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
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.
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 ...
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 principal advantage of PR is its association with greater fairness rather than the majoritarian system. This is related with the following factors: firstly, there is an opportunity for each political party to gain seats in proportion to the number of polls, secondly voters have wide range of parties for voting. With several parties constituents have a huge variety and are more likely to find a party which represents their political beliefs rather than in a two-party system. John Stuart Mill (1861), the most known stickler of PR, emp...
Grofman, B. & Lijphart, A. 2002. The evolution of electoral and party systems in the Nordic countries. USA: Agathon Press.
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
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
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
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.
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
The debate about electoral reform is not a new issue it has been discussed for quite some time, but with the recent studies, “Concerns about the relationship between a party’s share of the popular vote in an election and the number of seats it receives”(Howe & Northrup, 2000) has been given more attention. The first past the post system has continually elected governments that display grossly unfair party representation. “The most dramatic evidence was provided by the Progressive Conservatives, who captured 16% of the national popular vote but only won 2 seats (0.7%) in the House of Commons…In Quebec, the sovereigntist voice of the Bloc Quebecois was amplified…when 49.2% of the vote garnered 72% of the provincial seats for the Bloc…”(Braving the New World p.177).
The Democratic Flaw: The Electoral College may be Taking Away Your Voting Rights. Who do you think will decide the next President of the United States? Most people would probably say the same.
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.
The impracticality of the policy of proportional representation (PR), was one particular internal weakness of the Weimar government which led to its eventual loss of support among the people. The policy was put in place in an attempt to pursue democracy to its utmost, by granting seats to every party in proportion to the percentage of popular vote received. Ideally, this would allow for more interests to be represented, and that no individual could ever gain complete power. Ironically, its theoretical strength was also its Achilles' heel. The implementation of the PR led to the proliferation of small parties, which were oftentimes regional, narrow, or one-issue political parties. In 1928, 31 parties were on the ballot, and though the small parties did not have much influence, they disrupted proceedings and made the major parties appear incapable of maintaining order. One way they did so could be exemplified by the numerous problems with forming coalitions which invariably surfaced. With the sheer number of parties and the ...
The British Electoral System In democratic states, electoral systems are of great importance. Elections give people the right to choose their government; ensure that governments represent the majority (or largest minority) of the people; ensure peaceful changes of government (stability); allow people with fresh ideas an opportunity to enter the political arena; confer legitimacy of government and allow the government to expect people to obey their rules. Unfortunately the British system, Simple Plurality, (also known as 'First Past The Post') has come under fire for its alleged discrimination against smaller parties and its tendency to allow the losing party the ability to rule. Therefore, this creates a question - is the British system fair and democratic, or is it in need of drastic change? There is no denying that the British system has its advantages.