Proportional Representation Vs. Single-Member Districts Summary

552 Words2 Pages

Proportional Representation Versus Single-Member Districts
Douglas J. Amy, author of the article What is Proportional Representation and Why Do We Need This Reform? begins his article by stating that Americans are “disillusioned” with politics. Amy suggests replacing the current single-member district, winner-take-all election system with that of a proportional representation system in the hopes of revitalizing the political system, and instilling more comfort and appreciation from American citizens.
There are several characteristics that make a single-member district system and a proportional representation system different. Essentials of Comparative Politics defines a single-member district as “an electoral district with one seat,” (P. A-22) and a proportional representation system as “an electoral system in which political parties compete in multimember districts; voters choose between parties, and the seats in the district are awarded proportionally according to the results of the vote.” (P. A-21) The Unites States and Canada are two countries that operate under a single-member district system. In these two countries, each …show more content…

These characteristics are as follows: effective participation, voting equality at the decisive stage, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusiveness. Essentials of Comparative Politics defines democracy as a political system in which political power is exercised either directly or indirectly by the people. According to this definition and Dahl’s theory, it is easy to see that a proportional representation system is more democratic than a single-member district system. Proportional representation systems encourage more citizens to vote because regardless, their votes are not wasted as they are in a single-member district system. This system is also more equal and inclusive when you consider the fact that women and minority votes

Open Document