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
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 ...
A proportionate electoral system (otherwise known as proportional representation or PR) grants its voters a voice in their vote. The way that the PR system works is that for every percentage of votes a party receives, they will be granted around the same percentage of seats in parliament. For example, if a party receives 35% of the votes, they would receive 35% of the seats in legislature. This is important for Canada because it gives smaller parties a better chance of retaining a seat. There are many different varieties of PR, due to the fact that at often times, the voting percentages do not evenly translate into the number of seats available (King, 2000). For instance, if a party receive 33.6% of the vote, they can’ receive 33.6% of seats. Because of this, numerous variations of the PR system have been created. The most common...
The majoritarian electoral system could be divided into plurality or an absolute majority (Norris, 1997: 299). Plurality aims to create a manufactured majority via exaggerating the share of seats for the leading party to an effective working majority for the gove...
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, the Constitution contains provisions for direct and indirect election of the different parts of the legislature and the executive, based on overlapping but distinct electorates (Muller 1251). In addition, many people believe that, the Electoral College process of electing the president necessitates replacement with a direct popular vote to honor our democratic form of government in the United States. Moreover, in a democratic form of government, the authority rests with the people rather than in one or a few as in a totalitarian or authoritarian form of government. People believe a direct election supports the 14th Amendment principle of “one person, one vote” (Wagner 577). Therefore, the winner-take-all system inaccurately represents the will of the American citizens since not all candidates garner any electoral votes. On the other hand, a popular vote for the president could lead to many runoffs if neither candidate reaches a majority, creating a bigger opportunity for voter fraud and manipulation of the vote, which would not truly represent the will of the people, states, or country. The Electoral College sometimes fails to represent the national popular vote because states use the winner-take-all approach and not some proportional method for the representation of its voters. However, the Founding Fathers were not too keen on
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...
The author argues that without the use of an Electoral College that every vote by an American citizen would still create a big outcome in the election for a candidate. Instead of telling electors who citizens wished to cast their vote for, citizens would be able to really vote for the candidate in which they feel will be most effective for the country. The author believes that the Electoral College has soiled our elections and that we should make a better way in which we can make the elections more efficient and equal for each and every citizen in
...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.
In 2007 the Scottish Parliament implemented the “Single Transferable Vote” (STV) system for local elections as part of the Local Governance, as a consequence of the 2003 election when the Labour party was in need of the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition and the Liberals requested the use of STV for local elections which provides more PR to local authorities.
The most significant issue of this system is that it is nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to win the election (Black). In all states, besides Nebraska and Maine, a winner-takes-all system exists for allocating electoral votes. Thus, the candidate who wins the majority of the votes in that state receives all of that states’ electoral votes. So even if a third-party has any significant support in a state if he/she does not receive majority they receive no electoral votes. Another drawback is that it is possible for the loser of the popular vote could win the electoral vote hence becoming president (Black). So the people’s choice is not always the winner. Many feel the people should choose the president rather than having the unpopular lead the country. Lastly, it makes voters feel that their votes do not matter since the most states vote the same way for most elections (Josephson). Voter turnout is usually low in the nation and without the Electoral College the incentive to vote may increase since people will feel that their vote actually counts since a direct election makes people vote for the president. Due to these drawbacks, countless Americans feel the nation may be better off without the electoral
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...
The Electoral College was created by our founding fathers as a part of “The Great Compromise”. There were two parts to this. First, there would have to be two separate houses of congress, One based off of the population, and the other “upper “ house would have equal representation.The second part of “The Great Compromise
In contrast with FPTP, PR is the concept which is completely different from several electoral systems. It is a new method of voting system where the results of an election depend on the proportion of votes gained by each competing party. The basic idea of this system is that more competing parties, more and better decisions they make.
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...