The electoral system of the United States is one that most people think is the most effective way to hear the voices of the people while being able to keep up with the mistakes and pass legislation. However, many don’t realize the efficiency and representation that a parliamentary system gives. Out of the top developing countries, the majority fall into parliamentary systems. Parliament allows for countries to develop faster and pass legislation to allow faster growth. Proportional Representational systems allow more representation for more diverse groups in the government. The United States would benefit greatly if the system was switched to a parliamentary and proportional representation system because it is more representative, stable, effective, and accountable for its actions.
Parliament and proportional representation can have many advantages that would make the United States a more democratic and representative state. First off, with the introduction of a proportional representational
…show more content…
According to Allen et al, parliamentary systems allow citizens to better evaluate the performance of government. The party to blame for bad performance is usually subjected to a lower percentage of votes in the next election. Another issue that can effect accountability with presidential systems can be the struggle for power between the legislature and the president about who has more power to speak on behalf of the citizens. (Linz). In parliament, the prime minister is the head of the party that holds the majority in the legislature. Therefore, there is less confusion and more of a focus to who has the say and who is accountable for the government’s actions. An example of this would also be in Swedish parliament. As a result of the prime minister siding with the party who holds the majority in the legislature, more blame can be put on a certain party for passing
By dismembering the Electoral College and replacing it with popular vote, some Americans believe this would eradicate any further issues on who is placed in office, while others want a system to do the dirty work and select their future leader. But by eliminating the very system created to keep the states at peace, the Electoral College has, in fact, caused turmoil and confusion among the people in regards to American politics; many people have a sense of displacement and lack of care for politics due to the mindset that someone else is in charge and their voice does not matter. Allowing the American people to cast their choice for who takes care of their future and eliminating the middle man ideals of the Electoral College, government can give back to its people in ways they might not have thought about before. They give the people a voice, choice, and a sense of personal expression and
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.
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 ...
America’s form of representative democracy came as a result of the transgressions Britain committed against their colonies. Several hundred years of salutary neglect served well for those living an ocean away from their motherland. Realizing the prosperity that colonies had obtained through a semi-free market society, the King of England and the parliament began enacting many taxes and acts. Taking away the colonies freedom was unsettling amongst the colonists and eventually led to a revolution. This revolution secured freedom from Britain as well as founded a new nation with the first ever constitution. Although the process to achieve democracy in America was a long, laborious road the freedom, prosperity and equality of opportunity shared by those amongst the states could not be denied.
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...
However, the proposed systems must be thoroughly examined for their compatibility with Canada’s needs and their ability to resolve the issues outlined in this paper. From distortion in representation to Western alienation and to making the voices of minorities heard, the new system must also ensure that Parliament fulfills its role in representing, legislating, and holding the government. More importantly, after the current government abandoned its promise on electoral reform, it is important for researchers and future governments to build on the knowledge acquired by the Special Committee on Electoral Reform as well as previous experiences of the provinces with electoral
Due to the discrepancy between the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the electoral college in the most recent election, there has been a lot of talk about eliminating the electoral college and moving to a direct popular vote. While many people argue for this shift, usually with little knowledge of what a popular vote election would look like, there are also many citizens who are opposed to the idea. In our polarized political climate, this fact is not surprising. Those who support the electoral college defend it by claiming that it is not only constitutional, but it also represents the whole county, and makes for a more certain, legitimate election process.
Proportional representation is almost always acknowledged as the fairest electoral system. With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair representation and devalues citizen’s votes. Canadians must make a choice between the value of effectiveness and the values of justice and equity. Although a switch is not anticipated in the near future, Canadian citizens can hope that it is at least in the minds of many voters and on the discussion list of the government.
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 single-member district election system is the most common and best-known electoral system currently in use in America. It is used to elect the U.S. House Representatives, as well as many state and local legislatures. Under single member district systems, an area is divided into a number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their district’s representative, with the individual receiving the most votes winning election. This method of electing representatives is better than any alternative solution in various ways. Four compelling reasons to support the single-member district election system include the fact that single-member districts give each voter a single, easily identifiable district member; the way single-member district voting helps protect against overreaching party influence; that single-member districts ensure geographic representation; and finally, that single-member districts are the best way to maximize representatives’ accountability.
Many people feel that this system is outdated, unfair and/or biased; that it should be replaced with the popular voting system. Unfortunately it is not as simple as...
...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.
Britain is considering changing current first past the post voting system (FPTP) to proportional representation (PR). The main reason is that FPTP is “quasi-democratic” voting system under which there is only one majority party ruling the government and it does not represent wishes of all voters as some votes are wasted. Whereas, PR seems to be the best alternative voting system with proportionality of seats in mandatory places, more parties ruling government and etc. Let us look at these two voting systems and analyze whether PR is suitable and alternative change for FPTP and do advantages of PR outweigh disadvantages.
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
In a presidential system, the President (who is the chief executive as well as the symbolic head of government) is chosen by a separat...