Effects Of Democracy On Leadership In Canada SPSS Project

Running Head: EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA

1

Effects of Democracy on Leadership (Politics) in Canada

Name

Institution Affiliation

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 2

2

EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON THE LEADERSHIP

(POLITICAL SYSTEM) IN CANADA.

November 2017.

Introduction

This study will interrogate the effects of democracy on the leadership or the political system in

Canada. Therefore, the study will examine how democracy affects the leadership process in

Canada from the voting process to the installation of the new leadership after an election.

The concept of democracy is a recognized doctrine or principle appreciated around the world

by most if not all countries and people regardless of the people’s cultural beliefs, achievements,

political, social and economic prowess or differences. This may be practiced in other

communities which are considered to be less developed, but they know democracy in another

language or formation. Thus, democracy is based on the supremacy of the law or the rule of

law and the application of the same on human rights. It is therefore understood by certain

people who are said to be governed by the rule of law and a democracy that the law governs

all the people, no one is above the law and that the law applies equally to all the members of

that particular state. According to the existing literature or history, it is not possible to exercise

democracy without having an installed government in place. The government in place

breakdown/divides powers between the equal independent branches of the government each

with a given mandate. In such a setting the function of the judiciary is to work on conflicts

among these branches so that to be able to have a solution based on the agreed legal reasoning

with the existing laws of the land.

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 3

3

Literature Review

According to Guas et al. (2004), there are different forms of democracies, there are those who

give improved representations for the people in leadership positions, and there are those who

do not. It is however entirely clear and in public domain that if democracy is inadequately put

in place using the law to be able to evenly distribute the power among all the people in the

community including; power separation. Then a section of the system could go rogue and then

destroy the same democracy (Barak, 2006 & Williamson, 2004). As previous literature would

have it, democracy can facilitate the development of political identities. The basics of

democracy are founded on the basic needs of the people and their various requirements and

expectation from the ruling authority of the day (Barak, 2006). In most cases, the proponents

of democracy believe that democracy dictates that the majority rules which is a characteristic

of democracy. In a situation where there is no checks and balances, and the majority wants to

abuse their majority power, the minority would end up being disadvantaged courtesy of the

‘tyranny of the majority.’ True to his words Barak (2006) stated that it is only fair and of equity

if and when a country would have fair and competitive elections which are characterized by

transparency and accountability. Free and fair elections are meant for the well-being of both

the majority and the minority in such a country as Canada.

Community leadership

There are laid out rules and bylaws by local government and municipalities for the best interest

of their communities. Thus, the community leadership concept has been in existence since time

immemorial. The local municipalities and local governments are a form of democracy and a

representation of the same because the people working in that authority structure are elected

and identified by the people so that they can go out there and represent them. The system is

laid-out in such a way that the community leadership and the local government is connected to

the central government in a larger system. Community leadership is, therefore, democracy at

home or the representation of democracy in the grass root level where the people at the

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 4

4

countryside have a way of accessing resources and services courtesy of the democratization of

the system. It is clear and prima facie on all the earlier studies on the issue of democracy that

the connection existing between the local authority leaders and community leaders; have a

positive or a one on one advantage and welfare of the community (Wilkinson, 1991). The roles

played by the said leaders in the development of the community cannot be overlooked. The

role played by these officials is thus a spillover of the democracy as is practiced by the top

authority in the central government. It is evidence that the society leaders who are in the local

community are faced with different challenges some of which they cannot be able to solve due

to lack of knowledge on the same (Cuff 2007). It is empirically known that the connection

between the post one is assigned to and the services he delivers is not directly related or

obvious. In the event, the leaders keep mixing up the decision making and the giving of services

to the community or the society. The earlier roles and accountability were therefore somewhat

open and directly stipulated. According to Lowndes (1995), it is at the grass root levels that the

leaders and politicians usually meet up with the people, the people get to see the public officials

in the process of being served by the same. The leaders in the society or the local community

always try to put in pressure to give the essential public services to the people and still in the

process get to put a distinction or separation or division of the government departments and

institutions. The empirical findings in the literature reviewed by the researcher for the purposes

of this study presented that the declining social capital is coupled with the decline in leadership

in certain regions and areas. Therefore, it was found by Warner that it is of utmost importance

to establish certain infrastructures which would be used to join, develop and produce potential

leaders. The study stated that such opportunities and facilities could be developed and

established by actively involving the potential leaders in some of these growth programs so

that to be able to nurture then and invest leadership skills in them. This means that the young

leaders would be given a chance to grow themselves properly and in the right environment. A

