Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article I seek to develop a theoretical framework through which to view the law of democracy in Canada. Such a framework has been largely absent from the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada. I argue that a defining problem in the law of democracy is the existence of incentives for political actors to manipulate election laws to ensure self-serving ends. I summarize and critically evaluate the main competing theoretical approaches to the law of democracy in the United States, namely structural theory and rights theory. I conclude that structural theory provides a more accurate descriptive understanding of the law of democracy than rights theory and a more convincing normative framework through which to evaluate existing democratic institutions. Applying structural theory to Canadian democracy, I find ample reason to be concerned about self-interested manipulation of the democratic process. I develop a preliminary typology of breakdowns in the democratic process, which I label partisan, incumbent, and interest entrenchment break- downs, and provide examples from Canadian law and politics. I conclude by suggesting future directions for research, particularly on judicial doctrine and the role of intervening institutions.Dans cet article, je cherche a developper un cadre theorique pour comprendre le droit de la democratie au Canada. Un tel cadre demeure toujours inexistant dans la jurisprudence de la Cour supreme du Canada. Je suggere qu’un des problemes les plus serieux du droit de la democratie est l’existence d’incitatifs, pour les politiciens, a manipuler les lois electorales a leurs propres fins. Je resume et evalue de facon critique les principales approches concurrentes en droit de la democratie aux Etats-Unis, soit la 'structural theory' et la 'rights theory.' Je conclus que la structural theory permet une comprehension descriptive plus precise du droit de la democratie que la rights theory, en plus d’offrir un cadre normatif plus convaincant par lequel nous pouvons evaluer les institutions democratiques existantes. En appliquant la structural theory a l’etude de la democratie canadienne, j’identifie de nombreuses raisons d’etre preoccupe par la manipulation egoiste du processus democratique. Je developpe une typologie preliminaire des effondrements de processus democratique, classes suivant les categories suivantes: partisans, titulaires et effondrement des interets enchâsses. Je fournis ensuite des exemples canadiens en droit et en politique. Je termine en suggerant de possibles projets de recherche futurs, notamment sur la doctrine judiciaire et le role des institutions intervenantes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".