Every state has its own distinct electoral system in choosing their government, Britain is not an exception. It is a well-established country, which also seeks an appropriate and effective legislature. This in turn involves fair and rational voting policy and distribution of seats. During periods it had different systems of election and the current one is First-Past-The-Post (FPTP here and after). However, recently British government started to investigate its drawbacks and benefits, rationality and fairness of elections and now they are considering replacing it by Proportional Representation (PR here and after). PR is the system of election where seats in parliament are almost in same proportion as votes cast, while FPTP is one of plurality/majority systems, where parties with most votes take all and represent the whole Parliament. (accessed on http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/) The following essay is going to analyze the benefits and drawbacks of PR and as a conclusion it will argue that this system can successfully replace FPTP in electing British Government. To begin with advantages, PR would result in better representation of the racial and ethnic minorities (Amy 1997). These parties are awarded a constituent power at a public and regional degree in the countries exploiting this system. Western Europe and Latin America are the demonstrative examples where PR is dominant according to Andrew Reynolds and Ben Reilly (2002). Besides, imposition of this system would provide the voters with a greater amount of viewpoints, so that the candidates of Minor Parties would have more possibility to get a seat at Westminster (Amy 1997). Participation in solving governmental issues would help to develop some new concepts, which don’t a... ... middle of paper ... ...re Proportional Representation can suitably replace First Past The Post in the election of British Government and I believe that imposition of PR will influence the further prosperity of the government and the country as a whole. Works Cited 1. Amy, J. 1997. Full Representation: The Case for a Better Election System. USA: Crescent Street Press. 2. Farrell,M. 2001. Electoral systems: A comparative introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan. 3. Gallagher, M., and P.Mitchell. ed. 2008. The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press 4. Hix, S., R.Johnston and I.Mclean 2010. A research report prepared for the British Academy. London. 5. Reynolds, A., B. Reilly and A.Ellis. 2008. Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. Sweden: Trydells Tryckeri AB. 6. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/proportional_representation.htm
Under this system, the MP for each constituency is the one who gained the most votes. Many claim that this wastes votes, and is unfair. For example, in the 2010 General Election, the Conservative Party gained 36% of the vote and gained 47% of the seats in the House of Commons. Simply put, this demonstrates a lack of democracy- with the representatives of the people not being those chosen by the electorate. Yet, it can also be argued that FPTP is a healthy aspect of the UK system, as it ensures that extremist parties are unlikely to gain power, and it tends to create strong, majority governments.
Representation: the effort of elected officials to look out for the interests of those who elect them
...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.
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.
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.
Milner, Henry. First Past the Post? Progress Report on Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces. Ottawa: Institute for Research and Public Policy, 5(9), 2004.
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.
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.
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
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.
...d I believe that proportional representation would be the most effective system to further the goals of democracy. If we use the single member plurality system we automatically ignore and exclude the voice of the people who didn’t win the election in a first past the post method. On the other hand in the proportional system rather than all seats being given to the party with the most votes every party gets the seats equal to the amount of votes they were able to obtain. This would allow all the people who voted to have their ‘”voice” represented in the government even though the party they voted for did not end up winning the election. This would encourage and engage many citizens to become involved in the political process; who otherwise would be discourage to vote at the fact that even if they vote, if their party loses their vote would be useless.
The Electoral Knowledge Network (2012). Parties and Candidates. [Online]. (URL http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/pc/pca/pca01/pca01a). (Assessed 20 April 2014)
In the article by Nadia Urbinati and Mark Warren, it was discussed that democratic theorists have paid increasing attention to problems of political representation over the past two decades. Interest is driven by a political landscape; within which electoral representation now competes with new and informal kinds of representation, particularly for minorities and women; a renewed focus on political judgement within democratic theory; and a new appreciation that participation and representation are complimentary forms of citizenship. We review recent innovations within democratic theory, focusing especially on problems of fairness, constituency definition, deliberative political judgement, and new non-electoral forms of representation.
7th edition. London: Pearson Longman, ed. Garner, R., Ferdinand, P. and Lawson, S. (2009) Introduction to Politics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Blais, Andre. "Electoral Insight." CCL Web: Criteria for Assessing Electoral Systems (1999): 1-6. Web. 26 Aug. 2010.