FPTP, first adopted from the British parliamentary system, has been used in every Canadian federal election since Confederation in The United States also uses a FPTP electoral system, but with only two major candidates in a general election, candidates routinely win with a majority of the vote. With three, four, or even five candidates in Canadian ridings, candidates are able to win these ridings with well under a majority of the vote.
When Canadians are deciding how they should vote, the question is more complex than simply who should represent them in Parliament. Furthermore, the existence of two strong parties left of center means Conservatives often win ridings where, given a binary choice between a left-leaning and right-leaning candidate, the left-leaning candidate would win. So what happens when candidates are able to routinely win their election with well under a majority of the vote?
In , one of those Canadians was Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. He promised that, if elected Prime Minister, the Canadian federal election would be the last election conducted using a FPTP electoral system and floated a single-transferrable vote as a possible alternative, or a system that would combine multiple ridings together which then allows voters to choose multiple members of parliament to represent them, matching the proportion of the vote for each party.
The Liberal Party went on to win a majority government in and two years later Prime Minister Trudeau abandoned his promise of electoral reform.
Today, the prospect of electoral reform is at a standstill. The Liberal Party has again floated the possibility of electoral reform in the run-up to this election but they are unlikely to take up the issue, especially given the lack of consensus on a replacement system.
For the foreseeable future, Canadian democracy remains as is: fundamentally flawed and yearning for change. Bound by common geopolitical interests and strong economic and cultural ties, Canada and the United States enjoy the world's most successful bilateral relationship.
In an effort to determine the extent to which respondents were committed to more free votes in the House, their position was challenged in a follow-up question. That respondents are not swayed by an important counter-argument suggests their views on the question of free votes are quite firmly held.
For those concerned about the state of Canadian democracy, one especially troubling trend is declining voter turnout. In the federal election, only 67 percent of registered voters cast a ballot Figure 5 , the lowest figure in a federal election since The decline is fairly recent, with an eight point decrease witnessed since It is too early to say whether this trend will continue, but certainly the recent dip is cause for concern.
It is important to know something about the underlying sources of the phenomenon: are abstainers uninterested, do they feel their votes carry little weight, or are they simply too pressed for time to get out to the polls?
In our battery of questions on this topic, respondents were first asked if they themselves had voted in the last federal election. Three-quarters 74 percent reported they had, seven points higher than the actual turnout — a discrepancy commonly seen on opinion polls. The elevated level of reported voting is also probably due in part to a tendency to give the socially acceptable response. That is to say, the notion that people really ought to vote leads to some over-reporting of actual voting.
Certainly, our data point to a strong sense among the Canadian public that the right to vote is not to be taken lightly. Respondents were asked how important they thought it was to vote: essential, very important, somewhat important or not all that important. Over two-fifths 41 percent said they believed it was essential, and another 43 percent said it was very important Table These numbers are reassuring: despite declining voter turnout, more than 80 percent of Canadians still think voting is important.
Obviously, though, such an attitude does not guarantee actual voting; as Table 14 indicates, only 85 percent of those who think voting essential actually cast a ballot in What is keeping people from exercising their franchise?
Those who reported casting a ballot in the last election were asked why they vote. Is it out of a sense of duty or because they feel voting makes a difference? The results shown in Table 15 indicate that only 30 percent report voting out of a sense of duty, while over 50 percent vote because they feel it makes a difference. A further 15 percent vote for both reasons combined.
Another question, put to all respondents, asked about why people are not voting. The question first noted that there has been a decline in the number of people who vote in the past twenty years. Respondents were then asked what they thought was behind this: is it that people do not have the time to vote, that people are not interested, or that people feel it does not matter who you vote for?
As with voting, the dominant factor underlying non-voting is, in the minds of Canadians, voter efficacy, or rather inefficacy: most respondents 55 percent feel that turnout is declining because non-voters believe it does not matter who you vote for Table Only 23 percent attribute the falling numbers to a lack of interest or knowledge about politics. Finally, only five percent feel people are voting less because they are simply too pressed for time to make it to the polls.
The immediate conclusion to be drawn from these findings is that certain proposed methods of persuading people to vote seem more promising than others. One key way to get Canadians out to the polls is to make them feel their votes matter. One potential reform to this end would be the introduction of greater proportionality in the translation of votes into seats. Under a PR system, seats are allocated on the basis of the popular vote, and citizens are more inclined to feel their votes carry some weight.
