From my limited studies of comparative government I have come to the conclusion that a plurality type of electoral process where winner takes all is a superior compared to proportional representation for several key reasons. Proportional representation is based on having an election based on census instead of consensus. In other words, ask the masses which party they feel will do the best job on a ticket where there may be several political parties running which intern will select its own leader from a list based on an individual's faithfulness to the party.
The pros of proportional representation includes increase voter turnout based on the premise that every vote counts for a particular party, so you may not get all of the representation as in the plurality, but you may get some representation, so it gives more choices to the voter. Proportional representation would increase the amount of women in office because they make up 50 percent of the population, and this form of election would decrease the amount of negative campaigning, because the competition shift from all or nothing to all or something (http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/6/0,5716,63126+1+61565,00.html). An example of this would be if a politician gets 51% of the vote, this would garner 100% of the representation. There is no reason for a political party with less then 45% of the vote to make an effort as a party. Why spend the money?
Plurality on the other hand is a vote of consensus rather then census in other words, the party with the most votes will be elected. It's easy to understand by voters, allows quick decisions and it is less costly to run. The only significant drawbacks include low voter turnout and the party that has the less amount of voters usually gets removed, so the winner takes all. The drawback to this is there may not be significant representation among the masses, but at least there is a constraint in the number of parties (http://www.ask.com/main/metaanswer.asp?metaEngine=directhit&origin.html).
Plurality is ideal for us Americans who are accustomed to a simple yuppie lifestyle with the most complicated decision in our daily existence is what will eat for dinner.
...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.
The famous civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people,” capturing the main message of the short story “The Lottery,” by Shirley Jackson, perfectly, because of the themes of peer pressure and tradition present throughout the story. In this story, the people of a small village gather for their annual tradition, a lottery, in which one person is picked at random out of a box containing each of the villagers’ names. The village, which is not specifically named, seems like any other historic village at first, with the women gossiping, the men talking, and the children playing, but soon takes a sinister turn when it is revealed that the “winner” of the lottery is not truly a winner at all; he or she is stoned to death by everyone else in the village. The purpose in this is not directly mentioned in the text, and the reader is left to wonder about the message the story is trying to convey. But there is no purpose; instead, the lottery is meant as a thinly veile...
Shirley Jackson's, The Lottery, has raised questions in the back of every reader's mind towards the destructive yet blind rituals of mankind. A reflection of ourselves is what we see when looking through the pond of Jackson's mind. The Lottery clearly expressed Jackson's feelings concerning traditional rituals through her story, opened the eyes of its readers to properly classify and question some of today's traditions as cruel, and allowed room to foretell the outcome of these unusual traditions. Jackson's feelings towards the misuse of tradition as an excuse to cause harm have triggered her creativity for the creation of The Lottery. Jackson obviously saw examples of this misuse of tradition and ingeniously placed it into an exaggerated situation to let us see how barbaric our actions are. The townspeople, in the story, all come together for the annual lottery; however, in an interesting twist, those participating stone the winner to death. Everyone in the story seems horribly uncivilized yet they can easily be compared to today's society. Perhaps Jackson was suggesting the coldness and lack of compassion the human race can exhibit in situations regarding tradition and values. The People who were stoned to death represented values and good being as the townspeople, who represented society, cold-heartedly destroyed them ( Jackson 79 ). Immediately after reading The Lottery, one can compare the ritual, in the story, to some of today's barbaric traditions in a new point of v...
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.
There are quite a few problems that come with any form of representation. Problems such as how to give the voters a specific person to whom they can address their concerns, protecting voters from being too heavily influenced by big parties, ensuring voters can talk to a representative who can address concerns that are local, and finding ways to make sure the representatives themselves are loyal to their constituents. Single-member districts solve all of these problems and more. They give voters a way to directly elect the representatives that will serve them in their specific location. They protect voters because the big parties don’t have as much influence. And they give the voters a sense of security because they can remove any representative that doesn’t meet their expectations. Single-member districts are the best way to elect the people who will represent us.
...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.
Within the text of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson portrays a complex power struggle between Dr. Jekyll, a respected individual within Victorian London society, and Mr. Hyde a villainous man tempted with criminal urges, fighting to take total control of their shared body. While Dr. Jekyll is shown to be well-liked by his colleagues, Mr. Hyde is openly disliked by the grand majority of those who encounter him, terrified of his frightful nature and cruel actions. Throughout Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Stevenson portrays the wealthy side of London, including Mr. Utterson and Dr. Jekyll, as respected and well-liked, while showing the impoverish side as either non-existent or cruel.
