Single member constituency vs. Proportional Representation
... of Commons and this would disrupt the political processes of an otherwise stable government. In addition, single member constituencies result in a single party federal government. Therefore, passing legislation in this type of system is relatively easy because there is no true opposition to the majority. The majority government can pass any bills it sees fit for the common good without any major delays. However, proportional representation nourishes minority governments to form coalitions that have the ability to oppose legislation for their own purposes. This can paralyze the decision-making process in a deadlock and make legislation extremely inefficient. With so many parties with seats in the House of Commons, potential bills would take twice the time to be passed because of the range of opinions. Lastly, the formation of coalition governments could result in an unfit majority. For example, two or more political parties could join together to pass a bill that is unsuitable for Canadian citizens. If this happens, the original majority could not stop this from occurring. The new majority government would be completely unfit for the rightful governing of Canada. Moreover, proportional representation might not give voters what they voted for, which is a promise of the system. For example, if a citizen votes for a particular party they support and that party joins with a party that citizen despises, this action would contradict the citizen’s vote. Evidently, there are definite arguments that support the maintenance of the traditional single member constituency instead of replacing the Canadian system with proportional representation. Seemingly, proportional representation has a few downfalls, but there are also great strengths to the system. One strength is the encouragement it gives to potential voters to cast their ballots at election time. Canadian citizens do not feel their ballot makes much of a difference and therefore, feel that voting is a waste of time. For example, citizens who voted in the federal election of Canada in 2000 felt the consequences of single member constituency. Any person who voted for the Progressive Conservatives found their party to earn twelve percent of the popular vote. However, the PC party attained only four percent of the seats in the House of Commons. These results would be extremely frustrating to PC party supporters. Consequently, Canadian citizens will become extremely pessimistic towards their political system. On the contrary, proportional representation abolishes the chance of the electorate being ignored. For instance, if proportional representation were in place at the federal election of 2000, the Liberal party would have only received forty percent of the seats in the House of Commons. *** In addition to proportional representation being a more accurate voting system, it also restricts the exclusion of minorities. Some Canadians might not feel the need to cast their vote because they are denied a meaningful choice of candidates. However, with proportional representation, women, Hispanics, Asian-Canadians, political independents, and African-Canadians can win seats without being in the majority. The list of candidates within the proportional representation electoral system includes members of both majority and minority groups. Therefore, these members appeal to the whole spectrum of voters’ interests. Additionally, the addition of diverse candidates to the political system could lead to situations where a single party could not hold all the seats in a given district. If minority parties were available, a minority of seats would be awarded in the House of Commons. All of these factors contribute to the encouragement of minority representatives in government. Although...