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 5

5

potential leader or an individual who is being recruited or who have been subjected to the

leadership program would be allowed to gather their strength and garner their confidence which

would be in preparation for their undertakings as leaders in the immediate future (Warner,

2004). According to Clark & Clegg (1998) who analyzed the different rationales for the change

in the local government/authority. The researchers argued that the established or existing

systems/structure were inadequate for the dynamics brought about by the new circumstances

which are based on the delivery of services to the public.

Societal welfare

The societal welfare can be in correlation to the community development, community

development or the welfare of the organization can be improved by the political systems and

the people elected through the democratic process to the leadership positions. In most cases,

politicians and leaders have forgotten their functions of development of the communities and

the situation which is facing the community. Also in most cases, these functions for the

development and improvement of the community for access to social amenities and basic

services have been undertaken by the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) (Bolton,

2005). According to Kirk et al. growth of local talents and leadership is one of the key activities

in a bid to enable the community to enjoy a better place to live in. The community development

programs thus bring in the empowerment of young individuals and youth groups by training

them and equipping them with the right skills so that they can be able to effect positive change

in their communities. In the long run, these skills which have been installed on these trained

individuals become functional when there is coming together and a formation of social groups

of people who have come together with a common interest (Kelly, 1988).

In a study carried out by Sabran (1999) examined the role of leadership in the progress and

development of the society projects and undertakings in Malaysia by use of the case study. The

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 6

6

findings by Sabran found out that the secrets of success of the society are based on the different

items. According to McMillan & Chavis (1986), there are four elements which have been

established to check the ‘sense of the community,' these are membership, Influence, Integration

and fulfilment of needs. These are some of the most important things to the community and the

reasons which make the community tick. Thus, the same can be understood as the main

underlying or the foundations of democracy. This is because these people or the citizens come

in and agree to vote in a democratic process so that they can choose the leaders who they

believe would help them to get these functions and services (Chavis, 1986). Another study by

Obst et al. (2002) established that there is a linear relationship or an association bordering the

sense of community in both the urban and the rural areas. On the other hand leadership and

growth of the same in the community can encourage the needed change in the community for

the best interest of the community and the ‘sense of community (Ricketts, 2008). The study

found out that only when the community empowerment have been taken with utmost

seriousness and creation of the social capital; would the society benefit from the fruits of

democracy. The findings of the study suggested that a specific to the community leadership

and politics; the training with leadership skills is key and needed for the further research on

leadership. The study also found out that the rural communities have unique ideals and values

as well as a culture and life of their own.

Hypothesis:

H

0

; Democracy affects the political systems in Canada.

H

1

; Democracy does not affect the political systems/leadership system in Canada.

The established hypothesis on this study is based on democracy and democratic process which

is voting. Thus, the study will interrogate the effects of democracy on the political system. The

hypothesis is set to test whether there is an effect of democracy on political system or the

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 7

7

installed leadership. The Null hypothesis is based on the fact that democracy is the process by

which the leaders of a country like Canada are elected and installed into offices for leadership

positions. In most states, it is agreed that democracy should be based on a one man one vote

doctrine. This means that if the people are openly elected, then they are assumed to be

representing the wishes of the people on the ground and the decision they make as leaders

display or shows what the people or the larger majority have decided. This study, therefore,

examines the application of democracy in the installation of these leaders and political systems

in Canada.

