This calls into question the integrity of the voting process. The right to vote means close to nothing if we cannot express ourselves in a free and fair election. SMP is argued to be a system which "wastes votes and denies voters political choice" ( Lodge, and Gottfried 2011, 17). When an election process, in and of itself , disengages a portion of the population from voting, as seen in some SMP systems, can it truly claim to be a democratic and fair process? For instance, SMP is also related to the phenomena of strategic voting (Bartholdi and Orlin 1991, 341). This is when supporters of smaller parties see that their party will not have significant power at the legislative level of government, so they strategically vote for the party
Since the turn of the twenty first century, in Canada voter turnout has made a significant and consecutive decline. In the last five federal elections on average only sixty-one per cent of eligible voters voted. If each eligible citizen voted in an election the government would be on par with the primary interests of the people. The easiest way to achieve this objective is by implementing a compulsory voting system. Mandatory voting systems are appealing because all citizens are affected by decisions made by the government, so it makes sense to have all those affected apart of the election process. As a result, the voting results would be more representative of the country and that would lead to an increase of stability and legitimacy. It would also be beneficial to Canadians because would cause political parties to address and focus on the needs of every socio-economic level. However, one of biggest problems that accompanies mandatory voting laws is that the choice to exercise the right to vote is taken away. Another primary concern about compulsory voting is that a large number of uninterested and uninformed voters are brought to the polls. Conversely, uninformed voters will become familiar with and learn the polling procedures and electoral system over time and uninterested voters are not forced to mark a name on the ballot. Compulsory voting laws would only make registration and attendance at the polls mandatory, not voting itself. Therefore the freedom to exercise the right to vote or not is still intact. A greater emphasis on alternate voting practices may be established such as electronic or online voting. Positive changes would not only be evident in the policies of political parties but also in the voting procedure. Th...
Party is an inevitable feature of the democracy and it is defined as ‘an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the organization of the government’ (Caramani, 2011, p.220). Parties are ubiquitous in modern political systems and they perform a number of functions, they are: coordination, contesting elections, recruitment, and representation (Caramani, 2011). Political parties are the product of the parliamentary and electoral game, and party systems reflect the social oppositions that characterize society when parties first appear (Coxall et al., 2011).
In the wake of the 2016 general election, Michael Lind published a piece on The Smart Set entitled: Can Electoral Reform Save America? This piece centered around a single question on the ballot of a single state, question 5 in Maine, and the impact on electoral reform it could have for the country according to Lind. Using deconstruction, Lind analyzes the idea of a Ranked Choice polling system, rather than the first-past-the-post system that is currently in place in the United States. His allusions to the past as well as separate government entities globally, as well as a deconstruction of both polling systems and the impact they have (or could have) allows the reader to absorb information and produce their own personal opinion.
Both parties will tend to be broad-based and attempt to target as many groups as possible: this is because any smaller parties will not stand a chance in competing in most districts, hence causing parties to consolidate in order to be viable (ACE Project, 2012). This analysis by the ACE Project shows how larger parties may tend to squeeze out smaller ones, and cause smaller parties to be excluded relative to their actual level in government, hindering their ability to act on a national stage, providing a normative basis for their exclusion in Canadian
Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt believe that voting in an election is seemingly ineffective, that the chances of you winning a lottery and actually affecting an election are very similar. This article I’m analyzing questions why we vote, and if voting is even worth your time.
The SMP method of voting is what is now used in all Canadian Legislative Assemblies and the House of Commons. During a provincial election, each province is separated into electoral districts. The area allocated to each district is determined, largely, by population densi...
...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
In fact, according to Elections Canada, during the 2011 federal elections, only 61.1% of Canadians exerted their duty as citizen. Hence, some think compulsory voting can remediate the situation. However, mandatory voting is what really could hurt democracy. By forcing every eligible voter to go to the polls, misinformed voters will randomly cast their ballot. Sceptics may believe that by fining individuals who refuse to go to the polls, there will be less ignorant voters. For example, in Australia, where voting is compulsory, Australians who do not cast their ballots have to “pay a 20$ penalty” (Australian Electoral Commission). However, by financially penalising citizens who do not exert their duty, many will be so dissatisfied by the incumbent government that they will simply vote for a party that would not make voting an obligation. These people would ignore the party’s other policies instead of being informed on all the challenges that the country faces and how each party plans on solving them. Nonetheless, the elections are an occasion to elect a leader whose ideologies on many aspects, from immigration to the environment, matches the voter’s most. As a responsible voter, one has to know the policies of each party and has to try to obtain enough “social-scientific knowledge to [assess] these positions” (Brennan 11), which takes a lot of time. Therefore, compulsory voting would make voters more informed, but only on a narrow aspect while ignoring the other issues that should be taken into consideration when choosing the party they will vote for. All in all, mandatory voting would hurt democracy despite the higher participation
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).
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.
from voting, but are used by creating new laws that would prevent one’s ballot to be
...lso speaks of the instances where the system had failed to accurately represent the national popular will’s vote and goes into depth about each instance. Obviously this article is against the Electoral College and it gives many points in support of the anti-electoral college supporters. In conclusion of his article he does mention that this voting system has worked well throughout the years, but believes that it is not necessary because of the reasons that the Electoral College was established is no longer an issue in today’s world. So therefore the voting system is outdated. My use for this article in my research regarding the Electoral College debate will strengthen my argument against the Electoral College. It will be useful because of the in-depth explanations of each instance in which the current voting system failed to represent the national popular will.
SERVICE SYSTEMS There are many establishments where food is served outside the home, these include: Ø Commercial o Restaurants o Café’s Ø Non-commercial (Institutional/On-site) o Business o Government o Education Ø Military In each type of establishment food will be served in a different way, service systems are defined by what dishes and utensils are used, but mainly by the manner of presenting the meal to the customer, clearly the type of service is defined by the desired target customer. These are the major food service systems: Table service Ø Plate service Ø Gueridon service Ø Silver service Ø Family service Other Service Types Ø Buffet Service Ø Take away service Ø Counter service Ø A la carte Ø Table d’hote Specialist food service systems Ø Hospital Service Ø In-Flight Meal Service Type of service depends on the menu, décor, uniforms, table settings, ambiance and cuisine.
This idea of democratic deliberation does not demand that all 270 million US citizens enter into debate or cast votes in binding referendum. Such a large and varied state makes this impossible and less obviously, such stark majoritarianism also ignores the positions of a substantial minority. In efforts t...