The Party-List System of proportional representation is a relatively new addition to Philippine politics and specifically in the electoral system of the country. It was only introduced in 1987, by then, the new constitution and formalized by R.A. 7941 (The Party-list System Act) in 1995, to open the legislature to marginalized and underrepresented sectors or groups without a well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to policy formulation beneficial to the nation. (R.A. 7941 1995, Sec. 2) Since then there had been various problems in implementing the statutory law and the principles of the constitutional provision on the party-list system. Rodriguez and Velasco (1998, 36-48) and Tangkia and Habaradas (2001) enumerated some of them: low voter turnout, COMELEC inefficiency in public information dissemination, and confusing instructions in explaining a new ballot structure. However, one of its longest standing issues is the seat allocation since R.A. 7941 does not provide a clear formula for translating votes into seats. (Rodriguez 2002, 25 and Rodriguez and Velasco 1998, 39) An allocation formula is one of the basic and most fundamental requisites of a party-list system. Yet ironically, the authors of the governing law seemed to have forgotten to include a clear allocation formula even though it was tackled during the deliberations of R.A. 7941’s origin bills. The effects of its absence were most evident during the 1998 and 2007 elections. In 1998, 14 party-list seats were already filled with finality using the “2-4-6 COMELEC formula.” The said formula apportioned a seat for every 2% a party garnered in the party-list votes. For example, APEC was given two seats with its 5.5% but ABA (second... ... middle of paper ... .... 2007. “The Party-List System in the Philippines: Proportional Representation and Seat Allocation Errors.” Discussion Paper. QC: Center for People Empowerment in Governance/University of the Philippines. Republic Act 7941. 1995. “The Party-list System Act.” Rodriguez, Agustin Martin G. and Djorina Velasco. 1998. Democracy Rising? The Trials and Triumphs of the 1998 Party-List Elections. QC: Institute of Politics and Governance and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Rodriguez, Agustin Martin G. 2002. The Winding Road to Representation: The Philippine Party-List Experience. Makati: Ateneo School of Government and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. Tangkia, Fritzie Palma and Ma.AraceliBascoHabaradas. 2001.“Party-List System: The Philippine Experience. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Philippines.http://www.library.fes.de/pdffiles/bueros/philippinen/50076.pdf. (November 27, 2011).
Party is an inevitable feature of the democracy and it is defined as ‘an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the organization of the government’ (Caramani, 2011, p.220). Parties are ubiquitous in modern political systems and they perform a number of functions, they are: coordination, contesting elections, recruitment, and representation (Caramani, 2011). Political parties are the product of the parliamentary and electoral game, and party systems reflect the social oppositions that characterize society when parties first appear (Coxall et al., 2011).
The spread of democracy has been one of the largest and most widely heralded trends in government worldwide – its prevalence and impact has been the subject of much political discussion and debate. In many cases, however, fewer observers focus on the electoral system used by the democratic governments themselves, which are in many cases equally important to the ultimate shape of the government formed. In general, the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system that is used in Canadian Federal Elections has excluded and prevented third parties from having a large impact on the national stage post-WWII, forcing a bipartisan system of government. Central to this paper is an analysis on how third parties, in this case minor broad-based parties
Pilon, D. (2007). The politics of voting : Reforming canada's electoral system. Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications.
Proportional representation is almost always acknowledged as the fairest electoral system. With this in mind, many still reject a mixed member proportional system. Critics argue that the current method has produced a stable and effective government, while MMP would create an ineffective government. Wiseman feels that since Canada has been consistently stable, our electoral system does not need to be changed. Hiemstra and Jansen disagree with the plurality system that is currently in place for it does not produce fair representation and devalues citizen’s votes. Canadians must make a choice between the value of effectiveness and the values of justice and equity. Although a switch is not anticipated in the near future, Canadian citizens can hope that it is at least in the minds of many voters and on the discussion list of the government.
Uhr, John. "Why We Chose Proportional Representation." Representation and Institutional Change: 50 Years of Proportional Representation in the Senate. By Marian Sawer and Sarah Miskin. Canberra: Dept. of the Senate, 1999. 13-40. Print.
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.
...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.
Tavits, Margit. "Party Systems in the Making: The Emergence and Success of New Parties in New Democracies." British Journal of Political Science 38.1 (2008): 113-33. JSTOR. Web. 26 May 2014.
How the legislature is organized is very important to the actual processes of making laws. Seniority is not important at the state level, but the division of power between majority and minority parties is. The speaker of the House is the presiding officer, and is chosen by vote of the whole House. In reality, it is the m...
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
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.
As a representative of the Algo ethnic group, I want to say that our people would like the new state to introduce a parliamentary system of governence. Parliamentarism is a system of government in which the head of government is elected by and accountable to a parliament or legislature. One could rightfully ask: What is our reasoning for desiring this? We think it is justified because in presidential systems the populace at large votes for a chief executive, who is the President, in a nation-wide election. This is revenant as the Algo comprises the minority of the population of the Republic of Jarth, which consists of only 1.1 million representatives in the whole state, compared to that of 2.9 million Randies, 3.8 million Dorfas and 2.2 million Takas living in the Republic of Jarth. One can reasonably assume that the outcome will most likely be that the cumulation of the majority’s vote will hinder the representation (in numbers) of the members of the minority in office. Subsequently, the Algo will have to live under the control of a leader from another ethnic group again, which the Algo members tremble at the thought of because we are proud of their ethnicity and do not wished to be shamed for it. On the other hand, in parliamentarism, the first step is an election of members of parliament, which are the political parties. This is imperative since it will allow the Algo to be able to choose the party we really share interests with....
According to Lipset and Rokkan, modern party systems are defined by historical conflicts and the lasting identities created by the interaction of these conflicts and social institutions that can explain national
A. A. The Philippines People, Poverty and Politics. New York: The New York Times. St. Martins's P, 1987. 1-225.