Ã¯Â¿Â½PAGE Ã¯Â¿Â½ Ã¯Â¿Â½PAGE Ã¯Â¿Â½1Ã¯Â¿Â½
"Tonight friends our great country has voted for a change, and Canadians have asked our party to take the lead and delivering that change. We will honor your trust; we will deliver on our commitment."Ã¯Â¿Â½ These are the opening words of our 22nd Prime Minister of Canada acceptance speech. On January 23, 2006 Canadians voted for the Conservatives Party to be in power lead by Stephen Harper. The dynasty of the Liberal Party has crashed and burn after twelve years in power because of the anger accumulated by Canadians over the sponsorship scandal recently. This is what Canadians voted for, is to have a change in government and a leader that stands up for Canada or is it? Do Canadians want to see a new electoral system used in the federal elections or to stick with the Single-Member Plurality that Canada is currently using? Which system is going to bring out the most voters and young voters and translate them into seats that the voters want to see in the House of Commons?
The Canadian electoral system foundation is based on the United Kingdom system and how they use it.Ã¯Â¿Â½
The current system which was used for the 2006 elections where Stephen Harper won is entitle the "single-member plurality" or "first-past-the-post" systemÃ¯Â¿Â½ or as Paul Prosperi call it "winner takes all system." The system is simple not complex and that makes it easy for Canadians to understand. There is no loop hole or difficulties with the single-member plurality system. It is straight forward, one candidate from each constituency with the most votes accumulated by the end of the day wins in
that riding. The goal is to attain plurality is based on the translation of votes into seat.Ã¯Â¿Â½ Canadians would argue that what if one candidate...