Electoral System Essay

1953 Words4 Pages

According to Andrew Heywood, there are three main functions of elections. One such function is to "ensure the representation." However, it is arguable that some nations make such representation due to proportional electoral systems unrepresentative and lacking are the majority. There are plenty of electoral systems in use worldwide and each country seems to have adopted a particular system that works well for them, but can not by others. Many countries tend to use only a couple of high systems, however, the United Kingdom use several! The different systems British election are used for different purposes and this is a large number and the question of how the UK is proportional. If there is a need for different voting systems, each provides As one of the main strengths of this electoral system is that the winning candidate must have over half the support of the electorate, the supplementary vote take effect if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, and was "promoted" to the second vote -preference. Therefore, the SV is a good thing because it requires more than half the support of the electorate and the people are given two votes of more than one option. In addition, due to the nature of the electoral system, fewer votes are being lost, compared to the first past the post system. Once all the votes are counted, votes wins - all other votes are taken into account. With OAS, once the votes are counted, the more votes are counted (depending whether applicants have more than 50% of the vote, of course). This means fewer people visiting is ignored, so why this system is very good. Supplementary Vote - Negative However, it is obvious that the SV is negative. The winner can not really get more first preference votes, and may have just won the top through the additional majority vote. Therefore, this means that the winning candidate is not supported on the first choice, and therefore lower than the result of a different electoral system. Also, as a result, smaller, extremist parties and voters can have too much to say - maybe even win - which would mean that proportionality is not

Open Document