In his book ‘Patterns of Democracy’, Arend Lijphart mentions how electoral systems of majoritarian and consensus model of democracies differ. The electoral systems in majoritarian democracies quintessentially tend to be single-member district plurality system, while consensus democracies usually tend to use the method of proportional representation. Most electoral systems fit into the two categories of PR and plurality-majority. However, there do exist some electoral systems that fall in between. These are called semi proportional formulas and Japan with its SNTV system is an example of this approach. From 1947 to 1993 Japan had a very unique electoral system called the single nontransferable vote or simply SNTV. Under this system, voters could cast their votes for individual, and the candidates with the most votes win. The voters do not have as many votes as there are seats in the district, and the districts have to have at least two seats.
However, in the year 1996, a new policy was introduced, known as the PR or proportional representation. Its main aim was to change single-party dominance that had been observed in Japan over the years and to help represent both majorities and minorities, and to translate votes into seats proportionally. PR was a system where in the citizens were no longer required to choose a candidate, but a particular party, during the elections. PR and SNTV both require multimember districts and it is an accepted fact that district magnitude has an on the degree of disproportionality. It has a strong influence in both PR and SNTV systems, but in opposite directions. Whilst in the SNTV system, increasing the district magnitude involves greater disproportionality and greater advantages for large parties, un...
... middle of paper ...
...he candidate with the most votes wins and it doesn’t matter whether the candidate’s party is popular or not.
Factionalism was yet another aspect of Japanese political parties and even now, when the political policy has been changed, it still exists. Each individual candidate usually maintains a core group of followers called a faction or a koenkai. Koenkai members are loyal to individual politicians, not necessarily to parties or to political ideals. The size and activeness of a candidates’ koenkai is what determines how many supporters will actually turn out to vote. Thus, voters are mobilized by organizations such as local agricultural cooperatives, small businessmen’s associations, or neighborhood associations.
Therefore, clientelism, personalism, and rural capture were products of the electoral system of single non-transferable vote in a multi-member district.
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 ...
Since the electoral system can change the outcome of the election, it often misrepresents the will of citizens. In electoral system, candidate with most popular votes in states wins electoral votes regardless of difference in popular votes. That means, if people living in urban areas support one candidate, they could easily mislead the results of popular votes. Smaller areas with more population often drag results on one side than larger areas with less population. Either it is a presidential election of 1888 or 2000 election, candidates with higher electoral votes happen to win against people’s popular votes.
...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.
In 1900 Britain was in many respects the world’s leading nation, enjoying a large share of world trade, a dominant position in the international money market, and possessing a far flung empire supported by the world’s most powerful navy. Japan was a complete contrast, sharing with Britain only the fact that it too was a nation of Islands lying off the shore of a major continent. Until the 1860s it had possessed a social and economic structure more akin to that of feudal, rather than twentieth century, Europe. By the 1990s, the positions were almost reversed. This paper sets out to examine the contrasting democratic political systems of the two nations and to explore the social and democratic consequences of the changes that have occurred.
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.
In the presidential elections of 1980 and 1992, in both cases, the third party received a good amount of popular vote (Doc B). This should mean that they should receive electoral votes. But that’s not the case. This shows a dominance of our 2-party system. Even bet...
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.
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.
...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.
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.
During the second half of the past century the notion that, political science should be treated as a science became extremely popular among academics specially in the United States. One of the most prominent exposers of this school of thought was Anthony Downs, who developed a theorem to explain in a rather economic sense, how and why voters behave in a certain way when it comes to voting. Downs did not only applied his theory to the way voters behave, he also used it to explain the way political parties align themselves when it comes to elections in a two and a multiparty system nevertheless this essay will analyze Downs’ claims about a two party system only. This essay argues that the Downs’ model has proven to be accurate in many cases throughout history, nevertheless it makes a series of assumptions about voters and parties that can not be considered realistic neither in 1957, when he published his paper An Economic Theory of Political Action in Democracy in 1957 nor in 2013. This essay also acknowledges that fact that this theory might help to explain how parties behave but it is by no means the only explanation. Furthermore this essay will prove that it is a multiplicity of factors rather than an economic theory what can help us understand why parties behave the way they do. In order to support the argument previously stated this essay will state and critically analyze a number of Downs assumptions, then his theory will be outlined. Then it will carefully consider how effective it has been at predicting the way in which parties align themselves by examining the behavior of political parties during general elections in different countries.
The candidate who crosses the threshold of 270 electoral votes wins the presidency. In almost every state, a candidate who wins 50.1 percent of the popular vote is awarded 100 percent of its electoral votes. (Only Maine and Nebraska don’t follow the winner-take-all rule;” for each state has a certain number of votes in the electoral college,depinding on the size and population,witch ever person running for president reaches the amount of 270 electoral votes will win the presidency.also each person who reaches 50.1 percent of popular votes is awarded 100 percent of its votes .maine and Nebraska do not follow the winner-take-all rule. also “Every four years, Americans select a president on a Tuesday in November. The two candidates representing the Republican and Democratic parties on Election Day will have survived a long series of state-level contests. Each state holds either a primary (votes by ballot) or a caucus (votes by a show of hands or by clustering all the candidate’s supporters in one place in the room). These initial elections are held from February through June.;”every four years, Americans select a president on a specific Tuesday in November.also there are a Republican and a democratic parties on election day that will overcome a series of state-level contests.each state holds a primary or a caucus votes or ballots with
Most democratic countries have a multi-party system where many different ideologies are represented in government. Multi-party systems provide a broader representation of the people and give voters more choices at the polls, however, can lead a party to form a coalition, which can dissolve easily causing instability in the government. The United States electo...
Kyi Suu San Aung. "The Quest of Democracy." Reading The World: Ideas That Matter, edited
In a dominant- party system, a single party wins approximately 60 percent or more of the seats in legislature and two or more other parties usually win less than 40 percent of the seat. Opposition parties in dominant-party system are free to contest elections. The dominant parties have to compete for votes to maintain its power or to gain power. This democratic competition imposes a check and balance on the government of the day, promotes transparency and accountability and ensures that service delivery to the people are prioritized or it will be given the boot.