0 What is List System? Voting system is the key or wheel to make the democracy properly functioning (Phillips, 2012). Since the democracy has been created, the voting system is shrouded by controversy in the case of translating votes into seats. The list system has been used in Western countries especially Belgium that succesfully adopted the system in 1899. List system related to the idea of parties presenting lists of candidates within each multimember constituency (Gallagher & Mitchell, 2005, p. 6). It basic function is the electors will vote for the party rather than the candidate. There are conventionally divided into two types: those using closed list, in which the voter cannot express a choice for individual candidates on the list, and those based on preferential lists, where voters can do so.The system will reward a group that is 20 percent of the electorate with roughly 20 percent of the seats in a legislature. 4.1 The Advantages The first advantages of Proportional Representative (PR) system is it can get rid of malapportionment. Malapportionment is the creation of inequalities of electoral districts with divergent ratios of voters to representatives. Problem in Malaysia is to set up electoral constitucies because of the major difference in Malaysia population between constitucies. This can be found in rural and urban areas. The principle during an election is every citizen vote is equal. One person or citizen will delivered one vote to their respective-choosen candidates during an election. But because of the problem, the rural votes become more influential and valuable than an urban vote, which potrayed breaking the rules of democracy. For example, Kapar constituency has 112,224 voters and the Putrajaya constituency ... ... middle of paper ... ...rtheless, the majority system does not reflect what people want the most. The political scientist knows that most votes for the opposition in the urban areas, but there is two or three party for the opposition contested in a seat (PAS, PKR, DAP), the vote split and the Barisan Nasional won because the majority by First Past The Post system that we practised. Even though the PR system has it owned disadvantage, it does reflect much healthier political system and all people especially is getting involve in policy making. Just like the coin, it has two sided, which the front side promote advantage and the other side shows it disadvantages. Should the government replace all the entire FPTP system with PR system in the future? The Election Commission should be alert and study all of this aspect in order to striving the truth meaning of social justice in the future.
A proportionate electoral system (otherwise known as proportional representation or PR) grants its voters a voice in their vote. The way that the PR system works is that for every percentage of votes a party receives, they will be granted around the same percentage of seats in parliament. For example, if a party receives 35% of the votes, they would receive 35% of the seats in legislature. This is important for Canada because it gives smaller parties a better chance of retaining a seat. There are many different varieties of PR, due to the fact that at often times, the voting percentages do not evenly translate into the number of seats available (King, 2000). For instance, if a party receive 33.6% of the vote, they can’ receive 33.6% of seats. Because of this, numerous variations of the PR system have been created. The most common...
Under this system, the MP for each constituency is the one who gained the most votes. Many claim that this wastes votes, and is unfair. For example, in the 2010 General Election, the Conservative Party gained 36% of the vote and gained 47% of the seats in the House of Commons. Simply put, this demonstrates a lack of democracy- with the representatives of the people not being those chosen by the electorate. Yet, it can also be argued that FPTP is a healthy aspect of the UK system, as it ensures that extremist parties are unlikely to gain power, and it tends to create strong, majority governments.
Even though there was a difference of a quarter million popular votes, the same number of votes were provided. Thus, this system discriminates against people who live in states with high turnout. Rather than having statewide electoral vote distribution, vote distribution in congressional districts could be a little more effective in representing people’s will. Upon this defectiveness of electoral system, current system is failure the way it mislead results and misrepresent population.
...ment plays an important role in determining the relationship between its politicians and electorates. It also “[calculates] how votes are translated into seats of political power... it... also affects the party system, political culture, the formation of government and the structure of the executive” (Trac 5). Most importantly, candidates in an SMP system can be elected with minimal amounts of public support as they do not require a majority of the votes. To be elected to the legislature in the PR system, a candidate must have “at least 3% of the party vote across the province” (Ontario Citizens' Assembly 3). In contrast to the SMP system, the PR system better represents the views of the citizens, supports a stable and effective government, and is a simple yet practical voting system. It successfully caters to the needs of the voters, unlike the traditional system.
Voting is at the center of every democratic system. In america, it is the system in which a president is elected into office, and people express their opinion. Many people walk into the voting booth with the thought that every vote counts, and that their vote might be the one that matters above all else. But in reality, America’s voting system is old and flawed in many ways. Electoral College is a commonly used term on the topic of elections but few people actually know how it works.
The SMP method of voting is what is now used in all Canadian Legislative Assemblies and the House of Commons. During a provincial election, each province is separated into electoral districts. The area allocated to each district is determined, largely, by population densi...
The single-member district election system is the most common and best-known electoral system currently in use in America. It is used to elect the U.S. House Representatives, as well as many state and local legislatures. Under single member district systems, an area is divided into a number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their district’s representative, with the individual receiving the most votes winning election. This method of electing representatives is better than any alternative solution in various ways. Four compelling reasons to support the single-member district election system include the fact that single-member districts give each voter a single, easily identifiable district member; the way single-member district voting helps protect against overreaching party influence; that single-member districts ensure geographic representation; and finally, that single-member districts are the best way to maximize representatives’ accountability.
