The Strengths and Weaknesses of the British Electoral System as Used in The General Election
For many, many years, the first past the post electoral system has
been used in Britain.
Since it has been used for so long, it should surely mean that it is a
success?
This is not necessarily true, as over the past few years criticism of
the system has been
growing and a search for an alternative been started.
The main concern about the system is that it is not fair. It is
possible for a party, who gain few votes, to get a huge majority of
seats. For example, in the 2001 elections, in Colchester the liberal
democrats won 2 more seats than the conservatives, despite the fact
that the conservatives got 39.5% of the vote and the Liberal democrats
got just 34.5% Also in Croydon, for the third election in a row, the
wrong party has won. In this area Labour won 5 more seats than the
conservatives, yet the conservatives got 7% more of the vote.
For this reason, it has been said that first past the post is not at
all fair, and does not reflect the true feelings or opinions of the
voters.
Another fact that shows that the feelings and opinions of the voters
are not taken into account, is that thousands of votes throughout the
country are put to waste as if their candidate does not win his
constituency then their votes will be disregarded. It is therefore
possible for a winning candidate in a constituency to get more votes
against him, rather than for him. And so the victor cannot truly claim
that he has the full support of the people within the whole
constituency.
The same is true at a national level. In the '97 general election
Labour got 43.2% of the total votes cast. But, the combined number of
votes for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats represented
47.5% of the voters. Therefore Labour could not truly claim they were
the people’s party, as the majority of the people throughout Britain
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 ...
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
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.
...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.
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.
This is confirmed by the period 1945-79, when power tended to alternate frequently between the Labour and Conservative parties. However, during this period, Labour won power twice with a majority of less than twenty seats, resulting in a near hung parliament. This tends to weaken the idea that the electoral pendulum has swung evenly for both parties. It is important to consider the period of time looked when attempting to identify which system best describes
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.
was its inventor; and as their inventor, they hold accountability for what happens after using
Post system may not quite be as good as it should be, and perhaps we
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)
While electoral systems do have an impact on the proportionality of electoral outcomes and to a lesser degree on the shape of party systems, it is not realistic to expect a change in electoral system to transform the style of politics in a country. For example, PR-STV was not responsible for the economic boom in Ireland and neither is it responsible for the economic crisis. In their cross-national study of the impact of a number of political reforms, including change to an electoral system, Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan (The Limits of Electoral Reform, Oxford University Press, 2013) strike a cautionary note, arguing that such reforms tend to have minimal or zero impact. Expecting an electoral change to result in a transformation in the style of politics in a country is completely unrealistic. It is far too easy to blame PR-STV for the happenings in our country, the power is with the people and, therefore, it is down to us to try to create the best possible government that we can. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr. “and so we shall have to decide to do more than register and more than vote; we shall have to create leaders who embody virtues that we can respect, who have moral and ethical principles we can applaud with enthusiasm.” (Martin Luther King, Jr. Quote,
According to the Election Commission (EC) of Malaysia (“Process of election”, n.d.), there are six steps for the Electoral process in Malaysia. It consists of the issuance of the writ, nomination of candidates, election campaign, polling, counting of votes and announcement of results.
out on top with 14 points in total out of a maximum of 20 where each
It is well known that the British political system is one of the oldest political systems in the world. Obviously, it was formed within the time. The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the constitutional monarchy, providing stability, continuity and national focus. The monarch is the head of state, but only Parliament has the right to create and undertake the legislation. The basis of the United Kingdom’s political system is a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, people think the role of the Queen as worthless and mainly unnecessarily demanding for funding, but is it like that?