It is no coincidence that voter turnout is generally higher in countries that use a PR system. Other ways of increasing voter turnout would likely have less impact. For example, some argue that if fewer Canadians are voting nowadays, efforts must be made to revive public interest in politics and instill a stronger sense of civic duty. In this vein, it is sometimes proposed that a more rigorous program of civics education in the schools would help reverse current trends.
But if political interest and a sense of duty are less important determinants of voting, such proposals would likely have less effect. These initial conclusions, however, should not be accepted too quickly.
First, we need to know more about the degree to which the factors that encourage voting have been changing.
Canadians may report that the belief that voting makes a difference is a more important determinant of turnout than political interest or a sense of duty, but if the proportion of people who feel voting makes a difference has remained constant since , whereas the proportion who are interested in politics has fallen significantly, then the latter factor could be the sole explanation for the observed decline.
What matters is not only the relative importance of different factors in determining voting, but also the degree to which those factors have been changing over time. One thing seems clear: the sense that voting makes a difference is on the decline. It is apparent from the evidence presented above that over the course of the s, Canadian voters have been feeling increasingly disempowered. They are more inclined to feel that citizens do not have any say about what the government does, more likely to express disapproval of the results typically produced by the first-past-the-post electoral system, and more apt to support the idea of free voting by MPs.
At the same time, they are less inclined to feel that the major issues of the day are too complicated for most voters: Canadians want their views to have some influence on government. All of these changes point to increasing disenchantment with a political system that is seen to be relatively unresponsive to voter preferences. Believing that voting matters is an important determinant of turnout in Canadian elections, and it would appear that Canadians have been feeling lately that it matters less and less.
At the same time that voters appear more inclined to think their votes insignificant, interest in politics is holding steady. The figures in Table 17 indicate that over the course of the s interest in politics has remained quite constant. In , just over half of respondents 55 percent indicated that they followed politics either very closely or fairly closely; this figure is virtually the same in 56 percent. Thus, even though interest in politics does partly determine whether people vote, there does not seem to have been any decline in interest over the past ten years that could explain falling turnout.
Agrowing sense that voting does not matter appears to be a more compelling explanation. If persuading Canadians that voting matters is one way to increase turnout, there is another, simpler alternative: the government could simply make voting compulsory.
Such a system is in place in other countries, such as Australia and Belgium. Respondents were asked what they thought of introducing a law that would compel citizens to vote or face a small fine. It is perhaps not surprising to find that the overwhelming majority of Canadians 73 percent are opposed to this idea Table Even those who think it is essential to vote are not supportive, as 33 percent support the idea, while 65 percent are opposed. It would appear, then, that increasing voter turnout will require more subtle means of influence and persuasion.
A matter of concern to many political observers is the apparent long-term decline in the relevance of political parties in the public eye.
This indeed was one of the key themes in the work undertaken by the Lortie Commission. The depth of the problem should not be overstated; parties remain pivotal players in our political system. But they do seem to have suffered an erosion in stature and clout over the past several decades. The fraying ofthe party system at the federal level means that the parties represent smaller sub-sections of the electorate than in the past.
The parties have also seen their role challenged by the rise of interest groups, which many fear undermine party politics by encouraging the pursuit of narrow self-interest at the expense of the politics of coalition and compromise.
Two-thirds of respondents 69 percent on the IRPP survey agree with the statement. These figures are essentially unchanged since , indicating that on this very general measure, public perceptions of political parties are holding firm. This part of the story is reassuring for those concerned about the future of parties, since any growing sentiment that we could do away with parties altogether would signal a very grave problem indeed.
But this does not mean, of course, that Canadians are necessarily content with the particular parties and party system in place at present. This turns out not to be the case. Instead, there has been an increase of eight percent in the number who agree that the parties are basically the same and there is no choice Figure 7.
This is not to say that respondents have it wrong. For while it is true that there are five parties holding parliamentary seats in Ottawa, in most parts of the country and in most constituencies, it is a two-horse race at best. Equally, the presence of five parties has not enhanced competition for office, since only the Liberals have any chance of forming a government on current form. Rather than enhancing choice, the fragmentation of the party system, which has allowed the Liberals to form majority governments on relatively weak popular vote shares Other disquieting patterns emerge when we ask respondents a series of questions about their personal participation in political parties and interest groups.