...s vote for a party instead for an individual, and when the votes are tallied for the region the regional representative seats for that region are divided among the parties in proportion to the share of the vote that each party received.
The authors describe some of the advantages of a MMP system: “Mixed electoral systems provide fairly proportional outcomes, maintain the geographic link between constituents and members, provide for greater choice, and allow the opportunity for smaller parties to represented in Parliament” (p. 11). This system works better than the current FPTP or plurality system, because it allows citizen’s a second opportunity to have a voice. This is important because it would allow our minority groups to have a greater political influence. As mentioned earlier, in the current system all votes for candidates who lost, were insignificant to the election outcome. The authors explain: “Only those votes that go to the eventual winner count towards electing a representative, which may discourage people from voting or promote disaffection with the system” (p. 3). Alternatively, the MMP system allows citizen’s a second opportunity to elect party members in order to proportionally represent the popular
...d I believe that proportional representation would be the most effective system to further the goals of democracy. If we use the single member plurality system we automatically ignore and exclude the voice of the people who didn’t win the election in a first past the post method. On the other hand in the proportional system rather than all seats being given to the party with the most votes every party gets the seats equal to the amount of votes they were able to obtain. This would allow all the people who voted to have their ‘”voice” represented in the government even though the party they voted for did not end up winning the election. This would encourage and engage many citizens to become involved in the political process; who otherwise would be discourage to vote at the fact that even if they vote, if their party loses their vote would be useless.
Britain is considering changing current first past the post voting system (FPTP) to proportional representation (PR). The main reason is that FPTP is “quasi-democratic” voting system under which there is only one majority party ruling the government and it does not represent wishes of all voters as some votes are wasted. Whereas, PR seems to be the best alternative voting system with proportionality of seats in mandatory places, more parties ruling government and etc. Let us look at these two voting systems and analyze whether PR is suitable and alternative change for FPTP and do advantages of PR outweigh disadvantages.
As a representative of the Algo ethnic group, I want to say that our people would like the new state to introduce a parliamentary system of governence. Parliamentarism is a system of government in which the head of government is elected by and accountable to a parliament or legislature. One could rightfully ask: What is our reasoning for desiring this? We think it is justified because in presidential systems the populace at large votes for a chief executive, who is the President, in a nation-wide election. This is revenant as the Algo comprises the minority of the population of the Republic of Jarth, which consists of only 1.1 million representatives in the whole state, compared to that of 2.9 million Randies, 3.8 million Dorfas and 2.2 million Takas living in the Republic of Jarth. One can reasonably assume that the outcome will most likely be that the cumulation of the majority’s vote will hinder the representation (in numbers) of the members of the minority in office. Subsequently, the Algo will have to live under the control of a leader from another ethnic group again, which the Algo members tremble at the thought of because we are proud of their ethnicity and do not wished to be shamed for it. On the other hand, in parliamentarism, the first step is an election of members of parliament, which are the political parties. This is imperative since it will allow the Algo to be able to choose the party we really share interests with....
In a dominant- party system, a single party wins approximately 60 percent or more of the seats in legislature and two or more other parties usually win less than 40 percent of the seat. Opposition parties in dominant-party system are free to contest elections. The dominant parties have to compete for votes to maintain its power or to gain power. This democratic competition imposes a check and balance on the government of the day, promotes transparency and accountability and ensures that service delivery to the people are prioritized or it will be given the boot.
In On Democracy, Robert Dahl presents five criteria that states are required to meet in order to satisfy the primary aim of democracy, which is to provide political equality to all of its citizens (1998, 37). The criteria include effective participation, equal voting, enlightened understanding, open agenda setting and inclusion. (Dahl, 1998, 38). Above these criteria, this paper will only focus on effective participation and enlightened understanding to apply them to India; this is because its citizens are going through a tough time with the two criteria to become a state with effective democracy. Therefore, this paper will demonstrate that India is in the process of achieving effective participation, but significantly lacks enlightened understanding.
However, vesting power in an elected body coincided with the scramble by the various social sectors to exclude their protagonists. The rationales for exclusion were devised to achieve such an aim. The prescription of gender, class, racial, and religious attributes as rationales for political exclusion was promulgated as a universal norm in the period after the Second World War. Thus, gradually the barriers to participation by all sectors of society reduced effortfully (xxx, xxx). Argued that the Western democratic states are far from functioning as fully representative polities since there is still lingering practices of disproportionate under-representation of women, racial and ethnic minorities in the elected bodies (xxx, xxx). This does not result from formally enacted impediments to representation. So, uncovering and dealing with the factors that contribute to this unfairness is essential for improving democratic representation. Thus, exploring whether the liberal democracy suitable for the promotion of peace and stability appears relevant in