Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature of political party
The role of political parties in election
Nature of political parties
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nature of political party
Electoral systems exist to allow members of the society, express their preferences on candidates who are to represent them. This paper pays attention to the three electoral systems; the Proportional system, the fast past the post (FPTP) and the Instant runoff voting (IRV). I am going to focus on the differences between the PR, FPTP and IRV; attention will be laid also on how the electoral system shapes the relative structure and strength of the political parties. The Proportional Representation (PR) is a common type of electoral system that exists in European countries including Israel, where 23 of the 25 member states adopt it (Johnston, n.d). Each geographical electoral district elects more than one member to the legislature. Compared to ‘fast past the post’ FPTP, and the Instant runoff voting (IRV) system, only one member is elected to the legislature from the district (Courtney, 1999). The FPTP and IRV tend to have relatively equal population numbers to ensure that all 3the districts have the same weight. …show more content…
The formula is aimed at distributing the seats proportionally in the multi-member constituencies (Johnston, n.d). The proportions increase with increase in the magnitude of the district; the vote totals are subjected to a quota method or a series of divisors to the parties in distribution process (Johnston, n.d). The FPTP adopts plurality formula, which requires the winning candidate to get more votes than any other candidate; the formula requires the candidate to be the ‘first past the post’ by one more vote, compared with other candidates in the race. IVR on the other hand use the majority formula where the winning candidate is expected to get more votes than the rest with 50%, plus one vote (Johnston,
...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.
In America, voting for the President is a privilege and a lie. Many Americans think when they go to the polls in November, they are voting for the President of the United States; but really, they are voting for a group of electors who have pledged to support a nominee for the President. The Founding Fathers were concerned that presidents would always come from a populous state and wondered whether the public would have the knowledge of various candidates necessary to make a wise selection. They did not have access to technology like the internet or smart phones as we do. In most states, as the result of the election, the state awards all its electors to the winning candidate (Belenky 1308). A Presidential a candidate must win 270 Electoral
The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen unprecedented progress towards electoral reform, with PEI establishing an electoral reform commissioner and New Brunswick appointing a nine-member Commission on Legislative Democracy in December 2003 to the groundbreaking decision by the British Columbia Citizen’s Assembly on October 24, 2004 that the province will have a referendum on May 17, 2005 to decide whether or not they will switch to a system of proportional representation. This kind of reform is only expected to continue, as Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take BC’s lead and form an independent Citizen’s Assembly with the power to determine whether or not Ontario will have a referendum regarding a change to a more proportional system. There is still much work to do however, and we will examine the inherent problems with Canada’s first-past-the-post system and why we should move into the 21st century and switch to a form of proportional representation.
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.
Canada is overdue for electoral reform. Canada’s current first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system has many flaws. Firstly, it over-rewards the winning party leaving many Canadians without any direct representation in Parliament. Secondly, the FTPT electoral system is highly susceptible to regional distortions and often over-rewards regionally concentrated parties. Thirdly, it promotes strategic voting, as it favors a two party system and does not allow for the possibility of a small party to win. Fourthly, FPTP does not promote diverse and qualified representation. A Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system can solve many of the issues that come about with FPTP. The MMP electoral system is a system where the proportion of votes a
...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
The National Bonus plan reform to the Electoral College is piggy back of the original Electoral College concept. But it believe in give the winner of the popular vote more votes. This reform would make the candidate with the most popularity votes win the electoral race.
Every four years our nation votes for the next leader of our nation; however, it is not really the citizens of our nation but rather the Electoral College who chooses the President of the United States. The Electoral College, which is the group of people who formally elect the President and Vice-President of the United States, has been part of our nation since its inception. There are 538 electors in the Electoral College, which comes from the number of House representatives and the two Senators each state has. To win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 of those electors. It is an indirect election since the people are not directly voting for the president but rather the people of voting for their elector. The electors meet in the Capital
The impracticality of the policy of proportional representation (PR), was one particular internal weakness of the Weimar government which led to its eventual loss of support among the people. The policy was put in place in an attempt to pursue democracy to its utmost, by granting seats to every party in proportion to the percentage of popular vote received. Ideally, this would allow for more interests to be represented, and that no individual could ever gain complete power. Ironically, its theoretical strength was also its Achilles' heel. The implementation of the PR led to the proliferation of small parties, which were oftentimes regional, narrow, or one-issue political parties. In 1928, 31 parties were on the ballot, and though the small parties did not have much influence, they disrupted proceedings and made the major parties appear incapable of maintaining order. One way they did so could be exemplified by the numerous problems with forming coalitions which invariably surfaced. With the sheer number of parties and the ...
Canada is known to be a very decent country when it comes to politics. Canada’s electoral system consists of several different aspects. As it is important for the democratic government to reflects its political rules, if government ignores and disguised the rights of a voter then it will go against democracy. Canada’s voting system is very similar and is adopted by the United Kingdom system. With no doubts, it is clear that Canada is a democratic country; nevertheless there are some problems in this system. Various changes are in need to improve this political system. The system that Canada has is known as first-past-the-post
The two electoral systems are the majoritarian system and the proportional system (Norris, 1997:299). A majoritarian representative works on the basis of the winner taking all (Norris, 1997:301), while in contrast, the proportional representative is based on the division of parliamentary seats which is determined by the proportions of votes obtains, expressed as percentages (Lottie, 2012). Majoritarian systems are the oldest and most widely used system. According to Norris, this system is the simplest to operate and the most traditional where its main focus is “effective governance”, (Norris, 1997:301). Majoritarian systems can either be p...
The first type of party system is a two-party system. According to Danziger (1991), the main characteristic of two-party system is the changing in governmental power of two major political parties. The country’s electoral arrangement is the important factor that influencing the number of parties to compete effectively (Ethrige & Handelman, 2010). Each party has a possibility to gain majority of governing and also alternate in power. Abdul Rashid Moten and Syed Serajul Islam (2011) also stated two essential features which are supporting the characteristic by Danziger (1991). The first essential feature of two-party system is only two parties sharing the electoral vote and controls the political exercise. Secondly, the two major parties alternate in the exercise of power. In a two-party system, third party may exist, but has limited power instead a major party needs its support to gain majority (Rodee, Anderson, Cristo and Greene, 1983). Unlike the multiparty system, the two-party system is more stable because one of the parties might to achieve a legislative majority (Ethrige & Han...
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.