Respondents were first asked if they had ever been a member of an interest group working for change on a particular social or political issue. The same questions were asked of political parties: have you ever been a member; if so, did you spend time canvassing or helping them get things done; if not, have you ever thought about joining one?
The responses to these questions are summarized in Table The only question for which we have a comparison is the one on party membership.
Ten years ago, 18 percent of those surveyed said they had at some time been a member of a political party; now this figure sits at 16 percent.
But if there has been a drop, it remains the case that the figures reported in Table 19 are much higher than other estimates of the rate of party membership in the Canadian population, which have typically produ ced figures in the two to three percent range. The difference between the two measures suggests that a great many people join parties at some point in their lives but do not keep up their membership. One proposal put forward by the Lortie Commission to this end was the establishment of party foundations or thinktanks that would encourage and facilitate such extra-electoral activity.
At the same time, the gap between current and historic membership suggests there is a fair constituency to be tapped by the parties. Presumably some of those who have joined a party at one point in their lives might be persuaded to join again if they felt there were meaningful activities in which they might be involved. In short, if the parties could convince members to remain after election time, membership levels could potentially rise significantly. Returning to Table 19, we see that participation in interest groups is nearly on a par with participation in parties, with 12 percent reporting they have been a member of such a group at some point.
And for both types of organization, most who have been members also report that they have actively done work for the group. Relatively few Canadians may participate in political parties and interest groups, but those who do are generally not passive members.
If there is only a small gap in the actual membership of parties and interest groups, there is a greater difference between the two in contemplated membership. While only an additional 10 percent have at some point considered joining a political party, nearly twice as many, 19 percent, have considered joining an interest group Table Why the strong attraction to interest groups?
An important part of the answer lies in their perceived effectiveness. Respondents were asked the following question:. Some people think joining a political party is a good way to work for change on the issues they care about. Other people think joining an interest group working for change on a specific issue is more effective. What do you think is a more effective way to work for change nowadays: joining a political party or an interest group?
The results shown in Table 20 are striking: for every person who thinks parties are the more effective vehicle, there are three who think interest groups are the instrument of choice. Right or wrong, this is an important perception which likely has significant implications for political participation. Not surprisingly, the distribution of opinion differs among those who have been members of political parties, as 47 percent pick interest groups and 30 percent choose parties. But these figures should give further pause: even among members of political parties, interest groups are seen as the more effective instruments of change.
Clearly, then, interest groups are giving parties a run for their money, at least in public perceptions of their relative efficacy. But how deep does the com petition run? Are political parties and interest groups alternative forms of political participation or antithetical? The latter is the interpretation favoured by many who are critical of interest group activity.
Participants in interest groups, it is sometimes said, are concerned only with the particular concerns of their group and have no interest in joining the broader aggregations of interests that parties represent. Interest group pressure, by this view, is a substitute, not a complement, to party politics.
One important implication of the critical view is that members of interest groups will rarely join political parties. Rather than a negative correlation, we find a strong positive correlation between party membership and interest group membership.
Among those who have been members of interest groups, 39 percent have also been members of political parties, compared to only 12 percent among all other respondents. When we compare the larger groups consisting of members and those who have contemplated membership, the same pattern is found: 54 percent inclined to participate in interest groups are also inclined to participate in parties, compared to only 16 percent among all other respondents.
There is also no evidence supportive of the critical viewpoint in the attitudes of interest group adherents toward political parties. The figures in Table 21 isolate the opinions of those who, according to the reasoning of interest group critics, should be most likely to think negatively of political parties: people who have eith er been members of interest groups or considered joining one and have never been a member of a political party and would not consider joining one.
On the question of whether parties are necessary to democracy, these interest group enthusiasts are more likely to disagree than other respondents. However, the overall differences are not large, and a firm majority in the interest group category agrees that parties are necessary to democracy. On the issue of choice among the federal parties, those drawn to interest groups are much like other respondents; they concur that the choices are limited, but no more than that.
And finally, interest group enthusiasts are not especially likely to be non-partisan: 55 percent identify with a political party, slightly more than in the rest of the sample 53 percent. It seems quite clear that a penchant for interest group activity does not generate any particular antipathy toward political parties. This said, there are elements of the political system that do seem to be of particular concern to those who participate in interest groups. Whereas about one-third of respondents think that the under-representation of women and visible minorities in Parliament is a serious problem, nearly half 48 percent of those who have belonged to an interest group hold this view.
