Pros and Cons on Proposals of Canada Electoral Reform Essay

Pros and Cons on Proposals of Canada Electoral Reform - Essay Example iii). Arguments rejecting mixed member proportional system iv). Comparison of proposed mixed member proportional system in Canada and New Zealand v). Conclusion Pros and Cons on Proposals of Canada Electoral Reform Proposals on Canada electoral reform have sought to address concerns on political representation. In the recent past, pundits and politicians have engaged in debates, which have sought to address democratic deficit. Critics have noted voting trends that are alarming. For example, 1997 and 2000 federal elections, it emerged, that the number of citizens who did not vote exceeded the number that voted the winning party (Tanguay 5). This is among the paradigms that the proposals on electoral reforms have sought to address. While observers and Canadian politicians agree that electoral system needs an overhaul they disagree on the approaches that seek to give a solution to the problems. A growing number of Canadians believe that FPTP electoral system is inherently unfair because it fails to reflect the wishes of the voters. In addition, Canada inherited the system from the colonial master. In the system, the colonialist had instituted it in order to serve his own interest at the expense of the colonized. The proponents of electoral reform observe the following in relation to the FPTP electoral system. ... Second, the FPTP system promotes regionalization, which makes the citizens to build various perceptions about some provinces of the country. For instance, West is either Conservatives or Reform and the Ontario is a liberal bastion (Tanguay 4). The divisions that emanate from principle views of the political system should not create regionalization. It is arguable that a given region may vote the winning party or the opposition party. However, not every individual in the region voted for these two positions. In this sense, regionalization deprives the democratic gains. A voter has a choice; however, the choice should not determine the region where the voter should belong. Third argument about the FPTP is system is that it allows the governing party to dominate the political sphere for the four-year period, which creates marginalization in parliament. The citizens and the critics of this system believe that other political representatives should address their concerns in the parliament (Stephenson & Tanguay 8). On the contrary, this seems not to be the case, politicians representing the opposition interest seems to lie in the cold while the mainstream politicians address issues in the parliament. The forth argument against electoral reform is that the politicians constituting the House of Commons does not reflect on the voters choice. Ideally, citizens vote in order to send a representative who can address their concerns. However, lack of representation in the House of Common shows that the voting process wasted a large a big number of votes casted if the constitution of the House of Common does not reflect the voters’