The rationale for the hypothesis was based on the data provided and the components of the

same. This means that the hypothesis was inspired by the variables therein. The fact that most

of the variables are related to elections, and the voting process would mean that an issue based

on democracy which would ultimately lead to elections of the leaders through a voting process

meant that the hypothesis was ideal for the current study. The selected variables were

considered to be the conditional variables; this is because the conditional variables are variables

which must be there for an event to take place. The variables are conditionally ideal for the

voting to take place and eventually for the people to be able to exercise their democracy then

they must be allowed to take part in a democratic process which is voting in their preferred

leaders who would represent them in the various leadership positions in government. It is

important also to note that the selected and identified variables for the current study were

identified with care so that to avoid spuriousness variables which would lead to wrong results

after the analysis of data. The spuriousness variables may be referred to variables which would

appear to influence or affect a certain explanatory variable and hence a model, but they give

the wrong results. On the other hand, these variables as applied or identified for the current

study cannot be said to be intervening variables because they cannot apply as such. There is no

source of spuriousness, and the variables are not spurious since they were selected carefully to

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 8

8

present the case of the study under investigation. The spurious variables would be variables

which would bring incorrect results after analysis; this means that they would bring wrong

results and subsequently incorrect policy implications.

The findings on table1 in the appendix show the case processing; the findings are composed of

the different statistics for the variables. It, therefore, the table shows the distribution and the

percentages of the different variables.

The findings on table1 on the appendix was case processing summary. It shows the percentages

for different variables, the first variable which was 59.2% and the other 40.8%. The difference

was at a small portion 18.4%. On the other hand the second variable was ‘Which Party Ahead

in National Polls: cons chosen by R * Satisfaction with performance of federal government’

had a percentage difference of (61.8%-38.2%) 23.6%. The third variable ‘Which Party Ahead

in National Polls: cons chosen by R * should be mandatory to vote in Can fed elex’. This was

at a low of 10.4% (55.2%-44.8%).

The Pearson chi-square table above shows that the minimum expected count is 21.25, the

Pearson chi-square test. The findings on table 7 show Cross-tabulation was estimated for the

purposes of checking the hypothesis. The findings show the results of the question, “should it

be mandatory to vote in Canada federal elections.” In a sample of 6,414 people, 991 people

said that they ‘Strongly agree’ that voting should be mandatory. These were in opposition to a

portion of 2 people who did not agree that the voting should be mandatory. There are other

people who ‘somewhat agree’ at a high of 1,185. These were followed by a fraction of the

people who said that they ‘somewhat disagree’ at a high of 1151, followed by 1585 respondents

who ‘Strongly disagree’ that voting should be mandatory to vote.

The findings on table 8 show the question of voting: ‘Did you vote in the election? The variable

was selected with the intention of representing the dynamics of democracy as shown by the

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 9

9

hypothesis of this study. The above cross tabulation shows that in a total of 2195 observations

1589 people said that they had voted in the election, this was followed by 214 people who said

that they had not voted, a response of ‘No.’ There was also a fraction of 19 people who said

that they ‘Don’t know.’ The findings also show the party which had won the election or the

party which was voted in.

The findings on table 10 on the appendix show the results of ‘Interest in Federal Election.’ The

findings show that more respondents thought that their interest in the federal elections was a

great deal of interest, this was at a high of 2043 respondents out of a total of 2284. There was

also a fraction of 136respondets who said ‘No’ that they did not vote last federal election, this

was a total of 136. Those who were not eligible to vote were a total of 75, while those who said

‘Don’t know’ were at a low of 13. Further, there were a total of 10respondets who refused to

say if they had voted last federal election.

Table4 on the appendix shows the efforts for comparison of the variables by the researcher. It

shows that the first variables had a a Sig. value of 0.001. This was lower than the critical value

which is 0.6. This shows that the level of correlation between these set of variables was lower

than the critical value thus the linear relationship is inadequate of insignificant. The Sig. value

between the second set of variables was at a high of 0.94, this is higher than the critical value

0.6. This means that the linear relationship between these variables is higher and can actually

cause multicollinearity in case a model is estimated. Therefore these two variables can also be

used interchangeably or as a fraction or ratios. This was at a high of 0.964. This is high

correlation and would therefore cause multicollinearity and a subsequent spurious result.

The test results on table3 on the appendix shows the Person Chi-test, the value of the test

statistic is 181.805 at 10 degrees of freedom. The expected cell counts are all greater than 5;

this means that the assumption was met (has expected count less than 5). Given that the p-value

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 10

10

is greater than the significant level (0.05), we will therefore not reject the null hypothesis of

Democracy affects the political systems in Canada. This means that the findings of the study

support the null hypothesis, it is thus prudent to conclude that democracy or the democratic

process would have an influence on the leaders and politicians.

