According to Andrew Heywood, there are three main functions of elections. One such function is to "ensure the representation." However, it is arguable that some nations make such representation due to proportional electoral systems unrepresentative and lacking are the majority. There are plenty of electoral systems in use worldwide and each country seems to have adopted a particular system that works well for them, but can not by others. Many countries tend to use only a couple of high systems, however, the United Kingdom use several! The different systems British election are used for different purposes and this is a large number and the question of how the UK is proportional. If there is a need for different voting systems, each provides As one of the main strengths of this electoral system is that the winning candidate must have over half the support of the electorate, the supplementary vote take effect if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, and was "promoted" to the second vote -preference. Therefore, the SV is a good thing because it requires more than half the support of the electorate and the people are given two votes of more than one option. In addition, due to the nature of the electoral system, fewer votes are being lost, compared to the first past the post system. Once all the votes are counted, votes wins - all other votes are taken into account. With OAS, once the votes are counted, the more votes are counted (depending whether applicants have more than 50% of the vote, of course). This means fewer people visiting is ignored, so why this system is very good. Supplementary Vote - Negative However, it is obvious that the SV is negative. The winner can not really get more first preference votes, and may have just won the top through the additional majority vote. Therefore, this means that the winning candidate is not supported on the first choice, and therefore lower than the result of a different electoral system. Also, as a result, smaller, extremist parties and voters can have too much to say - maybe even win - which would mean that proportionality is not
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...
In this essay I will argue that British General Elections should be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation. First, I will argue that the system would be more democratic as every vote that is cast would be represented and this ...
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.
...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.
The United States of America is often touted as the guiding beacon of democracy for the entirety of the modern world. In spite of this tremendous responsibility the political system of the United States retains some aspects which upon examination appear to be significantly undemocratic. Perhaps the most perplexing and oft misunderstood of these establishments is the process of electing the president and the institution known as the Electoral College. The puzzle of the Electoral College presents the American people with a unique conundrum as the mark of any true democracy is the citizens’ ability to elect their own ruling officials. Unfortunately, the Electoral College system dilutes this essential capacity by introducing an election by
The electors in each state are equal to the number of representatives that state has in Congress resulting in at least three electors per state regardless of population (McKenzie 285). Each state has two votes to correspond to the senators representing that state in Congress, and then each state has one vote to correspond to the House representative that represents that state in Congress. Smaller states comprise a higher percentage of the total electoral votes than would a popular vote for the president in those states (Muller 1257). The Founders intended the Electoral College to protect overshadowing the small states’ interests of the larger populous states by allowing at least three representative votes rather than none at all, and the smaller states were not willing to give control of the election process to the larger states, which was similar to their fight for representation in Congress (Muller 1250). However, it ignores the people who voted against the winner, since once the result is determined at the state level; the losing voters no longer have any significance nationally (Wagner 579). Wagner also points to the fact that the winner-take-all system can lead to selecting the minority candidate over the majority vote, as in the George
The American Society grants every citizen of legal age to vote in elections. The Electoral College System provides electoral votes to candidates despite losing popular votes. The Electoral College System is unfair as candidates who do not win popular vote can still win a presidential election. This system is unfair as it grants 538 electors to become the voice of 319 million people.
Proportional representation is almost always acknowledged as the fairest electoral system. With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair representation and devalues citizen’s votes. Canadians must make a choice between the value of effectiveness and the values of justice and equity. Although a switch is not anticipated in the near future, Canadian citizens can hope that it is at least in the minds of many voters and on the discussion list of the government.
Karp, J. A. (2006). Political knowledge about electoral rules: Comparing mixed member proportional systems in Germany and New Zealand. Electoral Studies, 25(4), 714-730.
In 2007 the Scottish Parliament implemented the “Single Transferable Vote” (STV) system for local elections as part of the Local Governance, as a consequence of the 2003 election when the Labour party was in need of the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition and the Liberals requested the use of STV for local elections which provides more PR to local authorities.
...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.
First of all, let us start with First Past The Post. FPTP is the current voting system which is used for electing MPs to the House of Commons. Using this voting system voters choose one candidate they wish, by putting a cross in a box next to a candidate’s name. A candidate wins if he or she gets the most votes in the constituency. Plurality voting and Simple majority voting are two other names of FPTP. This voting system is easy to understand and gives voters possible view on which party might win elections. However, Liberal Democrats argue that FPTP has many disadvantages and beneficial only for Labour and Torries. That is why Liberal Democrats proposed an alternative for FPTP, the system named Proportional Representation (PR).
Some people believe there is only one-way people vote for elections, but there are actually two main ways. These two ways are called electoral college and a direct vote. In the electoral college, a body of people cast votes for election. In a direct vote, voters directly cast ballots for the person/group they want to be elected. Although its more complicated, electoral college is more effective than a direct vote as it protects minorities and has a two-party system.
It decreases the amount of money spent in voting process becouse of the elemination of funds assigned for election staff.
Voting is the easiest and simplest way of public participation, as well as making the voters feel like they are directly involved in the process. Certain aspects, such as the Electoral College, eliminate this feeling of involvement. The best way for elections to work would be a nationwide popular vote. This would bring a meaning to the term “true democracy” and will get the people, as a whole, the chance to participate in electing the highest officials.