Election Day arrives and we’re ready to vote. And the winner we say is the one who takes most. But when 13% goes down to point three. Is our system as fair as we believe it to be? First Past the Post is a common single winner voting system used in such countries as Canada, Nigeria, Bangladesh and the United Kingdom, in which whoever wins a plurality (the most) of first choice votes, wins. In First Past the Post, parties do not need a majority of votes, merely more than their competitors. Due to this parliament often does not represent the will of the masses. After years of struggle, of fighting, for votes for women, for votes for all, we still don’t have a democracy that values all. We don’t have a government that is fair. Consequently, I …show more content…
Minority rule is when a party that only received a small percentage of the overall votes gets total control in parliament, completely disregarding the true opinions of the majority of voters. This type of democratic rule is well in play under the use of First Past the Post as our electoral system. For example, in one of the more memorable UK elections, in 2015, the winning party the Conservatives received only 37% of the votes, which means that nearly 2/3 of the population voted for a different party than the one in control. Shockingly if you add up all of the differences in votes to seats in parliament, parliament as a whole has and misrepresentation error of over 50%. How can you be confident and trust in a governing body to make good decisions for your country when the very makeup of that body has that much of an error rate. This is important to address as this amount of misrepresentation can lead to the belief that all votes do not count the same and that people do not have any choice as to how the country runs and that is a serious flaw of First Past the Post. People have died for equality and still we support a system that prevents that? As journalist Andrew Coyne states in his article on minority rule, “Why should only the “winners” be represented in a democracy? The point of an election, surely, is to represent the people—all the people, not just some of
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.
Should America have compulsory voting? In my opinion, compulsory voting is a good way to increase the voting turnout. People currently don't like to vote because they don't have the time, or are just too lazy. If the government gives them an incentive then they will be happy to take time off to vote. Also, a reason to fear not to vote should be installed, like an annoying fine. When only a few people vote, the voter satisfaction is low. But when everyone puts their idea in, the satisfaction rises because the actual majority will win.
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 ...
However, this majority does not seem so great when looked at in percentage of votes. The Liberals won just over 50% of the vote, while the Conservatives were only slightly behind with 43%. This apparent anomaly is explained by the British Electoral system; the 'first past the post' policy where the M.P with the highest number of votes wins, regardless of whether other Parties have nearly the same number of votes. This sensational change in the British public's votes must have been a sign of the obvious change in mood over the Conservative's term.
Under this system, the MP for each constituency is the one who gained the most votes. Many claim that this wastes votes, and is unfair. For example, in the 2010 General Election, the Conservative Party gained 36% of the vote and gained 47% of the seats in the House of Commons. Simply put, this demonstrates a lack of democracy- with the representatives of the people not being those chosen by the electorate. Yet, it can also be argued that FPTP is a healthy aspect of the UK system, as it ensures that extremist parties are unlikely to gain power, and it tends to create strong, majority governments.
Even though there was a difference of a quarter million popular votes, the same number of votes were provided. Thus, this system discriminates against people who live in states with high turnout. Rather than having statewide electoral vote distribution, vote distribution in congressional districts could be a little more effective in representing people’s will. Upon this defectiveness of electoral system, current system is failure the way it mislead results and misrepresent population.
One may be surprised to learn that the turnout rate of individuals voting in Canada's federal elections has never reached 80% (Elections Canada). In fact, it has been decreasing since the middle of the twentieth century, as shown by an increase in voter apathy. An electoral system is designed to provide those who live in democratic governments with the opportunity to vote – in an election – for the candidate whose platform coincides with their political beliefs. This can be achieved through a direct democracy, where citizens are directly involved in the decision-making process, or through an indirect democracy, where citizens elect a delegate to act on their behalf. In a direct democracy, all citizens would be present during governmental meetings and have the opportunity to give verbal input. As one may expect, this would be extremely difficult to coordinate with Canada's population of 34.88 billion (Statistics Canada). Canada uses an indirect democracy, which allows for two basic forms of electoral systems in which representatives are elected. In the simple plurality electoral system, the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes is elected, regardless of a majority or not. It is commonly known as the “first-past-the-post” system, which alludes to a horse race; the winner passes the post with the highest number of votes, and only need to garner more votes than their opponents. The successful candidate wins all the seats in their riding or constituency while the candidates who places second or third will receive no seats, regardless of how many votes they lose by. Proportional representation is the second form of electoral system used in Canada; the percentage of the votes received by a party is proportionate to the numb...
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.
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.
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
...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.
First of all, let us start with First Past The Post. FPTP is the current voting system which is used for electing MPs to the House of Commons. Using this voting system voters choose one candidate they wish, by putting a cross in a box next to a candidate’s name. A candidate wins if he or she gets the most votes in the constituency. Plurality voting and Simple majority voting are two other names of FPTP. This voting system is easy to understand and gives voters possible view on which party might win elections. However, Liberal Democrats argue that FPTP has many disadvantages and beneficial only for Labour and Torries. That is why Liberal Democrats proposed an alternative for FPTP, the system named Proportional Representation (PR).
The majority and the minority bring forth change in policy in a democratic society. Majority rule means that, if there were an over whelming amount of support on a issue their voices would be heard by the government. Our government is run on a majority rule. People in our society elect officials and put their faiths in them to make their choices.