Introduction to the paper:
1. The final paper consists of 3,500 words and will involve summarizing and evaluating relevant academic literature related to a topic covered throughout the semester.
2. There is no minimum requirement for the number of academic resources required for the final thesis, and you have the flexibility to select the material that is most relevant and insightful to your research and to access the literature through summary and reflection. In order to complete this assignment, you should obtain literature from academic sources outside of this course. (Just search the Web for peer-reviewed literature related to the topic.)
3. The length of the final paper should meet the requirement, that is, about 3,500 words, slightly lower or higher than this requirement can be, but resist the temptation to write a paper.
4. Please use APA format.
5. Again, don’t increase the length of your paper by adjusting font size, margins, including a lot of quotes or long citations.
6. Please do not use artificial intelligence (AI) software to help you complete assignments for this course.
7. Prioritize richness and detail by focusing on one or two ideas and researching them in depth, with depth as the depth of independent analysis, rather than addressing numerous issues superficially. Conducting substantive independent analysis requires mental effort and deep thought, as meaningful insights often emerge gradually rather than immediately. Take the time to sit, reflect purposefully and interact with the material, rise to the challenge and benefit from conducting thoughtful analysis. When you succeed in producing and communicating sharp observations, you will find the intellectual effort very satisfying.
Subject: Government Structure (Political Science, Management and Economics)
Topic: Describe and summarize the Canadian electoral system (i.e., how it works) and discuss its strengths and weaknesses (i.e., criticisms), answering the question of what are the consequences of the Canadian electoral system? Finally, the author gives some reasonable reflections and suggestions from a college student’s thinking.
Note: (The following may help you understand the topic)
1.Canadian electoral system
Canada’s electoral system is single-member majority (also known as first-past-the-post). Under this system, Canada is divided into electoral districts or constituencies, each of which is represented by one Member of Parliament in the House of Commons. In a general election, voters in each constituency vote for their preferred candidate, and the candidate with the most votes is elected as the Member of Parliament for that constituency.
Although Canada’s electoral system has been in place for many years, it has faced criticism and has various flaws.
First, a major criticism of the first-past-the-post system is that it can lead to a serious disconnect between the popular vote and the allocation of seats in the House of Commons. Due to the winner-take-all nature of the system, one party can win a majority of seats with less than the total popular vote. This could lead to a lack of proportional representation and could produce a ruling party that does not truly reflect the preferences of the majority of voters. Second, Canada’s first-past-the-post system tends to widen regional differences and can lead to uneven representation. Parties with concentrated support in a particular region, such as the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party/Canada Alliance in the past, can gain a large number of seats without broad national support. This can lead to regional tensions and can lead to under-representation of certain regions or minority groups. Third, the winner-take-all system also leads to “wasted votes.” If voters support a candidate who is unlikely to win in their district, their vote may not make a difference to the final result. This can reduce voter turnout and lead to strategic voting, where voters feel compelled to support the candidate they think is more likely to win, rather than vote for their preferred candidate. Critics argue that the current system may discourage the expression of diverse voices and views. Due to the winner-take-all nature of the system, which can result in under-representation of women, indigenous peoples and minorities, small parties or independent candidates may face challenges in securing seats. Finally, first-past-the-post systems tend to reinforce the two-party system, making it difficult for smaller parties to gain a foothold and limiting voters’ choices. Some argue that this limits political competition, stifles innovation, and limits the representation of a broader range of ideological and policy views.
2. What are the consequences of Canada’s electoral system?
First, the influence of special interest groups: The involvement of special interest groups in party financing may raise concerns that they may have undue influence over political parties and policy decisions. When political parties rely heavily on financial contributions from specific interest groups, these groups may have a disproportionate influence on the party’s platform and policy priorities, potentially to the detriment of the broader public interest.
Second, there is a lack of transparency: political party finance issues are often associated with transparency and accountability. Transparency in political funding is essential to ensure that the public has access to information about the sources and amounts of funding received by political parties. However, there has been criticism of the adequacy and effectiveness of the disclosure rules, with concerns about loopholes and inadequate reporting requirements.
Third, disproportionate representation: Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system can lead to the absence of proportional representation, as parties may win a majority of seats without a corresponding majority of votes. This can lead to a disconnect between the popular vote received by parties and their representation in the legislature. Critics argue that this could distort the political landscape and risk undermining the democratic principle of proportional representation.
In addition, resource imbalance: the influence of special interests on party financing will exacerbate the resource gap between political parties. Parties that receive significant funding from wealthy individuals or corporate entities may have a significant advantage over small parties or independent candidates who rely on grassroots support. This can result in an unlevel playing field and hinder the ability of smaller parties or independent candidates to compete effectively.
Finally, the need for reform: shortcomings related to the party’s finances and special interests have led to calls for reform. Recommendations include tighter regulation of political financing, greater transparency in reporting, limits on individual and corporate donations, and exploring alternative funding models such as public financing. These reforms aim to promote a more level playing field, reduce the influence of special interests, and enhance the integrity and fairness of the political system.