For Westminster elections the present electoral system is called
first-past-the-post (FPTP) which is considered as unfair and
undemocratic in many aspects, such as giving a disproportionate number
of seats to parties for their percentage of votes received. So the
issue of electoral reform to a proportional representation (PR) system
which is used throughout Europe has arisen. Under a PR electoral
system, a party's seats in the House of Commons would be, more or
less, in proportion to the votes cast this party gets in the general
election, depending on the type of PR system used. PR electoral
systems have many supporters, and they indeed have many advantages to
replace the present system.
PR systems are seen as more representative than FPTP system mainly
because the percentage of seats in the legislature is proportional to
the votes cast, so more voters' wishes are represented, especially
with the free list system which is seen as the most representative
form of PR system, because it allows the voter to cast up a certain
number of votes to vote the candidates in different parties.
In the FPTP system, because one particular party can be virtually
certain to win regardless of the candidate in many constituencies, and
it forms "safe seats" in the House of Commons, which leads to low
turnout in a general election, and a lot of votes are wasted because
the winning party just needs one more vote than any other party. Under
a PR system, especially the Single Transferable vote form, all the
surplus votes are shared to other candidates in proportion, and this
process will be continued until all the seats are filled. Thus when
voters fe...
... middle of paper ...
...e Western European countries' elections, the
shortcomings of the FPTP system, Lord Jenkins' report, and mainly
because the Blair government has considered the possibility of a
future referendum on changing the electoral system, the prospects for
a PR system have certainly taken a large step forward. (Bill Jones,
Dennis Kavanagh, Michael Moran, Philip Norton 2001, P.153) However,
each type of PR systems has disadvantage, and mainly because the two
dominant parties, Labour and Conservative may not favour PR for they
will both lose seats. Thus for Westminster election the prospect of a
PR system is still in uncertainty.
Bibliography
*Moyra Grant Understanding Politics SECOND ENDITION Stanley Thornes
(Publishers) Ltd. 1999.
* Bill Jones, Dennis Kavanagh, Michael Moran, Philip Norton Politics
UK Longman, 2001.
This essay will address whether New Labour contained policies with which it wished to pursue, or was solely developed in order to win elections. It is important to realise whether a political party that held office for approximately 13 years only possessed the goal of winning elections, or promoted policies which it wished to pursue. If a party that held no substance was governing for 13 years, it would be unfair to the people. New Labour was designed to win elections, but still contained policies which it wished to pursue. To adequately defend this thesis, one must look at the re-branding steps taken by New Labour and the new policies the party was going to pursue. Through analysis, it will be shown that New Labour promoted policies in regards
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.
...ment plays an important role in determining the relationship between its politicians and electorates. It also “[calculates] how votes are translated into seats of political power... it... also affects the party system, political culture, the formation of government and the structure of the executive” (Trac 5). Most importantly, candidates in an SMP system can be elected with minimal amounts of public support as they do not require a majority of the votes. To be elected to the legislature in the PR system, a candidate must have “at least 3% of the party vote across the province” (Ontario Citizens' Assembly 3). In contrast to the SMP system, the PR system better represents the views of the citizens, supports a stable and effective government, and is a simple yet practical voting system. It successfully caters to the needs of the voters, unlike the traditional system.
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
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.
Milner, Henry. First Past the Post? Progress Report on Electoral Reform Initiatives in Canadian Provinces. Ottawa: Institute for Research and Public Policy, 5(9), 2004.
Perhaps the greatest threat that FPTP poses to democracy is the appalling discrepancy between election results and the actual percentage of votes cast for each political party. In the FPTP syste...
...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.
Barnes, Lithwick, and Virgint explain: “Canadians appeared to prefer the current FPTP system to a system which includes proportional representation. However, the consultations also found that respondents were “open” to considering change, including a voting system in which every vote for a party counts” (p. 1). As previously mentioned, the MMP system still aligns with FPTP in the way that it still uses a single member to represent each constituency, and the first vote which a citizen casts for a candidate will still use FPTP principles to calculate the winner. The main difference between these two systems is the party vote, which is used to fill the remaining seats and compensate for any discrepancies would allow Canadians a greater say in who is
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Romance, Joseph. Political Science 6 class lectures. Drew University, Summer 2004.
...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).
Cooper, Barry, Allan Kornberg and William Mishler. The Resurgence of Conservatism in Anglo-American Democracies. Durham: Duke University Press, 1988. Print.
7th edition. London: Pearson Longman, ed. Garner, R., Ferdinand, P. and Lawson, S. (2009) Introduction to Politics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Hague, R. & M. Harrop (2010). Comparative Government and Politics. 8th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 64.