Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reforming the united kingdoms election system
Merits and demerits of electoral system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reforming the united kingdoms election system
The results of recent elections in Britain raised many significant questions about current political situation in the country, particularly concerning electoral system. Therefore the problem of “crisis” in democracy of Britain was the subject of wide speculation among analysts and political scientists over last years. In addition it is widely recognized that the traditional electoral system in the UK-first past the post- is the main cause of that crisis and should be replaced as part of a plan to reconstitute the democratic culture (Kelly 2008). By longstanding critics of the system, opponents advocate the use of proportional representation (PR) for selecting MPs. Due to this problem it is going to be a referendum on changing the electoral system of the country's parliamentary elections. Arguments in favor of the adoption of proportional representation in 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 with 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. John Stuart Mill (1861), the most known stickler of PR, emp...
... middle of paper ...
...native.
Works Cited
Center for Voting and Democracy. 1996. Dubious Democracy. 2nd ed.
Chandler, J.A. 1982. Plurality Vote: A Reappraisal. Political Studies. Sheffield: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Colman, A. M. 1992. Arguments against proportional representation. Politics Review, 2(2), 14-15.
Curtis, J., Fisher S., Lessard-Philips L. 2007.Proportional Representation and disappearing voter. British Social Attitudes: Perspectives on a changing society, ed. A.Park 119-25. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Guinier, L.1994. Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. New York: The Free Press.
Kelly, R. 2008. It is only made things worse: A critique of Electoral System in Britain. The political quarterly 79(2):260-261.
Lijphart, A. 1997. Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma. The American Political Review 91(1):1-14.
In this essay I will argue that British General Elections should be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation. First, I will argue that the system would be more democratic as every vote that is cast would be represented and this ...
This argument is supported by the illegitimacy of the house of Lords, the low turnout and participation in UK politics, and the failings of the first-past-the-post voting system. However, it is more likely that there is not a deficit of democracy in the UK, due to free speech and media, freedom of choice in elections and referendums, and elements of devolution. Firstly, the illegitimacy of the House of Lords can be used to argue that the UK suffers from a democracy deficit. The Lords has many problems, and can be seen as an outdated, dysfunctional body that has no place in a
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...
The authors describe some of the advantages of a MMP system: “Mixed electoral systems provide fairly proportional outcomes, maintain the geographic link between constituents and members, provide for greater choice, and allow the opportunity for smaller parties to represented in Parliament” (p. 11). This system works better than the current FPTP or plurality system, because it allows citizen’s a second opportunity to have a voice. This is important because it would allow our minority groups to have a greater political influence. As mentioned earlier, in the current system all votes for candidates who lost, were insignificant to the election outcome. The authors explain: “Only those votes that go to the eventual winner count towards electing a representative, which may discourage people from voting or promote disaffection with the system” (p. 3). Alternatively, the MMP system allows citizen’s a second opportunity to elect party members in order to proportionally represent the popular
...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.
Canada is overdue for an electoral reform. Canada’s current first-past-the-post electoral system is an outdated and unfair electoral system; a Mixed Member Parliament electoral system can solve many of the issues that come about FPTP. The MMP electoral system is a proportional system where the proportion of votes a party wins, is the proportion of seats they get in Parliament. Each voter gets two votes: the first vote goes to the voter’s choice of local representation, the second vote goes to their choice political party. The first major issue with FPTP electoral system is it over-rewards the winning party, leaving many Canadians without any representation in Parliament. Secondly, Canada’s current electoral system promotes strategic voting,
...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.
Proportional representation is almost always acknowledged as the fairest electoral system. With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair representation and devalues citizen’s votes. Canadians must make a choice between the value of effectiveness and the values of justice and equity. Although a switch is not anticipated in the near future, Canadian citizens can hope that it is at least in the minds of many voters and on the discussion list of the government.
Landy, Marc and Sidney M. Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Karp, J. A. (2006). Political knowledge about electoral rules: Comparing mixed member proportional systems in Germany and New Zealand. Electoral Studies, 25(4), 714-730.
Landy, Marc and Sidney M. Milkis. American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Dinkin, M., and White, I.2008. Voting system in UK. Library of House of Commons: Parliament and Constitution Centre. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/108_icpr_final.pdf (accessed November 20, 2010)
...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.
While features of the Senate, such as the Group Ticket Vote, can have unexpected results that misrepresents the Australian voters’ will, it is not necessarily more prominent than voter behaviour. The rise of post-materialism, lack of party identification and strategic voting all contribute swings away from major parties. The electoral system still has a very influential effect on representational outcomes (Stone 1998), however minor party success cannot solely understood as a fault to the system. This essay will look at the differences in representation for the two houses of parliament and how the electoral system and strategic vote results in the disparity. It intends to look at how preference deals and Group Ticket Votes can distort results and give power to all parties. It will also explore how post-materialism and social movements can influence voter