The findings on table16 on the appendix shows that the chi square difference was greater than

the critical or proposed value of 25. This means that the researcher can invalidate the same on

the basis of this value.

The researcher invalidated the hypothesis because the significant value is less than 25units

because it was recorded to be 30.1units. This means that the chi square value was greater than

the proposed 25, this means that the same can be invalidated.

On the findings on table17 shows that the minimum expected count is 0.05, the value of the

chi-square test is 1168.445. There is no cell with an expected count are all greater than 5, the

assumption set up in the analysis was met because there is no cell that was less than 5units.

The cross-tabulation table14 in the appendix shows the findings of cross-tabulation between

those who voted in last federal election in 2011 and the question of ‘Should be mandatory to

vote in Canada federation election.’ There was a total of 4507 people who said ‘Yes,’ and 1014

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 11

11

of them ‘Strongly agree’ that it should be mandatory to vote in Canada federation elections.

Those respondents who said that they ‘somewhat agree’ were at a high of 1153, in the third

place was the ‘somewhat disagree’ were at a high of 1005. The fourth place was a fraction of

those who ‘strongly agree’ at a high of 1120, this was followed by the portion of people or

sample members who said that they ‘don’t know’ at a low of 176. Those who refused to answer

and those who said that they ‘Seen but not answered’ were at a high of 24 and 15 respectively.

The portion of the people who said they were ‘Not eligible’ were at a high of 430 sample

member and 185 respondents who said that they ‘did not know.’ Finally, 70 respondents were

not willing to answer, ‘refused to answer,’ if Canada federation election should be mandatory.

Conclusion

In summary, the study found out by use of the cross-tabulation analysis that the democratic

process or democracy in itself has a clear influence on the leadership or the political leadership

in Canada. There is also significant evidence or findings to agree that it is not prudent to reject

the Null hypothesis, this means that the researcher accepts the null hypothesis. The findings

support the hypothesis of the study; this is evidence as shown by the presented in the tables in

the appendix. The study, therefore, failed to agree on the alternative hypothesis since the

findings support the fact that Democracy affects the political system in Canada. The findings

of the study are true because the democratic system is always in support of the political

leadership and the system of government in countries and any organized community or society.

This study is in line with the empirical study that democracy is the base of leadership through

section and appointment of leaders by the people from the grassroots level. The findings on the

chi-square table on the appendix on table6 difference value was more or greater than the critical

value 25. Therefore, this was invalidated by the basis of the value.

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 12

12

APPENDIX 1: DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS

Table 1: Case processing summary

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid

Missing

Total

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

Which Party

Ahead in

National

Polls: cons

chosen by R

* Interest in

Federal

Election

6873

59.2%

4741

40.8%

11614

100.0%

Which Party

Ahead in

National

Polls: cons

chosen by R

*

Satisfaction

with

performance

of federal

government

7174

61.8%

4440

38.2%

11614

100.0%

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 13

13

Which Party

Ahead in

National

Polls: cons

chosen by R

* Should be

mandatory

to vote in

Can fed elex

6414

55.2%

5200

44.8%

11614

100.0%

Which Party

Ahead in

National

Polls: cons

chosen by R

* Did YOU

vote in the

election?

2195

18.9%

9419

81.1%

11614

100.0%

Voted in

last Federal

election in

2011 *

Interest in

Federal

Election

10849

93.4%

765

6.6%

11614

100.0%

Voted in

last Federal

election in

2011 *

Satisfaction

with

performance

of federal

government

11180

96.3%

434

3.7%

11614

100.0%

Voted in

last Federal

election in

2011 *

Should be

mandatory

to vote in

Can fed elex

6368

54.8%

5246

45.2%

11614

100.0%

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 14

14

Voted in

last Federal

election in

2011 * Did

YOU vote

in the

election?

5154

44.4%

6460

55.6%

11614

100.0%

Table 2: Crosstab

Which Party Ahead in National Polls: cons chosen by R * Interest

in Federal Election

Crosstab

Count

Interest in Federal Election

Tota

l

no

intere

st

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

great

deal

of

intere

st

Which

Party

Ahead

in

Nation

al

Polls:

cons

chosen

by R

0

347

12

2

16

8

26

3

24

3

68

9

64

6

947

941

54

0

852

575

8

1

14

9

13

29

25

80

89

208

239

14

1

268

111

5

Total

361

13

1

18

1

29

2

26

8

76

9

73

5

115

5

118

0

68

1

1120

687

3

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 15

15

Table 3: Chi-Square Test

Chi-Square Tests

Value

d.f

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson

Chi-Square

181.805

a

10

.000

Likelihood

Ratio

199.878

10

.000

Linear-by-

Linear

Association

169.818

1

.000

N of Valid

Cases

6873

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less

than 5. The minimum expected count is

21.25.

