UK's Option to Reform its Electoral System for General Elections In the UK the current voting system for electing MP's to the House of Commons is called First Post the Post. Within the UK alone there are 659 separate constituencies across the UK each electing only one single Member of Parliament. Different voting systems were used within the UK up to 1950. Then in the years after there have been many other, sometimes fairer voting systems like the Single Transferable Vote (STV) used in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, or the Alternative Vote (AV) used in Australia. Despite the fact of their being easier voting systems, first past the post is still an easy system to understand. The voter can express their own opinion as to which party should form the next government. The system tends to lead to a two party system; the system produces single party governments, which are strong enough to tackle any problems, without the help from other parties. First Past the Post creates a close link between the MP and their constituency. The system represents the views of the people, as the candidate is with the greatest support wins through a fair process. Also the UK's democracy is one of the strongest in the world, the present electoral system works and why should we go through the huge amount of chaos and hassle of changing the system? However there are two sides to every story told, the First Past the Post system may not quite be as good as it should be, and perhaps we should consider changing the system. As there is only one MP elected in each constituency, so all the voters who did not vote for him or her are not represented... ... middle of paper ... ...ted, and there is a wide range of parties. However, small parties get eliminated easily, and it does not result in a proportional parliament, there is also limited tactical voting. Overall from considering the pros and con's of both Single Transferable Vote, and Alternative Vote, I personally believe that Single Transferable Vote is the best and appropriate system that should be implemented in the UK, if there is to be reform within the electoral system. As the merits of the STV system outweigh the cons, small parties are represented, as opposed to being covered up by the bigger parties, so giving the voters more of a choice, and making the system more democratic. Also independent candidates have the chance of being elected, more importantly the end result is a stable government, with multi member constituencies.
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
A compulsory voting system similar to the one used in Australia is not a system Canada should implement. Compulsory voting in the context of a democratic society can be a misleading term (Lever, 2010). Canada practices the secret ballot process in voting, and so it is impossible to verify if someone has cast a legally valid ballot. If countries have a singular goal of simply increasing voter turnout, compulsory voting could remedy this problem and it should be more accurately defined as being compulsory voter turnout (Lever, 2010). The belief that compulsory voting inherently improves democracy is misleading (Lever, 2010). Canada should not force its citizen’s to vote because other then increasing voter turnout, compulsory voting would infringe on the right of the voter to not vote, it would not lead to a more informed or engaged population, the legitimacy of government would suffer, and the resources required to implement and maintain the compulsory voting system would be extremely costly to the federal government.
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.
Canada’s friendly neighbor to the South, the US, has an electoral system that is composed of 3 separate elections, one of them deciding the head of state. The president elected by the people and he or she is the determining person of the country’s political system. In the US runs like a majority system” In Canada, however, elections are held slightly differently. Citizens vote for a Member of Parliament in a 308-seat house and candidates win not by a majority, unlike in the US, but by a plurality. This means that a candidate can actually win by simply having more votes than the other candidates. This method of representative democracy, in general, does not cause too much controversy in a global scope but has caused controversy in a Canadian scope. With many critics of the Canadian election system calling it archaic and non-modern, the idea of reforming the election system has been in discussion numerous times. In 2004 by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, created by the government of British Columbia, brought into question the current first past the post system. In an alternative state at which the Canadian election system is changed, a different set of questions is brought to the table. How can changes to the electoral system affect how the House of Commons is run and its respective procedures? In this essay, I will be discussing the possible effects of changing the Canadian electoral system on the House of Commons.
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.
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.
Although Canadian electoral system has always undergone periodic reforms, new challenges always accompany electoral changes and therefore the system should be consistently reformed to meet new circumstances.The current electoral system in Canada is a product of a series of electoral changes that have always taken place since the foundation of the Canadian confederation in the mid 1880s. During the early years, the rights of individuals to vote were significantly limited as only white males had the right to vote but only after meeting certain requirements. A secret ballot was unheard, and it was only after a number of changes were implemented that all social groups in Canada were given the right to vote. Even after these changes, electoral partisanship, as well as cases of electoral frauds were rampant and further reforms became necessary for the Canadian electoral system to gain legitimacy and support among the citizens. Canadian electoral system is currently based on the federal constituencies each of which is entitled to elect their parliamentary representatives (Lavoie and Lemieux, 3). In this system, candidates who meet the Canadian electoral criteria are free to participate in the process and only the individual who won the biggest number of votes becomes the elected representative.
in between the years of 1920 and 1929. Mexicans left their native land and moved to the United
The United States Postal Service (USPS) has been in the works for two centuries, and between 1790 and 1860, 28,000 post offices have expanded across the United States. Therefore, that statistic seems to show the USPS has been growing and doing better than ever, but has it really? In reality, over the past decade the USPS has declined rapidly and without drastic change, the USPS will face an even bigger loss. Some may say that the USPS does not need to change and may just need to improve certain things or fix their finances. People may also say that the true nature of the post office is to physically deliver mail, have many workers, and that it is important to write a real letter instead of emailing. But, the USPS does not have to follow what
China, and the Axis powers, which consisted of Germany, Italy, and Japan. It is considered the
The change of electoral system of Britain from first-past-the-post to form of proportional representation caused discussions and argues in the whole country. Does new system inspirit and change course to better or lead to weak and indecisive government? Whereas first-past-the-post developed stable majorities in parliament, there are always was a lack of suffer from grave shortcomings, for example majority of population remains unrepresented in government bodies, and a party, which wins less voices in selection than their contestants, can be represented by more seats. Nation is looking forward to see the fairness and progress of parliamentary works of country, which can be motivated by advantageousness of proportional representation. However, there are still many people who think critically about this newness. As said, all that glitters is not gold, proportional representation also has its disadvantages, so people, relying on them, are against to change from first-past-the-post.
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.
The United States should not reconstruct or restructure the Postal Service because it is a waste of money and trees which are used and seen everyday. Money has always been seen as vital to life because you need it to buy food, shelter, and other things, as wells as trees being vital to life because you need them to breathe. Therefore, Americans should do their part in conserving these special resources by not allowing them to be thrown away or wasted on something that no longer provides quality service, such as the United States Postal
In the past week, how many texts, emails, or instant messages have you received? The majority of you would probably answer, “too many to count.” In fact, I would have the same answer as well. Now, think about how many handwritten letters have you received? And by handwritten letters, I mean a letter complete with a stamp and envelope, sent via post office. None at all? That’s not surprising, considering the great benefits of technological communication that cause people to make the switch from communicating through letter-writing. According to an annual survey conducted by the U.S. Postal Service, in 2010, a typical home received one personal letter every seven weeks. This is a drop from the results produced in 1987, when a typical home would receive one personal letter every two weeks.