It may have been a little trivial and even utilitarian receiving several participation trophies and awards as children; often for no more than being involved with the respective event at hand. However, democratic participation is considered anything but trivial- it is the mechanism through which the gears of democracy’s engine turns. The outcomes of the 2016 and 2020 US Presidential elections remain fresh in mind as two dominant scenarios that are able to manifest through a fondness for (or a lack of) participation in a democracy. Below, let us evaluate the issues that persist for democratic participation within Canada, and how that affects the choices Canadians make through our elections and voting system.
One of democracy’s core values boils down to the participation required for a common goal to be developed and later achieved. Participation rests as one of the forefronts of a legitimate democracy, as the power of the people to be vested in the state is required for that given state to eventually prosper. These ideas have taken hold since the birth of the French Revolution, and the same ideas play significant roles in how our national and global community is comprised today. Canada’s electoral system is known as the Single Member Plurality (SMP) system, also referred to as the First-Past-the-Post. It holds that members who are elected to Parliament must win in their respective riding; where once they win, their political and progressive opinions are shared in Parliament. (Single Member Plurality, 2020) The brash downside to this system is that the opinions of the runner ups and others who were voted for in the riding stage do not make it to the Parliament. The legitimate opinions of Canadians who vote for anyone but the winner from their respective riding become reduced to nothing but ashes, figuratively speaking. Compare this to how the rise of technology has made counter-opinions and things of argumentative nature easier to form from a social perspective (lecture module 5), and the SMP system represents a rather hasty and disregarding system.
Several other countries have relied on differing (and arguably fairer) methods of participation within their democracy. Proportional representation (PR) is another popular method that accounts for the opinions of the politicians who did not win their riding/region, but still accounts for a sizable portion of a given state’s democracy. Countries such as Denmark, Italy, Greece, Spain, and various other countries use the PR system as part of accounting for the difference of opinions within their democracy. (Primary Election, 2020) Although Canada has an official opposition embedded within our democracy and constitution, I would argue that lesser-known or acknowledged opinions are of crucial importance to a democracy. Therefore, dissent stemming from multiple sides of opinion (instead of just one as the official opposition) are necessary for a society to progress in the most timely and productive manner.
As stated earlier, the rate at which technology has exponentially advanced means lesser known opinions have the opportunity to be acknowledged, from a debate perspective. Just as technology has adapted to include more a proportional style of representation (module lecture 5), some kind of reform must be implemented in the election process so we as a community from a legislative perspective can embrace the same kind of change. Then the question remains, why haven’t we? The upside to the SMP system is the more efficient means of enacting certain legislations that an administration would like to address in the short time they hold office. A Prime Minister holds office in Canada for a maximum of five years, given that the House of Commons is in support of them (no lack of confidence). In this time, means for a quick and effective change can be implemented within Canada. However, to what extent are changes permanent? I would contend that permanent changes are of more significant importance than one administration reversing the last’s bills and legislation. By the same token, efficiency should not be at the forefront of the Canadian electoral process; productivity should be. Although efficiency should be a factor, in my perspective the noteworthy amount of people whose opinions are not accounted for heavily outweigh how much efficiency is stressed as part of our SMP.
If productivity in Canada’s representation were considered to be of more importance than factors such as efficiency and time, we as a state can progressively move towards more discourse of opinion on the political landscape, instead of hearing the same liberal versus conservative views. The truth of the matter is that there are more than two sides of dissent to an issue, and Canada should follow in the footsteps of other states and account for this discrepancy within their electoral process.
References
Lecture Module 5, Media & Bias. (2020). Retrieved 4 March 2020.
Primary election | election process, United States. (2020). Retrieved 12 March 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/primary-election
Single Member Plurality. (2020). Retrieved 13 March 2020, from http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/101/SMP.html
Jeruson J., ARCHIVED. 