Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Explain the importance of democracy
Explain the importance of democracy
Importance of democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Explain the importance of democracy
Proportional representation system is better than the plurality system and I believe it could change the United States of America for the better. In America we live in a modern-day democracy. And in a modern-day democracy everyone’s voice should be heard. I truly believe a competitive multiparty system would give Americans exactly what they want, a greater variety of choices in the polls. The goal should be to encourage higher level voting and help people find someone they can support. My belief for a democracy is to elect those who can bring worthy change to their community but not in a system where votes only count for 50 to 60 per cent in most U.S. elections.
The power should be put in the voter’s hands and with that I agree with the resolution that proportional representation is a better principle on which to organize an electoral system than is plurality. In a debate I would present an argument for this side and I strongly stand by it. If we want to be governed by democracy, why not give everyone a realistic chance? I’m pretty sure the green party in America can speak on this behalf. In a winner takes all set up voters get discouraged. A plurality system is not the best to use because it doesn’t allow all voters to express their
…show more content…
The plurality system contains single member districts which means your voting for one representative. Whereas in the P.R. system, which is based of multimember districts, several people can be selected at one time. Why? Because the districts are larger. The reason this is important is because one member can’t dictate what a district representation would be. Unlike in our current election system where if a Democrat is in a predominantly Republican district or a Republican is in a Democratic one would be shut out. Its one thing to be able to vote equally but not having the right to be equally represented is the major
Should British General Elections be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation? As the results came in for the 2010 election, it became pretty clear that the First Past The Post system had failed to give us a conclusive answer as to which party should be the next to form government and, as a result, we ended up with the first coalition government since the Second World War. The circumstances that lead to the formation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition made people question whether it was time for Britain to reform its electoral system in time for the next election, and the term “proportional representation” became printed across the media as a way for Britain to gain a fairer voting system with fairer results. As events unfolded The Telegraph reported, just two days after the ballots had closed, that 48% of voters supported the implementation of a Proportional Representation system , which may not seem a great amount but is still a higher percentage than a first party has gained since Labour in 1966. It is also worth noting that even though the First Past the Post system allowed the Liberal Democrats to be part of government for the first time, the party remains a strong supporter of electoral reform to a system of Proportional Representation , as the Liberal Democrats have more to gain from the implementation of this system than any of the other other parties.
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...
...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.
Some people believe the Electoral College system weakens the fundamental principle of a representative government- that one person should have one vote. If we switch to a popular vote, people will have a greater amount of saying than before. The candidates will have a better chance to get
...id of the two party system is that the American people would be less likely to vote because there would be a lot more people on the ballot and it wouldn’t be as easy as it is now, where most people just go in and look for the little ‘R’ or the little ‘D’. However as the gallup poll has shown the people seem to want more people on the ballot since they want to see more independents in the running.
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.
Well, It is clear that a system of delegation such as the Electoral College is needed. However, perhaps the Electoral College isn’t the way to go. Or maybe the Electoral College could be improved upon. It certainly has its problems but ultimately the U.S is better off with it. It allows for the minority interests to be herd. It contributes to the more even cohesiveness of the country by utilizing a distribution of popular support to be elected president. The biggest problem is that Americans think that issues have simple answers such as “Should we keep the electoral college?” When in reality, it is almost never a simple yes or no question. That is one of the reasons the Electoral College exists. It will continue to be needed until the average American can understand these issues, get involved, and make reasonable choices about its
...lso speaks of the instances where the system had failed to accurately represent the national popular will’s vote and goes into depth about each instance. Obviously this article is against the Electoral College and it gives many points in support of the anti-electoral college supporters. In conclusion of his article he does mention that this voting system has worked well throughout the years, but believes that it is not necessary because of the reasons that the Electoral College was established is no longer an issue in today’s world. So therefore the voting system is outdated. My use for this article in my research regarding the Electoral College debate will strengthen my argument against the Electoral College. It will be useful because of the in-depth explanations of each instance in which the current voting system failed to represent the national popular will.
Voters in states like Idaho wouldn’t benefit from this. There are once other problems when comes to gerrymandering. While candidate of the majority party has the advantage, it doesn’t allow for a third party candidate to have as much as a chance. Voters of smaller party will be spilt up between the districts and it becomes difficult for a candidate to elected they favor thus making it hard to a third party to become represented in
Democracy is defined as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system (Democracy, n.d.). Canadians generally pride themselves in being able to call this democratic nation home, however is our electoral system reflective of this belief? Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy that has been adopted from the British system. Few amendments have been made since its creation, which has left our modern nation with an archaic system that fails to represent the opinions of citizens. Canada’s current “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system continues to elect “false majorities” which are not representative of the actual percentage of votes cast. Upon closer examination of the current system, it appears that there are a number of discrepancies between our electoral system and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other nations provide Canada with excellent examples of electoral systems that more accurately represent the opinions of voters, such as proportional representation. This is a system of voting that allocates seats to a political party based on the percentage of votes cast for that party nationwide. Canada’s current system of voting is undemocratic because it fails to accurately translate the percentage of votes cast to the number of seats won by each party, therefore we should adopt a mixed member proportional representation system to ensure our elections remain democratic.
There are quite a few problems that come with any form of representation. Problems such as how to give the voters a specific person to whom they can address their concerns, protecting voters from being too heavily influenced by big parties, ensuring voters can talk to a representative who can address concerns that are local, and finding ways to make sure the representatives themselves are loyal to their constituents. Single-member districts solve all of these problems and more. They give voters a way to directly elect the representatives that will serve them in their specific location. They protect voters because the big parties don’t have as much influence. And they give the voters a sense of security because they can remove any representative that doesn’t meet their expectations. Single-member districts are the best way to elect the people who will represent us.
...lity of the votes (Shugart 632). Each states would be important under such a system, as candidates would be forced to address as many voters as possible, not just "voting blocs" that could swing a plurality in the state and, therefore, the entire state. More people would participate in elections because they would know that every vote did indeed count.
Many people feel that this system is outdated, unfair and/or biased; that it should be replaced with the popular voting system. Unfortunately it is not as simple as...
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.
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.