The single-member district election system is the most common and best-known electoral system currently in use in America. It is used to elect the U.S. House Representatives, as well as many state and local legislatures. Under single member district systems, an area is divided into a number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their district’s representative, with the individual receiving the most votes winning election. This method of electing representatives is better than any alternative solution in various ways. Four compelling reasons to support the single-member district election system include the fact that single-member districts give each voter a single, easily identifiable district member; the way single-member district voting helps protect against overreaching party influence; that single-member districts ensure geographic representation; and finally, that single-member districts are the best way to maximize representatives’ accountability.
Giving each voter a specific representative is extremely important. Doing so helps to encourage constituency service by providing voters with an easily identifiable “ombudsman.” Voters feel like they are well represented and can go to their congressman (or whoever their representative may be) with questions and requests, and their representative will understand them because he or she is “one of them.” Having a specific representative also helps people to avoid the worry that they don’t have any say in who governs them. Likewise, more individuals will tend to vote because people are voting for an actual person rather than a group or a party.
Single-member districts also help minimize the perennial danger...
... middle of paper ...
...
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.
For weeks convention delegates have been argued over representation in congress, Large States want it based on population. Small states want each states to have the same number of votes. representative s shall be apportioned according to population. The number of shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representatives. This piece of evidence relates to the argument because they said that big states has more power than small states that is why big states only need one representative.
Members of congress have three specific goals. The one that seems to be the most important
As I stated earlier each state wanted to be represented according to different factors. The states with bigger populations wanted representation to be based solely off of population. The states with smaller populations wanted there to be a fixed number of representatives per state, regardless of size or population. The Connecticut Compromise resolved this issue by forming the two houses that we have today.
Representation: the effort of elected officials to look out for the interests of those who elect them
"Winner-take-all” is a term used to describe single member district and at large election systems that award seats to the highest vote getters without ensuring fair representation for minority groups. In the United States, these are typically single-member district schemes or at-large, block-voting systems. Under winner-take-all rules, a slim majority of voters can control 100% of seats, leaving everyone else effectively without representation.
Even though there was a difference of a quarter million popular votes, the same number of votes were provided. Thus, this system discriminates against people who live in states with high turnout. Rather than having statewide electoral vote distribution, vote distribution in congressional districts could be a little more effective in representing people’s will. Upon this defectiveness of electoral system, current system is failure the way it mislead results and misrepresent population.
The electoral system in Canada has been utilized for over a century, and although it has various strengths which have helped preserve the current system, it also has glaringly obvious weaknesses. In recent years, citizens and experts alike have questioned whether Canada’s current electoral system, known as First Past the Post (FPTP) or plurality, is the most effective system. Although FPTP is a relatively simple and easy to understand electoral system, it has been criticized for not representing the popular vote and favouring regions which are supportive of a particular party. FPTP does have many strengths such as simplicity and easy formation of majority governments, however, its biggest drawback is that it does not proportionally represent
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
In conclusion, Congressional representatives should be limited to serving two terms. Limiting the terms of career politicians will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. It is in our Country’s best interest that our legislator’s decisions are equitable and that compromises are not made to ensure their own or their parties stay in office.
Every ten years after a census, politicians redraw the district boundaries that determine the house and state legislature. The problem with this system is that the same politicians who redraw the district boundaries are the ones who are being elected by the
As the United States of America gets older, so does the presidential election voting system. The argument to change this method of voting has been becoming more and more popular as the years go on. It has been said that the Framers of the Constitution came up with this method because of the bad transportation, communication, and they feared the public’s intelligence was not suitable for choosing the President of the United States. Others say that the Framers made this method because they feared that the public did not receive sufficient information about candidates outside of their state to make such a decision based on direct popular vote. My research on this controversial issue of politics will look into the factors into why the Electoral College exists and if it is possibly outdated for today’s society. It will look into the pros and cons of this voting system, and it will explore the alternative methods of voting such as the Direct Popular vote. Many scholarly authors have gathered research to prove that this voting system is outdated and it does not accurately represent the national popular will. Many U.S. citizens value their vote because they only get one to cast towards the candidate of their choice in the presidential election. Based on the Electoral College system their vote may possibly not be represented. Because of today’s society in the U.S. the Electoral College should be abolished because it is not necessary to use a middle-man to choose our president for us. It is a vote by the people, all of us having one voice, one vote.
Voters of smaller parties will be split up between the districts and it becomes difficult for a candidate to be elected they favor, thus making it hard for a third party to become represented in government.
In a democratic government, functions of representation can sometimes become skewed or misunderstood. I will examine the different institutions of government, including the legislature, the executive, the bureaucracy, and the courts, pointing to their differences in trustee vs. delegate functions of representation. My understanding of a trustee is that it is someone in a position of power deciding what is best without a direct mandate. In other words, someone who is carrying out the wishes of the constituents when feasible, as well as acting motivated by what he or she feels or thinks is in the best interest of the community as a whole. A delegate function, on the other hand, is one that mandates representation of the constituency.
In our political system, the overuse of gerrymandering and political power has allowed politicians to choose their voters than the voters choosing their politicians. This ideology makes it easier for members of a particular party to better their chances of keeping their job. The two largest political parties in our country today are the Democrats and the Republicans. They fight each other every election year for seats in the respective districts, counties, and states to win more seats. An important tool that influences redistricting is the United State census. In the constitution it is mandated that every 10 years districts need to be rearranged to represent the demographics of people. In the article, “Gerrymandering on Steroids” it discusses
Explain the differences in between unicameral and bicameral legislatures. What are their virtues and vices?