Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Proportional representation v first past the post. pros and cons
Proportional representation advantages and disadvantages
Proportional representation advantages and disadvantages
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Electoral Reform When looking at Electoral Reform it is important to understand that there are many factors that effect whether a particular electoral system is effective in producing the results it is needed to. For example, in some situations it is important for the results to be conclusive, to sway in one particular direction so that things can be implemented. Yet in other situations it does not matter because people are only voting for one of two options and results are therefore conclusive and can only go one way or the other. Therefore it is important that there are different electoral systems because not all systems would be suited to the situation. Due to first past the post being seen as an unrepresentative voting system there are many supporters of electoral reform. However, when thinking about Electoral Reform it is important to note that anyone who has power is unlikely to want to give it away. Therefore due to this, those who can get to power by first past the post (Labour) will not want reform, and those who cannot get to power by first past the post (Liberal-democrats and other minority parties) will want it. Yet even though first past the post is unrepresentative due to the constituent candidates it is however very effective at being able to produce decisive governments. It is a plurality system, and this way parties can campaign with a clear manifesto and will then have enough power to implement it if they get elected. With the first past the post system the constituents also is therefore able to vote within their constituency for the party they wish to see govern and following on from this, they expect t... ... middle of paper ... ...e they had significant but not majority support and therefore the link between the MP and his/her constituency should be maintained. Also is order to cause the least confusion the new system should be simple and involve as few changes as possible. All these points suggest that the new system should provide the individual voter with more power. Looking at all these points, it was decided that the single transferable vote (STV) and Additional member system (AMS) satisfied almost all of these conditions and therefore if the British electoral system was to be reformed it would be replaced these systems. This is backed up by the fact that according the Lord Jenkins’ independent commission on Electoral reform the STV vote came out on top with 14 points in total out of a maximum of 20 where each system was reviewed.
Abolishing the Electoral College is the best option for our democracy because keeping it slim the chances for independent candidates to win and unfair voting distribution to exist. In Document B, the 1992 presidential election shows Ross Perot with 19,743,821 votes but 0 electoral votes. Independent candidates like Ross Perot don’t get any electoral votes but millions of popular votes. This proves my claim to be true because major party candidates are receiving all electoral votes and are not allowing independent candidates to have a fair election. In Document F it states, “Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative in Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California,
odds are that they will be way worse and most likely lose their chance of making
teams; Team 1 and Team 2. These teams are the best there is. They are
A match is won by the first side winning two games. The first two games of a match are played to 15 points. If each side wins one game, a tiebreaker game is played to 11 points.
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.
The Electoral College today is a very complex system of voting and campaigning. When it was first created, the Framers thought the average citizen of their day was not intelligent enough to know who should be leading their country. So they created the Electoral College which was run by people who knew what they were doing. The Electoral College is a body of people who represent each state and they determine the president. The real question is: Has the Electoral College gotten too far out of hand where it needs to go? The answer is yes. The reasons are because any third party candidate running in the election has no chance of winning any electoral votes. Also, it gives too much power to the big states in electoral votes. Finally, it creates problems on majority electoral votes and equality of smaller states is diminished.
In the NHL there are eight teams from each conference that make the playoffs. The three division winners automatically take the top three spots in the division. The other five are for the teams are the ones who have the most points. You earn two points for every win and one point for every overtime loss.
The author of ‘Why We Should Abolish the Electoral College’ is a political science major. He explains why we should abolish the electoral college by explaining a candidate is allowed to choose a slate of electors who are able to make the real votes for President. He states that the Electoral College is made up of 538 electors. States are not given electoral votes based on just population but also by their representation in Congress. Therefore, each state has a minimum of 3 votes. The 3 votes comprise from each state including 2 senators and at least 1 representative. A candidate who achieves a majority of the votes, which is estimated to be 270 as of today, wins the Presidential election. One weakness in his argument however is he only states
It has become widely accepted that Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. However, this system may not be in the best interest of Canada any more. There are many reasons why Canada should change its electoral system to a mixed member proportional one, a variant of proportional representation. With a first past the post system, the elected officials will always be of the majority and this excludes minorities from fair representation. Adopting MMP can create stronger voter turnouts, more personal campaigning, better individual representation, and better party selection. John Hiemstra and Harold Janson, are both in favour of a MMP electoral system. They understand that with the switch, the citizens will get more representation in parliament, their preferred choice will have some say in the House of Commons, and finally someone can be held accountable which creates a closer knit between citizens and Members of Parliament. Nelson Wiseman argues against the MMP system because he feels that there is nothing to be fixed in Canada. If the current system has been working well thus far, there is no need to change it. MMP would allow smaller parties to have their voices heard. Unfortunately first past the post tends to have an over representation of regional parties; contrary to first past the post system, MMP lets Canadians have advocates and legislators who the majority of citizens agree with. Another advantage of MMP is the elimination of strategic voting. With MMP people can finally vote for who they want to rather than choose who the majority may prefer. A change in the electoral system of Canada will create a more fair and just Parliament governing the citizens.
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.
Electoral College Reform Since the fiasco that was the Presidential Election in the year 2000, many Americans have been calling for reform of the Electoral College. Most of these people were Gore supporters disillusioned by the fact that Bush won the office of the President while, in fact, he lost the popular vote. The American people did not elect George W. Bush; the Electoral College did. Last year’s event was the first of its kind in over a century. There have been many close elections, but none have resulted in the popular candidate losing to his opponent.
In the United States, the Electoral College determines the victor of a national election. Each state has its own number of electoral votes, which is determined by state population. This system is a “winner takes all” system. Which means the candidate with 50 percent or more of the votes in an individual state gets all of that states electoral votes. The 2016 presidential election will have 538 electoral votes, this means that the election will be decided who is the first candidate to 270 votes. Some people have seen this system as outdated and unjust. Many are looking at a way to change the system and others would like to do away with the system