In most of the modern societies an electoral process is considered an important symbol of the democracy that represents the concept of freedom of choice and fairness. The UK coalition government is now facing the need to reform the process by choosing between FPTP system and AV. As the final decision can affect the whole society, it is necessary to carefully analyze advantages and disadvantages of both systems. FPTP allows a candidate to win by the majority of the votes. It is a straightforward system that requires comparatively simplified procedures. In addition, it usually provides stable and strong one-party government. Also, elected party usually governs effectively and carries on the manifesto promises. Another advantage is a good-organized constituency link between MPs and their constituents. They can easily contact their MP to have support (Coxall et al. 2003, Jones and Norton 2010). Finally, FPTP tent to limit extremist parties like fascist, racist and other “hate” parties, for example British National Party. However, there are several disadvantages that should be considered. The most important weakness and the major criticism of FPTP system is ‘wasted votes’ issue (Lowe et al. 2010, p.115). For instance, in 2005 the UK General Election 65% of overall votes was wasted (BBC news 2005). Each vote is significant as it affects final results. Moreover, wasted votes lead to depressed turnout. Less people are willing to vote as they think their votes are not counted or make no change because there is a constantly winning party called ‘Safe seat’. In the last election, for instance, many people wanted to vote for Liberal-Democrats party, ‘safe seats’ and wasted votes dissuaded them to do it (Lowe et al. 2010, Jones and Norton ... ... middle of paper ... ...h, the problem of wasted votes and disproportional allocation become more serious year by year (P. Whiteley 2010). The statistics show that turn out in UK is increasing from 2001 year coming to the level of 65.1%. In addition, elections require huge spending from the government and parties (UK political Info 2010a, 2010b, Jones and Norton 2010). As UK government is currently facing a need to cut the budget up to 40%, AV is not a useful method (Pollwatch 2010, J. Bingham 2010). To sum up, AV system adoption is a quite controversial question. Although AV system is solving some problems of FPTP system and providing fairer conditions for candidates and electors, adoption of this system can be quite difficult for the UK Coalition Government in term of budget and time spent. In my opinion, it is better to remain current election system as careful analysis is required.
...s, be more representative, leading to policies that better reflect the average voter and smaller parties that actually have some influence in parliament. Voter apathy would likely decrease with a system that increased the value of every vote and my research has also concluded that many of the myths concerning the negatives of PR systems are unsubstantiated or are unlikely to apply in Britain. There are numerous Proportionally Representative democracies and numerous PR voting systems that have been developed, so Britain could choose that which would best suit it’s populace. The problem will be having to convince a government that has got in under the current system that the system needs to be changed, but given that one of the parties in power is pushing for a change , we may, if we’re lucky, be voting for a more democratic Britain come the next general election.
For a democratic country to thrive, they must have a proper electoral system in producing the party to oversee our government. Since its inception in 1867, Canada has been using the first past the post system during elections to decide their leading party. Although we have been using this system for an extended duration of time, the FPTP system is flawed and should be changed. The goal of this paper is to prove the effectiveness of shifting to more of a proportional system, while also exposing the ineptness of Canada’s current system. With other methods advancing and little change of the first past the post system, this system is becoming predated. A variation of the proportional electoral system is key because it empowers voters, increases voter turnout, and creates a more diverse environment. Canada should adopt a more proportionate electoral system at the federal level if we wish to expand democracy.
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
However, the proposed systems must be thoroughly examined for their compatibility with Canada’s needs and their ability to resolve the issues outlined in this paper. From distortion in representation to Western alienation and to making the voices of minorities heard, the new system must also ensure that Parliament fulfills its role in representing, legislating, and holding the government. More importantly, after the current government abandoned its promise on electoral reform, it is important for researchers and future governments to build on the knowledge acquired by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform as well as previous experiences of the provinces with electoral
Loewen, P. J., Milner, H., & Hicks, B. M. (1997). Does Compulsory Voting Lead To More Informed and Engaged Citizens? An Experimental Test. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 655-672. Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/tmp/44514596344978336.pdf
Since party politics began in Canada, the style in which leaders are elected is comparable to a horse race. Using the single member plurality (SMP), more commonly referred to as “first past the post,” method of seat allocation in both the House of Commons and each province's Legislative Assembly, whoever gets the most votes is asked to form the government; this only takes into accounts the number of seats a party wins, not the overall popular vote. In a political system not limited to two parties, like the United States, many times over 50% of Canadians do not want the party that won, to win. In this current electoral system, votes are wasted, smaller parties are terribly misrepresented and, in some cases, a party with a lower percent of the vote has come into power. Already, three provinces have attempted to vote on electoral reform; however, the vote did not pass in any of them. British Columbia (BC) and Prince Edward Island (PEI) both held their first referendum on the subject in 2005, BC's second referendum was held in 2009. Also, Ontario held their referendum in 2007. Because none of the referendums passed, it is clear that Canadians are not quite ready for electoral reform. Regardless, it is evident that a spark has ignited in the brains of citizens nation-wide; with recurring evidence that suggests the current electoral system horribly represents the majority of Canadian citizens, the public is beginning to realize that there is something terribly wrong.
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.
Perhaps the greatest threat that FPTP poses to democracy is the appalling discrepancy between election results and the actual percentage of votes cast for each political party. In the FPTP syste...
In 2007 the Scottish Parliament implemented the “Single Transferable Vote” (STV) system for local elections as part of the Local Governance, as a consequence of the 2003 election when the Labour party was in need of the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition and the Liberals requested the use of STV for local elections which provides more PR to local authorities.
Canadians have shown an increase in their disapproval of this electoral system, as well as an increase in those who have voiced an opinion. The evidence presented shows that over half (63 %) of Canadians with an opinion on the electoral system in place, feel it is unacceptable. However, when asked if they were satisfied with the electoral system in place in Canada, the results showed that an overwhelming seventy-two per cent were satisfied with the first-past-the-post system. Canadian’s feeling of unacceptability towards the present electoral system, should be enough of a concern t...
Many people feel that this system is outdated, unfair and/or biased; that it should be replaced with the popular voting system. Unfortunately it is not as simple as...
...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.
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.
...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 election process in the United States is a valuable process to the election of the proper officials to satisfy the people. The people run the country which is why we live in freedom because we control what happens with major decisions by choosing whom we want to decide these decisions. The whole country goes to vote on a certain day and by the end of that day we will vote to select who will run the country, state, county, or city political positions. The most complex decision and one with the biggest impact are selecting who the President of the United States shall be. We examine what their views are and who would do a better job. Then vote in our respected states with a certain number of electoral votes depending upon the population in that state. Those votes go toward the overall count of the candidate and help choose who will reach the magic number of 270 electoral votes first. This hasn’t always remained the same since the beginning but the basic idea behind this type of voting system was created by the views of the Founding Fathers of our country.