Guerrero (2010, p. 298-299) argues that the manifest normal mandate is the best description of a political candidate’s support, wherein the manifest normal mandate (MNM) refers to the amount of support expressed for a candidate through the electoral system in a certain area. While Brennan’s (2009, p. 537) “lesser of two evils” paradigm addresses the fact that voters must sometimes vote for a candidate they don’t wholly support, I think that Guerrero misses another important case: the case in which a voter supports two candidates, but cannot vote for both because they live in a jurisdiction with a one-vote electoral system. This paradigm, which I will refer to as the “greater of two goods”, could cause a candidate’s MNM to be much lower than the candidate’s actual normative mandate, which refers to the “degree of support that [the candidate] has from those individuals living in the jurisdiction over which [they] do or might govern” (Guerrero, 2010, p. 275). For example, imagine that Candidate X and Candidate Y are both running for president. Perhaps Candidate X is a staunch supporter of climate change reform whereas Candidate Y is a stanch supporter of LGBT rights. If you feel passionately about both climate change and LGBT rights, it is possible that you may support both candidates. However, under the current electoral system in America, there is no way for you to actively support both candidates at the polls. This has implications at a societal level in that if many people support both candidates (but only vote for one of them), both candidates will end the election with an amount of votes that does not reflect their actual support. Therefore, the amount of support expressed through the polls (the MNM) would not accurately repre... ... middle of paper ... ...of two evils’ (Brennan, 2009, 537) or the ‘greater of two goods’. Therefore, it seems that Guerrero (2010) must concede his point that officials should use MNM to determine the capacity in which they should govern. However, I believe that the MNM can be used to discriminate between the trustee role and the delegate role in a multiple vote or ranking system, as these systems would likely give a fairly accurate picture of the exact support and consent given by the governed because it allows citizens to express support for everyone that they would consent to be governed by. Therefore, Guerrero (2010) need not vacate his entire argument, but rather qualify his conclusion by stating that while the MNM can accurately depict the amount of support a candidate has and reflect the role in which they should govern in multiple-vote systems, it cannot do so for one-vote systems.
It’s hard to imagine a period in American political history that hasn’t been dominated by a duopoly of political parties. Even though resistance from the founding fathers on the issue of political parties is well documented, the two-party system we are well accustomed to developed shortly after the emergence of the United States as an independent nation. Whether it was the Federalist/Democratic-Republican system in the late 18th and early 19th centuries or the Democratic/Republican system we know today, two ideologically opposite parties have always maintained dominant control of the American political system. The existence of third parties and independent candidates, therefore, complicates the political system that we have used for centuries. Steven Rosenstone contends that the existence of our current two-party system is due, in part, to the ability of the two major parties to provide benefits in exchange for voter support. What then occurs when either of the major parties fails in its responsibility to be accountable to the public? While several options exist, including the demand for change within major parties, third parties and independent candidates become a viable option to restore a sense of accountability among American politicians. Even though third parties and independent candidates might seem attractive to voters, they often are unable to find success in any major elections. This lack of success can be attributed to many different factors, including constitutional and electoral barriers, as well as deficiencies born from the general lack of knowledge about third parties. Why then do third parties and independent candidates continue to exist in American politics? The ability of a third party to influence the policy p...
...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.
Contrary to what may seem logical, majority votes under a compulsory voting system do not necessarily represent accurate opinion. Rather, compulsion encourages apathy, characterized by “a lack of concern, enthusiasm or interest” ("Definition of Voter Apathy"). In essence, voter apathy “occurs when voters decide that they really don’t care who wins or loses” ("Definition of Voter Apathy") due to “a general feeling that a person’s vote doesn’t matter or even a distrust in regards to how the election is actually being run” ("Definition of Voter Apathy").
The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the majority of popular votes. Additionally, the unequal representation created by the number of electors each state has leads to a differential worth depending upon a voter’s state of residency. Moreover, the winner-take-all rule of the results in votes which are essentially rendered worthless if they are contrary the state majority. Finally, the system places much of the focus and power to effect elections in the hands of so called swing states that are not historically aligned with only one party. (Dahl, 80-83) These aspects of the U.S. political system are utterly counterintuitive and stand in stark contrast to many of the cardinal ideals of
Greater levels of congruence between government and voters results in not only a democratic government, but also reflects the idea that voting is a meaningful process driven by voters as opposed to a random unknown outcome (POLI 463, Lecture 4). Congruence affects voting patterns, as citizens will seek to feel represented by their government and will adjust their voting patterns based on this. Moreover, performance of a democracy is affected, as government is held accountable in remaining congruent with the general public.
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...
The current plurality voting system in Canada is regularly attacked for unfairly representing the popular vote and giving some parties a disproportionate amount of legislative power while leaving others with none. Opponents contend that other electoral systems would be far superior and provide a better democracy. Proportional representation (PR) is usually cited as the best alternative; the debate of proportional representation versus plurality often hinges on the balance between fairness and efficiency. Without attempting the political calculus to determine the rate at which fairness should be sacrificed for efficiency, this paper will address the very claim that PR is more fair than the plurality system. The proponents contend that PR is a more accurate representation of the electorate's vote, that no votes are wasted, and that the will of the people translates into government better than the plurality system; however, the experience of New Zealand challenges that assertion. This paper will establish that the current plurality system produces a government that is more effective, better represents the people, and is more transparent than the proposed alternatives, namely proportional representation.
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.
In the article “The Lottocracy,” the author Alexander Guerrero makes some bold assessments toward the current system of electing representatives. Alexander Guerrero reflects on the general attitude people have toward voting, analyzes why people vote the way they do and how the system is flawed. It is easy to fall into a state of thinking that one vote does not make a difference when one considers that there is little difference between the candidates. Ethos, pathos, and logos are present throughout the article to persuade and convince the audience of how flawed the current system. Guerrero appeals to his reader’s sense of logic by using examples of statistical analysis that outlines the demographics of those who are currently serving in elected
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.
Kernell, Samuel, Jacobson, Gary C., Kousser, Thad, & Vavreck, Lynn. 2014. The Logic of American Politics 6th ed. Los Angeles: CQ Press
I am responding to Micheal Schudson’s essay titled “America’s Ignorant Voter”. He makes several arguments against whether America having relatively ignorant voters poses a problem to our society, and whether it’s becoming worse over the years. One of the arguments he poses as to why Americans seem so clueless about political matters is due to the complexities of our nation’s political institutions.
...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.
Lastly Mills highlights how a truly democratic state can be achieved. There is a need for a public that acts a medium for true political change, skilled men who form the higher powers of the state and have no vested corporate interests, dependable parties that debate openly and lucidly the problems faced by the world and finally liberated institutions between the public and the elite that act as proponent for the public opinion.
Another main concern in the field of public choice theory is “there is a lack of incentive for persons who have voted to monitor government efficiently and effectively. Anthony Downs (1957) indicated that voters are to a large extent unknowing of political issues.” However, several academics do not see this making much difference. Public administrator’s jobs are endorsing policy changes when someone is put into power via voting. However the main idea over this argument of public choice that was aforementioned underlies the idea of constituting an amount of