UK's Main Electoral System and Should It Be Reformed
Over the years Britain's pluralist electoral system has been
scrutinised by many political and pressure groups, such as the Liberal
Democrats and the Electoral Reform Society. In their 1997 Manifesto,
the Labour Party did state that they would look into the matter, by
holding a referendum on the issue, however there was no change as
Labour had a large majority in 1997 and Labour has preformed
disappointingly in elections where Proportional Representation had
been used. The main electoral system in the UK should be reformed
because the 'first past the post' system does not represent the
electorate in a democratic manner. It also under represents smaller
parties, as the system creates a two party system in which either
Labour or the Conservatives have been in Government. This has been the
occurrence since 1945, and to amend this and be represented wholly, we
should reform our electorate system using a method of Proportional
Representation in which the electorate would be represented.
The current system does have some advantages, such as it is a simple
system and the concept can be grasped by anyone, and it produces clear
results. Therefore, there would be a strong majority government and no
weak coalitions. The author of 'Electoral Reform,' David Agnew agrees
with this statement, and also states that with Proportional
Representation, we would need coalitions and lead to a weak
government. It also creates a strong bond between and MP between his
or her constituency, which Agnew also agrees with.
The case can be argued in many ways and that is that there are too
many disadvantag...
... middle of paper ...
...e must consider political issues,
which are crucial regarding electoral reform. For example, the way in
which the elections proceed must be fair along with the way in which
the seats are decided. To be truly democratic, the electorates' views
should be represented and parties must not be over represented nor
under represented. The Government should be strong like our present
government and there should be no weak coalitions.
From analysing our current electoral system and analysing others
alternative systems, the UK should reform its main electoral system to
that of the Single Transferable Vote. This is because the system is
remarkably fairer than the first past the post system, and is more
democratic. Through reforming to this system, the electorate would
have more representation and the UK would be more democratic.
Should British General Elections be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation? As the results came in for the 2010 election, it became pretty clear that the First Past The Post system had failed to give us a conclusive answer as to which party should be the next to form government and, as a result, we ended up with the first coalition government since the Second World War. The circumstances that lead to the formation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition made people question whether it was time for Britain to reform its electoral system in time for the next election, and the term “proportional representation” became printed across the media as a way for Britain to gain a fairer voting system with fairer results. As events unfolded The Telegraph reported, just two days after the ballots had closed, that 48% of voters supported the implementation of a Proportional Representation system , which may not seem a great amount but is still a higher percentage than a first party has gained since Labour in 1966. It is also worth noting that even though the First Past the Post system allowed the Liberal Democrats to be part of government for the first time, the party remains a strong supporter of electoral reform to a system of Proportional Representation , as the Liberal Democrats have more to gain from the implementation of this system than any of the other other parties.
The Electoral College is a system where the President is directly elected. This process has been used in many past elections as well as the current 2016 election. This process also helps narrow down the large numbers that were made by the popular votes, into a smaller number that is easier to work with for electing the President. Some states use a system called “winner-takes-all”, which is another system that is connected with the Electoral College. This allows a candidate with the most electoral votes, to get the rest of the votes that the state provides. This has made it very unfair to many people, because the Electoral College has the most advantage for candidates. The Electoral College is a very unfair system that causes any candidate to win easily if he or she has the highest votes, and makes the number of voters
The journey to democracy has been strongly driven by electoral systems. These systems provide routes for governments to represent the wills of their people. It provides the platform of legitimacy to the government and in most cases ensures freedom and order within a country. This essay will discuss the major differences between a majoritarian electoral system and proportional electoral system. In addition, it will demonstrate that the use of a majoritarian electoral system in a country would result in a more accountable and representative government. It will then go on to establish whether South Africa should adopt the majoritarian electoral system over the proportional electoral system, taking accountability, social representation and stability into account.
on what the electorate in each country votes for. In the US the have a
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.
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.
Post system may not quite be as good as it should be, and perhaps we
For Westminster elections the present electoral system is called first-past-the-post (FPTP) which is considered as unfair and undemocratic in many aspects, such as giving a disproportionate number of seats to parties for their percentage of votes received. So the issue of electoral reform to a proportional representation (PR) system which is used throughout Europe has arisen. Under a PR electoral system, a party's seats in the House of Commons would be, more or less, in proportion to the votes cast this party gets in the general election, depending on the type of PR system used. PR electoral systems have many supporters, and they indeed have many advantages to replace the present system. PR systems are seen as more representative than FPTP system mainly because the percentage of seats in the legislature is proportional to the votes cast, so more voters' wishes are represented, especially with the free list system which is seen as the most representative form of PR system, because it allows the voter to cast up a certain number of votes to vote the candidates in different parties.
Gregory A. Boyd & Paul R. Eddy, in their book across the spectrum, pose a scenario:
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.
Two days after Donald Trump won the Presidential Election, this cry could be heard across the country. Why should I accept Donald Trump as my President when I didn’t vote for him? In the words of Senator Barbara Boxer, “The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.” However, contrary to the negative feelings of several people, is the Electoral College actually an outdated, undemocratic system? Currently, there is a bill in Congress calling for the abolition of the Electoral College in favor of a National Popular vote. However, I believe that the Electoral College should not be abolished in favor of a National Popular vote.
The Electoral College should be abolished. The first reason that the Electoral College should be abolished is because it is unfair. According to Document A, candidates won’t even need electoral votes from half of the fifty states to win the election. This is important because as long as the candidate appeal to the states with the most electoral votes, such as California and Texas, they can easily win. States from the northwest region have low electoral votes compared to the northeast region, meaning even if the candidate receive their approval and electoral votes, it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Another reason that it should be abolished is because the Electoral College does not represent the voters fairly. According to Document D, states
The British Electoral System In democratic states, electoral systems are of great importance. Elections give people the right to choose their government; ensure that governments represent the majority (or largest minority) of the people; ensure peaceful changes of government (stability); allow people with fresh ideas an opportunity to enter the political arena; confer legitimacy of government and allow the government to expect people to obey their rules. Unfortunately the British system, Simple Plurality, (also known as 'First Past The Post') has come under fire for its alleged discrimination against smaller parties and its tendency to allow the losing party the ability to rule. Therefore, this creates a question - is the British system fair and democratic, or is it in need of drastic change? There is no denying that the British system has its advantages.
“Voting is part of democracy to protect the best interests of the people no matter what is their race, gender, political opinion or religion” (United Nation, 2005). The word democracy came from the Greek words “demos” which means people, and “craters” which means provided or rules. (Museum of Australian dictionary, 2012) Therefore, democracy is about rule and people. Democracy is a system of governance which allows every citizen to get an equal chance to speak and join in political society. This essay will begin by examining three different voting systems and how Australia’s electoral system can be improved to make it more democratic. I recommend that our electoral system should be changed to a proportional system because this system does not produce wasted votes as much as other systems. Wasted votes are votes which went for an elected candidate. If the rate of wasted votes is high, public opinion becomes less likely to be reflected in a political system. Therefore if we want to have a more democratic society, we need a system which does not produce many wasted votes. I chose Canada and NZ to compare with Australia because they have similar GDP’s and cultural values. They are also