More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguements for and against forms of proportional representation
Arguements for and against forms of proportional representation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
An argument for winner takes all voting is, if you feel really strongly about a certain candidate and what it to win, as long as it get the most votes, all the delegates for that state will go to that candidate which would be good in that person's mind because that will really help the candidate to win the election, especially if it is a big state. An argument against winner takes all voting is that if an election had a popular vote of 49% to 51%, which is a super close election, the one party still gets all the delegates even though the election was super close. An argument in favor of proportional representation is that third parties are able to make more of a difference because they could have part of the proportional vote even though it
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 ...
Politicians as different as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard Nixon backed a constitutional amendment to have all the states go to a proportional system. Obviously, nothing came of the proposals. It's probably because the political party that would be favored in a winner-take-all state is usually the party that runs the state. The party with the power to change the system has no incentive for doing so. It is not the sole fact that votes get wasted that bothers me. There is much more to it. Bush hardly campaigned at all in New York--and for the same reason that Gore neglected Idaho, Wyoming and Alaska: His opponent had the states locked up, along with 100 percent of their electoral votes. Indeed, Bush was criticized by some GOP strategists for wasting time and resources campaigning in California.
Abolishing the Electoral College is the best option for our democracy because keeping it slim the chances for independent candidates to win and unfair voting distribution to exist. In Document B, the 1992 presidential election shows Ross Perot with 19,743,821 votes but 0 electoral votes. Independent candidates like Ross Perot don’t get any electoral votes but millions of popular votes. This proves my claim to be true because major party candidates are receiving all electoral votes and are not allowing independent candidates to have a fair election. In Document F it states, “Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative in Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California,
Due to the discrepancy between the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the electoral college in the most recent election, there has been a lot of talk about eliminating the electoral college and moving to a direct popular vote. While many people argue for this shift, usually with little knowledge of what a popular vote election would look like, there are also many citizens who are opposed to the idea. In our polarized political climate, this fact is not surprising. Those who support the electoral college defend it by claiming that it is not only constitutional, but it also represents the whole county, and makes for a more certain, legitimate election process.
Some people believe the Electoral College system weakens the fundamental principle of a representative government- that one person should have one vote. If we switch to a popular vote, people will have a greater amount of saying than before. The candidates will have a better chance to get
The United States of America is often touted as the guiding beacon of democracy for the entirety of the modern world. In spite of this tremendous responsibility the political system of the United States retains some aspects which upon examination appear to be significantly undemocratic. Perhaps the most perplexing and oft misunderstood of these establishments is the process of electing the president and the institution known as the Electoral College. The puzzle of the Electoral College presents the American people with a unique conundrum as the mark of any true democracy is the citizens’ ability to elect their own ruling officials. Unfortunately, the Electoral College system dilutes this essential capacity by introducing an election by
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
This is unfair because this suggests that voting power changes with your geography. Election of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 reveals that sometimes a candidate with fewer popular votes can still win a majority of the electoral votes. This is a disadvantage because the state’s popular opinion is being neglected. Another thing to consider is the winner take all system, a system in which the “winner of their statewide popular vote gets all of their allotted votes in the Electoral College System which poses another disadvantage. The winner take all system is also known as the “Congressional District Method”; all states follow this except Maine and Nebraska. Maine and Nebraska tend to divide the votes proportionally. The winner take all system is however inequitable because in a state there is a vast amount of opinions, and this system prevents the minority from being discerned. This system “ does nothing to provide representation to any group making up less than half of the population in a given voting district.” Winner take all is a discriminatory rule as it tends to under represent minority. Winner take all is also a binary system, so if you are a Democrat living in Alabama (which is primarily a Republican state) your opinion is less likely to her
To enforce voting to be mandatory , this will prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices for their representatives. Mandating would stimulate the demand side, motivating voters to understand and acknowledge who they are voting for. Therefore , voting is to be a responsibility than a option.
...lity of the votes (Shugart 632). Each states would be important under such a system, as candidates would be forced to address as many voters as possible, not just "voting blocs" that could swing a plurality in the state and, therefore, the entire state. More people would participate in elections because they would know that every vote did indeed count.
The electoral college system is not only unfair but also outdated. People in smaller states are less likely to vote because they think their electoral college votes don't count or change anything. People in bigger states often vote a lot more than the smaller states, people need to vote and their vote needs to decide not the electoral college vote. If the popular vote was to elect the president than a lot would change in our history maybe for worse or better.
...d I believe that proportional representation would be the most effective system to further the goals of democracy. If we use the single member plurality system we automatically ignore and exclude the voice of the people who didn’t win the election in a first past the post method. On the other hand in the proportional system rather than all seats being given to the party with the most votes every party gets the seats equal to the amount of votes they were able to obtain. This would allow all the people who voted to have their ‘”voice” represented in the government even though the party they voted for did not end up winning the election. This would encourage and engage many citizens to become involved in the political process; who otherwise would be discourage to vote at the fact that even if they vote, if their party loses their vote would be useless.
There are many debates on how to fix the electoral college, but which one is truly the superior? The electoral college was formed to keep certain states from being the ones who basically choose our president. Alexander Hamilton wanted to have a fair opportunity for every state; he wanted us to all be truly equals, but as the country grew different states got more representation. More and more states chose to give their whole state the title of their party, but is this really what we need?
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
The Public Choice For some parents, deciding on a school for their children can be a difficult decision. Many parents do not spend much time thinking about it; they place their children into the local school designated by where they live. Others attended a private school themselves and found that it was a beneficial experience and therefore want the same for their kids. But which is better: private schools or public schools? While there are many advantages and disadvantages to each (nothing is going to be absolutely perfect), we are going to focus on the benefits of an education in the public school system, or in other words, schools funded by the government that are for anyone to attend.