And whereas 51 percent of all respondents think that it is either unfair or unacceptable that a party with less than a majority of the vote can win a majority of seats, 62 percent of interest group members take this position as do, interestingly enough, 62 percent of those who have been a member of a political party.
This dissatisfaction with the representational mechanisms of electoral democracy on the part of interest group members is coupled with less deferential attitudes, as nearly two-thirds 65 percent disagree with the statement that the major issues of the day are too complicated for most voters, compared to 48 percent for the sample as a whole and 52 percent among party members.
The implication of these findings is that the decline of parties should not be linked too closely to the rise of interest groups. There are high levels of cross-participation in interest groups and parties, contrary to the common perception that interest group activity crowds out involvement in parties.
And even those involved in interest groups who eschew participation in political parties do not hold markedly critical views of parties. The most salient characteristic of interest groups is that they are seen as more effective vehicles for effecting change. For those dissatisfied with important elements of the political system, such as the electoral system and the position of under-represented groups within society, and confident that citizens themselves are fully capable of taking charge, joining an interest group is a natural course of action.
If parties want to regain centre stage in Canadian politics, they need to find ways of refashioning themselves so that Canadians come to feel that belonging to a party is an effective way of working for change on the issues they care about.
One means to this end would be some manner of internal restructuring so that individual members might have greater opportunity to be involved in party activities on an ongoing basis rather than simply lending a hand at election time. The role of money in politics is an important issue in debates on democratic governance. It is, of course, a major concern in the United States where reform of campaign financing is widely thought to be an urgent priority but has yet to be realized.
In Germany, recent revelations concerning illegal donations to the Christian Democrats have generated considerable scandal. The attention this issue often attracts signifies a widespread belief, common to most democracies, that there should be some rules governing political contributions and expenditures to help ensure a level playing surface in the electoral arena. This is not an issue that has been as prominent in Canadian political debate. There are, of course, regulations in place that control spending by both parties and other groups in election campaigns.
Court challenges have been launched to some of these regulations, in particular those aimed at third party spending, with some measure of success. And certain changes to the Canada Elections Act have recently been passed by Parliament, though these involve fairly minor alterations rather than any dramatic reforms.
The regulation of political financing in Canada has, for the most part, been a quietly managed affair. Yet despite the absence of vigorous public debate or scandal, we find evidence of mounting public cynicism about the role of money in politics over the past decade. The items replicated from the survey on this topic are general inquiries for the most part, which allow us to measure the broad evolution of opinion over the course of the s.
For example, respondents were first asked if they agreed or disagreed that people with money have a lot of influence over the government. Cynicism on this count was already very high in , with 83 percent agreeing with the statement. On the current survey, this has climbed to 88 percent — a significant five point change, given that it represents further bolstering of what was already a very strong consensus Figure 8. We next asked respondents whether they agreed that the party that spends the most during an election is almost sure to win the election.
On this measure, there was less cynicism in , as only 36 percent agreed with the statement. Ten years later, the level of agreement has risen quite dramatically to 60 percent Figure 9.
This is the question on the survey showing the largest change since the baseline survey and it provides strong evidence of growing public concern about the role of money in politics.
The sources of this change are not entirely clear. The issue of political financing was discussed a fair bit during the Ontario election, as the Conservative party managed to outspend its opponents by a sizeable margin, thanks to an increase in the maximum contribution level and a narrowing of the definition of election expenses.
Instead, the change in attitudes is quite consistent across the board see Appendix 2. Further confirmation of growing concern about the role of money in politics is found when we asked respondents whether they feel it is impossible to control what political parties receive and spend in an election. Here the increase is more modest, from 55 percent agreement in to 62 percent in Figure Those who thought that control is impossible were asked if they felt that attempting it anyway is a waste of time and energy, or whether it is still worth trying.
In both and , over three-quarters said they believe it is still worth trying to control what parties receive and spend. Clearly Canadians are not so disaffected that they would just as soon turn their backs on the issue.
But there has been a decrease in the number who say it is worth trying, from 84 percent in to 76 percent today. This growing suspicion about the role of money in politics is a worrying trend. But is it justified? Skip to main content. You are here You are here : Home Parliament. Did you know? Parliament and Government are not the same. Parliament is made up of the monarch represented by the governor general , appointed senators and all elected members of the House of Commons Government is responsible for managing the business of the country.
0コメント