Plurality is also known as “first past the post,” plurality is by far the most common voting system for single-winner races. Unfortunately your “vote” is the name of a single candidate, and the most named candidate wins.
Plurality is used in countries like our own and also in countries like Austria and India. Plurality is simple and easy to count, but its well-known pathologies include the “spoiler effect,” which is the lesser of two evils dilemma, vote-splitting, and manipulability of elections via “candidate cloning.” Plurality also has the most frustrating disadvantage that there is no way for a voter to express any of his opinions about any of the other candidates, and it is often strategically best for a voter to dishonestly vote for somebody who is not his true favorite vote- the system encourages lying. You then get a great choice between being a liar and being a fool.
With plurality voting, you can win without a majority- both Clinton and G.W Bush won even though the majority was against them. That means it’s possible for most of the voters to get the candidate they like ...
Should America have compulsory voting? In my opinion, compulsory voting is a good way to increase the voting turnout. People currently don't like to vote because they don't have the time, or are just too lazy. If the government gives them an incentive then they will be happy to take time off to vote. Also, a reason to fear not to vote should be installed, like an annoying fine. When only a few people vote, the voter satisfaction is low. But when everyone puts their idea in, the satisfaction rises because the actual majority will win.
Upon this defectiveness of Electoral system, current system is failure the way it mislead results and misrepresent population. This system is being used to choose our president for a long time and it is hard to find a replacement for it, but little effective change in the system is possible. If that is done, that change may bring huge breakthrough to the way we Americans see election.
Arguments in favour of the adoption of proportional representation in the UK have been made much more widely in recent years than in the case in favor of maintaining the current system of the majority vote. In this essay I would like to help restore the balance, pointing out some misapprehensions in the critique of the plurality vote and to indicate some disregarded advantages of the present electoral system in Britain. The principal advantage of PR is its association with greater fairness rather than the majoritarian system. This is related to the following factors: firstly, there is an opportunity for each political party to gain seats in proportion to the number of polls, secondly voters have wide range of parties for voting. With several parties, constituents have a huge variety and are more likely to find a party which represents their political beliefs rather than in a two-party system.
One may be surprised to learn that the turnout rate of individuals voting in Canada's federal elections has never reached 80% (Elections Canada). In fact, it has been decreasing since the middle of the twentieth century, as shown by an increase in voter apathy. An electoral system is designed to provide those who live in democratic governments with the opportunity to vote – in an election – for the candidate whose platform coincides with their political beliefs. This can be achieved through a direct democracy, where citizens are directly involved in the decision-making process, or through an indirect democracy, where citizens elect a delegate to act on their behalf. In a direct democracy, all citizens would be present during governmental meetings and have the opportunity to give verbal input. As one may expect, this would be extremely difficult to coordinate with Canada's population of 34.88 billion (Statistics Canada). Canada uses an indirect democracy, which allows for two basic forms of electoral systems in which representatives are elected. In the simple plurality electoral system, the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes is elected, regardless of a majority or not. It is commonly known as the “first-past-the-post” system, which alludes to a horse race; the winner passes the post with the highest number of votes, and only need to garner more votes than their opponents. The successful candidate wins all the seats in their riding or constituency while the candidates who places second or third will receive no seats, regardless of how many votes they lose by. Proportional representation is the second form of electoral system used in Canada; the percentage of the votes received by a party is proportionate to the numb...
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
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.
In fact, the Constitution contains provisions for direct and indirect election of the different parts of the legislature and the executive, based on overlapping but distinct electorates (Muller 1251). In addition, many people believe that, the Electoral College process of electing the president necessitates replacement with a direct popular vote to honor our democratic form of government in the United States. Moreover, in a democratic form of government, the authority rests with the people rather than in one or a few as in a totalitarian or authoritarian form of government. People believe a direct election supports the 14th Amendment principle of “one person, one vote” (Wagner 577). Therefore, the winner-take-all system inaccurately represents the will of the American citizens since not all candidates garner any electoral votes. On the other hand, a popular vote for the president could lead to many runoffs if neither candidate reaches a majority, creating a bigger opportunity for voter fraud and manipulation of the vote, which would not truly represent the will of the people, states, or country. The Electoral College sometimes fails to represent the national popular vote because states use the winner-take-all approach and not some proportional method for the representation of its voters. However, the Founding Fathers were not too keen on
For example, imagine that Candidate X and Candidate Y are both running for president. Perhaps Candidate X is a staunch supporter of climate change reform whereas Candidate Y is a stanch supporter of LGBT rights. If you feel passionately about both climate change and LGBT rights, it is possible that you may support both candidates. However, under the current electoral system in America, there is no way for you to actively support both candidates at the polls. This has implications at a societal level in that if many people support both candidates (but only vote for one of them), both candidates will end the election with an amount of votes that does not reflect their actual support. Therefore, the amount of support expressed through the polls (the MNM) would not accurately repre...
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.
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
This greatly impacts people’s opinions of the government. The three different kinds of political cultures are Moral, Individualistic, and Traditional (Mitchell, Unit 3). A moral outlook on government focuses on the collective’s needs and desires. Government is seen as a positive force. The Individualistic approach views that government should only be where it is explicitly needed and values the role of the individual. The Traditional approach focuses on the government preserving the status quo. For Proportional representation (Mitchell, Unit 4) the seats of the legislative body are determined when, while casting votes, people select the party that they most identify with and the proportion of votes each party receives determines the number of seats that each parties obtains in the legislative body. Germany uses a proportional representation system in the lower house of their legislature (Carroll et al.). In Single Member District Plurality (Mitchell, Unit 4), a nation is divided into districts with the representative of the district determined by the person with the plurality of votes. The United States uses this system. The political culture will affect the type of system used or the opinions of the current system since many people are ruled by governments created before they existed. For a traditional population,
First of all I would like to bring to your attention that many votes don't even get counted if you call the United States a democracy. The way the whole Electoral College thing works is that each state is allowed a certain number of "electors" (the state's number of Representatives plus its Senators), who then vote for the president. The elector's vote based on the state's popular vote. After the state verifies the votes, the candidate that receives the most votes get all of that state's elector's votes. Because the state's constitution awards electoral votes that way, the innumerable individual votes become meaningless. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to me.
...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.
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
Have you ever been persuaded into voting? Well, you should have your own say on where your opinion goes. Voting is a right that every citizen in America over the age of 18 can do. Many people have become aware of the fact that the number of voters had reached its all time low. But as the newest voting season comes closer, we should still have a voice and the freedom to decide what we do. Which is, take a step against making America a compulsory voting country, because it proves unnecessary and there are other alternatives than mandatory voting.