Table 4: Showing Correlation

Correlations

Satisfaction

with the way

democracy

works in Can-

ada

Satisfaction

with perfor-

mance of fed-

eral govern-

ment

Party ahead

in the polls

Which Party

Ahead in Na-

tional Polls:

cons chosen

by R

Satisfaction with the way

democracy works in

Canada

Pearson Correla-

tion

1

.086

**

-.012

-.001

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.235

.964

N

11540

11376

10403

7338

Satisfaction with perfor-

mance of federal govern-

ment

Pearson Correla-

tion

.086

**

1

.015

-.030

*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.116

.010

N

11376

10403

7174

Party ahead in the polls

Pearson Correla-

tion

-.012

.015

1

-.390

**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.235

.116

.000

N

10403

6201

Which Party Ahead in

National Polls: cons cho-

sen by R

Pearson Correla-

tion

-.001

-.030

*

-.390

**

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.964

.010

.000

N

7338

7174

6201

7386

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 16

16

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 5: Cross tabulation

Which Party Ahead in National Polls: cons chosen by R * Satisfaction with performance of

federal government.

Crosstab

Count

Satisfaction with performance of federal government

Total

very

satisfied

fairly

satisfied

not very

satisfied

not

satisfied

at all

don't

know

refused

1000

Which

Party

Ahead

in

National

Polls:

cons

chosen

by R

0

333

1430

1608

2210

319

83

16

5999

1

211

428

246

273

10

7

0

1175

Total

544

1858

1854

2483

329

90

16

7174

Table 6: Chi-Square Test

Chi-Square Tests

Value

df

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson

Chi-Square

375.938

a

6

.000

Likelihood

Ratio

355.057

6

.000

Linear-by-

Linear

Association

6.562

1

.010

N of Valid

Cases

7174

a. 1 cells (7.1%) have expected count less

than 5. The minimum expected count is

2.62.

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 17

17

Table 7: Cross tabulation

Table 8: Chi-Square Test

Chi-Square Tests

Value

Df

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson

Chi-Square

57.282

a

6

.000

Likelihood

Ratio

63.633

6

.000

Linear-by-

Linear

Association

.179

1

.672

N of Valid

Cases

6414

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less

than 5. The minimum expected count is

6.74.

Table 9: Cross tabulation

Which Party Ahead in National Polls: cons chosen by R * Did

YOU vote in the election?

Crosstab

Should be

mandatory

to vote.

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Somewhat

disagree

Which

Party

Ahead

in

National

Polls:

cons

chosen

by R

0

991

1185

1151

5359

1

243

293

211

1055

Total

1234

1478

1362

6414

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 18

18

Count

Did YOU vote in the election?

Total

Yes

No

Don't

know

1000

Which

Party

Ahead

in

National

Polls:

cons

chosen

by R

0

1589

214

19

9

1831

1

338

20

1

5

364

Total

1927

234

20

14

2195

Table 10: Chi-Square Tests

Chi-Square Tests

Value

d.f

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson

Chi-Square

17.844

a

3

.000

Likelihood

Ratio

19.635

3

.000

Linear-by-

Linear

Association

3.478

1

.062

N of Valid

Cases

2195

a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count

less than 5. The minimum expected count

is 2.32.