Old Man Warner plays an important part in the story. Although he is oldest man in the town, even he didn’t see the origins of the lottery. Also, when people begin to talk about how other towns have considered doing away with the lottery, he snorted, “Pack of crazy fools,” (Jackson 4) showing that the people have gotten so used to the horrific event that talk of anything different seems completely foreign and absurd. Old Man Warner even murmurs on another occasion, “Pack of young fools” (Jackson 4) when it was mentioned that some places have actually gotten rid of the lottery, showing that the thought of no lottery doesn’t make any sense.
In “ The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” begins with a mysterious third person narration with Mr. Utterson a quiet “scanty and unsmiling” lawyer yet lovable, walking through the streets of London with a companion Mr. Enfield. The novels, suspense is conveyed through Enfield 's
Stevenson explains to the reader that humans have lots of different sides to each other and not just one. The final chapter of the novel, ‘Henry Jekyll’s Full Statement Of The Case’ explores the ways in which the author presents Victorian attitudes to the nature of humans. He also explains how duplicitous humans are, which means how people often have two separate approaches to their life. The duality of man means the two sides of the person’s mind and is most apparent in, as the title suggests, the characters ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’. The separation of Jekyll into two beings, Jekyll and Hyde, is an analogy for humankind’s conflicting forces of good and evil. These characters bring to life the inner struggle between the two powers of the soul. Dr. Jekyll asserts that ‘man is not truly one, but truly two,’ within the book to illustrate the theme of the novel and to help describe Mr. Hyde to more rational people such as Mr. Utterson.
Hyde illustrates that his internal evil reflects on his external exterior. Mr. Utterson, a London lawyer, and Mr. Enfield, a London gentleman, are discussing an odd occurrence nights prior in the same neighborhood that they are taking a Sunday stroll. In this unusual incident, Enfield describes a horrid, ghastly man that harmed an innocent child: “He is not easy to describe. There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, something down-right detestable…” (Stevenson 12). Mr. Enfield describes the abnormal man as if there is a sense of some unnatural and repugnant features this man embraces. This characterization of the loathsome man, Mr. Hyde, from Mr. Enfield’s use of words indicates Mr. Hyde’s unpleasant actions correspond with his
Robert Louis Stevenson’s, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, creates an atmosphere of constant suspense and perplexity. The context of the book promotes an intriguing plot that highlights a man with a struggle between his dual identities, one of these being Dr. Jekyll whose intentions are essentially for good, and the other being Mr. Hyde whom Jekyll is attempting to prevent from overtaking him completely. The exploration of this “dual identity” is truly the main aspect of what Stevenson tries to convey towards his readers. This thriller portrays the uphill battle Jekyll faces as he fights the inherent evil nature of man, the multiplex personality that enslaves him at times, and the uncertainty of the way that he perceives himself all contribute to the rise of Mr. Hyde and his reign of evil.
Many mysterious events occur throughout this novel. Stevenson foreshadows the imminent end of Dr. Jekyll in the very beginning. As Utterson reads the will of Dr. Jekyll, he is perplexed by the statement that “in the case of Dr. Jekyll’s disappearance” (6), all of his money will go to Mr. Hyde. This questionable intent of Dr. Jekyll leads the reader to assume that there is something for complex connecting Mr. Hyde with Dr. Jekyll. Utterson not only tries to protect Dr. Jekyll from Mr. Hyde, but Utterson wishes to solve Jekyll’s entire problem. In the first description of Mr. Utterson, the reader learns that he is “inclined to help rather than to reprove” (1). This simple description implies that Utterson will be helping to solve a problem in this novel, though it is not identified whose problem he will try to solve. This also foreshadows a problem in the book; Utterson leads the reader to believe that a horrid situation will arise between Jekyll and Hyde. Mr. Hyde is driven purely by the temptations of evil; the urges that Dr. Jekyll is unable to act on. This temptation causes Mr. Hyde to murder Sir Carew with the wal...
Stevenson’s most prominent character in the story is the mysterious Mr Hyde. Edward Hyde is introduced from the very first chapter when he tramples a young girl in the street, which brings the reader’s attention straight to his character. The reader will instantly know that this person is a very important part of this book and that he plays a key role in the story. This role is the one of a respectable old man named Dr Jekyll’s evil side or a ‘doppelganger’. This links in with the idea of duality. Dr Jekyll is described as being ‘handsome’, ‘well-made’ and ‘smooth-faced’. On the other hand, Mr Hyde is described as being ‘hardly human’, ‘pale and dwarfish’, giving of an impression of deformity and ‘so ugly that it brought out the sweat on (Mr Enfield) like running’! These words all go together to conjure up an image in the mind of an animal, beast or monster. During the novel...
Mr. Hyde is purely evil. He is described to be smaller, younger, ugly, and hairier; he is considered to be villainous and evil. Stevenson compares him to a monkey. The monkey symboliz...