Different electoral systems determine the level of representation for varying interests in a country. Some countries have chosen to use proportional representation in their electoral system. This results in the emergence and recognition of multiple parties. In this kind of electoral system, multiple political parties can run for national election and have the ability to gain political power. On the other hand, other countries have adopted single member plurality representation. This kind of representation allows for a maximum of two political parties to be recognized. Although it is possible for other political parties to exist in this electoral system, these two major political parties dominate the government. Why do countries pick varying electoral rules, and what specific factors contribute to the different electoral rules? The most valid explanation on this subject comes from Cusack, Iversen, and Soskice in their article “Economic Interests and the Origins of Electoral Systems.” By analyzing the standard view of proportional representation, they …show more content…
Calvo’s theory explains that when the number of parties increases, there are two distinct problems that arise which affect the electoral system: 1) majoritarian biases and 2) partisan biases. Majoritarian biases occur when a party whens extra seats in the legislature because of gaining more votes that its competing parties (Calvo, pg. 257) These majoritarian biases either penalize or reward any party that has an equivalent vote share. This kind of bias can be used to explain early electoral reforms in Europe. Partisan biases appear when a certain party gains seat benefits that happen to be more than expected than by any other competing party with equivalent vote share. This kind of bias does not always benefit the winning party, and is a result of the interaction between electoral system properties and multiparty
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...
In conclusion, it is for sure that the competitive party systems give a plenty of advantages in case of the improvements in the political, economic and civic welfares. But the modern party competition is not based solely on the ideology competition in many states, particularly in those developed countries with the long-standing democracies (USA, UK, most European countries). The facts in support of this argument are next: the changing proportion of mass-cadre parties, globalization, the increasing role of mass media, the domination of the middle class. In this essay the definition of the party, party systems was provided. The arguments for the main conclusion were represented and discussed in detail what resulted in the aforementioned conclusion.
In this essay, I will explain why Texas should retain the partisan election of judges. Texas is one of the few states that elect their judges using a Partisan voting method. Partisan elections can be unfair and can misinform the voter. A high legal position such as a judge should never be chosen in such a manner. Partisan elections often cost more than nonpartisan elections in campaigning. Partisan elections are also more likely to lead to straight ticket voting or mindless voting. Partisan elections also lead to more campaign contributions and can increase the power of constituencies. Lastly partisan elections can cause an imbalance in equal represent the population. Therefore, Partisanship voting does not belong in the courts of Texas and
Abolishing the Electoral College is the best option for our democracy because keeping it slim the chances for independent candidates to win and unfair voting distribution to exist. In Document B, the 1992 presidential election shows Ross Perot with 19,743,821 votes but 0 electoral votes. Independent candidates like Ross Perot don’t get any electoral votes but millions of popular votes. This proves my claim to be true because major party candidates are receiving all electoral votes and are not allowing independent candidates to have a fair election. In Document F it states, “Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative in Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California,
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
Voting is at the center of every democratic system. In america, it is the system in which a president is elected into office, and people express their opinion. Many people walk into the voting booth with the thought that every vote counts, and that their vote might be the one that matters above all else. But in reality, America’s voting system is old and flawed in many ways. Electoral College is a commonly used term on the topic of elections but few people actually know how it works.
I noticed that when one political party covers almost the entirely of the map, their party will continue winning the election for several years. Like how the election of 1932, the democratic party had about 88% of the electors votes and about 60% of the popular votes. The democratic party continued to win the next four elections.
The electors in each state are equal to the number of representatives that state has in Congress resulting in at least three electors per state regardless of population (McKenzie 285). Each state has two votes to correspond to the senators representing that state in Congress, and then each state has one vote to correspond to the House representative that represents that state in Congress. Smaller states comprise a higher percentage of the total electoral votes than would a popular vote for the president in those states (Muller 1257). The Founders intended the Electoral College to protect overshadowing the small states’ interests of the larger populous states by allowing at least three representative votes rather than none at all, and the smaller states were not willing to give control of the election process to the larger states, which was similar to their fight for representation in Congress (Muller 1250). However, it ignores the people who voted against the winner, since once the result is determined at the state level; the losing voters no longer have any significance nationally (Wagner 579). Wagner also points to the fact that the winner-take-all system can lead to selecting the minority candidate over the majority vote, as in the George
The author of ‘Why We Should Abolish the Electoral College’ is a political science major. He explains why we should abolish the electoral college by explaining a candidate is allowed to choose a slate of electors who are able to make the real votes for President. He states that the Electoral College is made up of 538 electors. States are not given electoral votes based on just population but also by their representation in Congress. Therefore, each state has a minimum of 3 votes. The 3 votes comprise from each state including 2 senators and at least 1 representative. A candidate who achieves a majority of the votes, which is estimated to be 270 as of today, wins the Presidential election. One weakness in his argument however is he only states
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.
...s vote for a party instead for an individual, and when the votes are tallied for the region the regional representative seats for that region are divided among the parties in proportion to the share of the vote that each party received.
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
During the second half of the past century the notion that, political science should be treated as a science became extremely popular among academics specially in the United States. One of the most prominent exposers of this school of thought was Anthony Downs, who developed a theorem to explain in a rather economic sense, how and why voters behave in a certain way when it comes to voting. Downs did not only applied his theory to the way voters behave, he also used it to explain the way political parties align themselves when it comes to elections in a two and a multiparty system nevertheless this essay will analyze Downs’ claims about a two party system only. This essay argues that the Downs’ model has proven to be accurate in many cases throughout history, nevertheless it makes a series of assumptions about voters and parties that can not be considered realistic neither in 1957, when he published his paper An Economic Theory of Political Action in Democracy in 1957 nor in 2013. This essay also acknowledges that fact that this theory might help to explain how parties behave but it is by no means the only explanation. Furthermore this essay will prove that it is a multiplicity of factors rather than an economic theory what can help us understand why parties behave the way they do. In order to support the argument previously stated this essay will state and critically analyze a number of Downs assumptions, then his theory will be outlined. Then it will carefully consider how effective it has been at predicting the way in which parties align themselves by examining the behavior of political parties during general elections in different countries.
Every four years our nation votes for the next leader of our nation; however, it is not really the citizens of our nation but rather the Electoral College who chooses the President of the United States. The Electoral College, which is the group of people who formally elect the President and Vice-President of the United States, has been part of our nation since its inception. There are 538 electors in the Electoral College, which comes from the number of House representatives and the two Senators each state has. To win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 of those electors. It is an indirect election since the people are not directly voting for the president but rather the people of voting for their elector. The electors meet in the Capital
This greatly impacts people’s opinions of the government. The three different kinds of political cultures are Moral, Individualistic, and Traditional (Mitchell, Unit 3). A moral outlook on government focuses on the collective’s needs and desires. Government is seen as a positive force. The Individualistic approach views that government should only be where it is explicitly needed and values the role of the individual. The Traditional approach focuses on the government preserving the status quo. For Proportional representation (Mitchell, Unit 4) the seats of the legislative body are determined when, while casting votes, people select the party that they most identify with and the proportion of votes each party receives determines the number of seats that each parties obtains in the legislative body. Germany uses a proportional representation system in the lower house of their legislature (Carroll et al.). In Single Member District Plurality (Mitchell, Unit 4), a nation is divided into districts with the representative of the district determined by the person with the plurality of votes. The United States uses this system. The political culture will affect the type of system used or the opinions of the current system since many people are ruled by governments created before they existed. For a traditional population,