Table 11: Cross tabulation

Voted in last Federal election in 2011 * Interest in

Federal Election

Crosstab

Count

Interest in Federal Election

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 19

19

no

intere

st

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

great

deal

of

intere

st

Tota

l

Voted

in last

Feder

al

electi

on in

2011

yes

146

66

13

1

22

0

24

9

804

749

132

4

175

6

904

2043

8392

no

234

69

75

93

81

228

159

226

192

75

136

1568

not

eligib

le

23

4

15

29

23

60

58

93

82

44

75

506

don't

know

39

13

8

15

14

56

29

38

19

5

13

249

refuse

d

11

3

4

5

2

18

10

15

6

4

7

85

1000

3

1

3

0

2

7

6

9

4

10

49

Total

456

15

6

23

6

36

2

37

1

117

3

101

1

170

5

205

9

103

6

2284

1084

9

Table 12: Chi-Square Tests

Chi-Square Tests

Value

Df

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson

Chi-Square

1390.141

a

50

.000

Likelihood

Ratio

1217.225

50

.000

Linear-by-

Linear

Association

5.414

1

.020

N of Valid

Cases

10849

a. 13 cells (19.7%) have expected count less

than 5. The minimum expected count is .70.

Table 13: Cross Tabulation

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 20

20

Satisfaction with

performance of federal

government

very

satisfied

fairly

satisfied

not very

satisfied

Total

Voted

in last

Federal

election

in 2011

Yes

719

2666

2230

8666

no

77

455

448

1601

not

eligible

32

150

155

524

don't

know

16

55

63

251

refused

4

18

16

86

1000

4

17

10

52

Total

852

3361

2922

11180

Table 14: Chi Square Tests

Chi-Square Tests

Value

df

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson

Chi-Square

780.928

a

30

.000

Likelihood

Ratio

453.038

30

.000

Linear-by-

Linear

Association

.047

1

.828

N of Valid

Cases

11180

a. 11 cells (26.2%) have expected count

less than 5. The minimum expected count

is .07.

Table 15: Cross Tabulation

Voted in last Federal election in 2011 * Should be mandatory to vote in

Can fed elex

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 21

21

Crosstab

Count

Should be mandatory to vote in Canada

federation election

Total

Strongly

agree

Somewhat

agree

Somewhat

disagree

Voted

in last

Federal

election

in 2011

yes

1014

1153

1005

4507

no

100

165

218

1130

not

eligible

91

108

71

430

don't

know

9

23

35

185

refused

5

8

12

70

1000

4

13

9

46

Total

1223

1470

1350

6368

Table 16: Chi Square Tests

Chi-Square Tests

Value

df

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson

Chi-Square

1022.053

a

30

.000

Likelihood

Ratio

642.784

30

.000

Linear-by-

Linear

Association

160.479

1

.000

N of Valid

Cases

6368

a. 9 cells (21.4%) have expected count

less than 5. The minimum expected

count is .29.

Table 17: Cross Tabulation

Voted in last Federal election in 2011 * Did YOU vote in the

election?

Crosstab

Count

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 22

22

Did YOU vote in the election?

Total

Yes

No

Don't

know

1000

Voted

in last

Federal

election

in 2011

yes

4232

134

11

12

4389

no

320

208

4

1

533

not

eligible

106

16

1

0

123

don't

know

41

17

5

0

63

refused

16

8

4

0

28

1000

15

1

18

Total

4730

384

26

14

5154

Table 18: Chi-Square Tests

Chi-Square Tests

Value

df

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson

Chi-Square

1168.445

a

15

.000

Likelihood

Ratio

672.714

15

.000

Linear-by-

Linear

Association

18.755

1

.000

N of Valid

Cases

5154

a. 13 cells (54.2%) have expected count less

than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.05.

EFFECTS OF DEMOCRACY ON LEADERSHIP (POLITICS) IN CANADA 23

23

References

Bahrain Brief (May 2002) Report Produced by the Gulf Centre for Strategic' Studies. Vol. 3

Issue 5.

Barak, A. (2006). The Judge in a Democracy. Princeton, University Press.

Cuff, G.B. (2007): Cuff's Guide for Municipal leaders: The Case of Effective Governance,

Volume 2. Municipal World Inc., Union, Ontario Published of the magazine Municipal World.

Lowndes, V. (1995). "Citizenship and Urban Politics" in Judge, D., g, Stoker, H. Wolman,

Theories of Urban Politics. (London: Sage publications):160-180.

Williamson, T. R. (2004). Problems in American Democracy, Kessinger Publishing, 2004, p.

36, ISBN 1419143166, Google Books link.

Wilkinson, K.P. (1991). The Community in Rural America. New York: Greenwood Press.

Effects of Democracy on Leadership in Canada SPSS Project

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams