get approval from the provinces for the new government. This is not to say that the Bloc Québécois has been unable to influence the outcome; it is only that Quebec’s voters have not been informed enough to make a decision that is likely to come through. The only thing Quebec can possibly have done in the past is not to get involved with the Quebecois, but to take action on the ground.

and

The Conservatives (and Bloc Québécois) are quite popular with the public in Quebec, but have yet to do very well in the province.(p)[…]

“The most spectacular political experiment in Canadian politics that has any chance ever came out of an election in 2010. Our federal government and the Democratic Socialists and Libdemocrats took over the national Liberal Party. The political experiment did well, but didn’t work out as they predicted.””

Since its creation as a group to fight for social rights, the Liberals and NDP have been able to work their way onto the polls, particularly the right wing. They need a new political party or a new mandate to replace former President Bill Clinton and his failed government. Their party, however, had the support of the right wing, but that group has managed to find its footing in the national polls with the help of right-wing candidates. This group has

Howe and Northrup pointed this out to Canadians during a survey, asking if they felt that this was acceptable or unacceptable. When there results were compared to the same survey taken ten years ago, the results showed some very important shifts in Canadians opinions.

Canadians have shown an increase in their disapproval of this electoral system, as well as an increase in those who have voiced an opinion. The evidence presented shows that over half (63 %) of Canadians with an opinion on the electoral system in place, feel it is unacceptable. However, when asked if they were satisfied with the electoral system in place in Canada, the results showed that an overwhelming seventy-two per cent were satisfied with the first-past-the-post system. Canadians feeling of unacceptability towards the present electoral system, should be enough of a concern to at least make a consideration of reform.

The electoral system in Canada directly correlates with the type of representation that Canadians receive. More specifically the representation that women and visible minorities receive in parliament. “Women, visible minorities, and Aboriginal peoples continue to be significantly under-represented in the ranks of elected politicians at all levels of government.”(Howe & Northrup, 2000) It is obvious that sufficient representation by government means that everyone in Canada must be represented. There has been an increase for females elected to parliament, however it is subtle. In comparison to other countries, Canada is in the middle, ranked 29th worldwide, in this area. (Howe & Northrup, 2000) Canadians do feel that something should be done to even the playing field by choosing as many female representatives as they do males, much like the Reforms taking place in France. Measures have been taken to rectify this situation, with Bill C-2. This Bill suggested that parties with at least 20 per cent female MPs would be granted a larger amount of reimbursement for their election expenses, and an even larger refund for those parties with 30 per cent female MPs. (Howe & Northrup, 2000) Canadians support the idea that parties should be required to increase the amount of female candidates.

Visible minorities are also under-represented by government. In 1997, visible minorities accounted for little over 6 per cent of Members of Parliament. An increase from 1993 when this group made up 4.4 per cent, and 1.7 per cent in 1988. (Howe & Northrup, 2000) With visible minorities making up 11 per cent of the population, the under-representation of visible minorities is as serious as that of Canadian women. However only 35 per cent of Canadians feel that this is a problem, but almost half feel that parties should be required to elect more visible minority candidates. (Howe & Northrup, 2000)

Canadas Aboriginal people are a group that has been grossly under-represented by government throughout Canadian history. “As the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples reported, of the approximately 11 000 MPs elected since Confederation, only 13 have been self- identified as Aboriginal.” (Howe & Northrup, 2000) The Lortie Commissions proposal to this problem was to set aside seats in the House, specifically for Aboriginal representatives. A solid majority of Canadians (57 percent)” (Howe & Northrup, 2000) thought that was a good solution for this obvious problematic mis-representation.

This evidence shows that the representation that all of Canadas minority groups receive a disproportionate amount of representation in Parliament when compared to the rest of Canada. It is also clear that most Canadians feel that something should be done to allow and ensure that the House of Commons is more diversified.

Voter turnout in Canada is also at the forefront of Canadian democracy. Many Canadians feel that democracy does not serve its purpose if it is not being used to serve the whole of a country. “In