Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
reforming the united kingdoms election system
Merits and demerits of electoral system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: reforming the united kingdoms election system
The results of recent elections in Britain raised many significant questions about current political situation in the country, particularly concerning electoral system. Therefore the problem of “crisis” in democracy of Britain was the subject of wide speculation among analysts and political scientists over last years. In addition it is widely recognized that the traditional electoral system in the UK-first past the post- is the main cause of that crisis and should be replaced as part of a plan to reconstitute the democratic culture (Kelly 2008). By longstanding critics of the system, opponents advocate the use of proportional representation (PR) for selecting MPs. Due to this problem it is going to be a referendum on changing the electoral system of the country's parliamentary elections. Arguments in favor of the adoption of proportional representation in UK have been made much more widely in recent years than in the case in favor of maintaining the current system of the majority vote. In this essay I would like to help restore the balance pointing out some misapprehensions in the critique of the plurality vote and to indicate some disregarded advantages of the present electoral system in Britain.
The principal advantage of PR is its association with greater fairness rather than the majoritarian system. This is related with the following factors: firstly, there is an opportunity for each political party to gain seats in proportion to the number of polls, secondly voters have wide range of parties for voting. With several parties constituents have a huge variety and are more likely to find a party which represents their political beliefs rather than in a two-party system. John Stuart Mill (1861), the most known stickler of PR, emp...
... middle of paper ...
...native.
Works Cited
Center for Voting and Democracy. 1996. Dubious Democracy. 2nd ed.
Chandler, J.A. 1982. Plurality Vote: A Reappraisal. Political Studies. Sheffield: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Colman, A. M. 1992. Arguments against proportional representation. Politics Review, 2(2), 14-15.
Curtis, J., Fisher S., Lessard-Philips L. 2007.Proportional Representation and disappearing voter. British Social Attitudes: Perspectives on a changing society, ed. A.Park 119-25. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Guinier, L.1994. Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. New York: The Free Press.
Kelly, R. 2008. It is only made things worse: A critique of Electoral System in Britain. The political quarterly 79(2):260-261.
Lijphart, A. 1997. Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma. The American Political Review 91(1):1-14.
A proportionate electoral system (otherwise known as proportional representation or PR) grants its voters a voice in their vote. The way that the PR system works is that for every percentage of votes a party receives, they will be granted around the same percentage of seats in parliament. For example, if a party receives 35% of the votes, they would receive 35% of the seats in legislature. This is important for Canada because it gives smaller parties a better chance of retaining a seat. There are many different varieties of PR, due to the fact that at often times, the voting percentages do not evenly translate into the number of seats available (King, 2000). For instance, if a party receive 33.6% of the vote, they can’ receive 33.6% of seats. Because of this, numerous variations of the PR system have been created. The most common...
There are a number of various ways that can be used in order to address the ever-growing problem of democratic deficit in the UK, which is based around factors such as the low participation rates and general apathy towards politics in the wider public.
Norris, P. 1997. Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems. International Political Science Review. 18(3): 297-312.
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
Mackerras, M., & McAllister, I. (1992). Compulsory Voting, Party Stability and Electoral Advantage in Australia. Electoral Studies , 18(2), 217-233. Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/details.xqy?uri=/02613794/v18i0002/217_cvpsaeaia.xml
Karp, Jeffrey A., and Susan A. Banducci. " Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour." British Journal of Political Science 38 (2008): 311-334. Cambridge Journals. Web. 16 Mar. 2012.
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.
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.
As the United States of America gets older, so does the presidential election voting system. The argument to change this method of voting has been becoming more and more popular as the years go on. It has been said that the Framers of the Constitution came up with this method because of the bad transportation, communication, and they feared the public’s intelligence was not suitable for choosing the President of the United States. Others say that the Framers made this method because they feared that the public did not receive sufficient information about candidates outside of their state to make such a decision based on direct popular vote. My research on this controversial issue of politics will look into the factors into why the Electoral College exists and if it is possibly outdated for today’s society. It will look into the pros and cons of this voting system, and it will explore the alternative methods of voting such as the Direct Popular vote. Many scholarly authors have gathered research to prove that this voting system is outdated and it does not accurately represent the national popular will. Many U.S. citizens value their vote because they only get one to cast towards the candidate of their choice in the presidential election. Based on the Electoral College system their vote may possibly not be represented. Because of today’s society in the U.S. the Electoral College should be abolished because it is not necessary to use a middle-man to choose our president for us. It is a vote by the people, all of us having one voice, one vote.
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.
2. Roger Gibbins and Loleen Youngman Berdahl. “ The Institutional expression of Multiple Identities: The electoral Reform Debate” Braving the New World, Readings in Contemporary Politics. (2000): 176-186
...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.
Sanders, D., Clarke, H., Stewart, M. and Whiteley, P. (2005) The 2005 General Election in Great Britain, [Online], Available: http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/Papers/ec%20report%20final.pdf [Date Accessed: 25/01/2014].
The redistribution of 143 seats resulted in industrial boroughs such as Manchester and Sheffield gaining an MP for the very first time and subsequently, there was a rise in the number of urban middle class voters who were now recognised and admitted into the political system. In contrast, the monarch’s influence in politics decreased due to the Reform Act, as there were fewer s...
There has been much debate about the legalisation of compulsory voting throughout political history and more importantly its place in a democratic society. Compulsory voting at a Commonwealth level was recognised in Australia in 1924 under section 245(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as stated: “It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election” (Australian Electoral Commission, 2011). Since the introduction of compulsory voting there has been both strong advocacy and opposition in terms of its legitimacy in society, which this essay will highlight through the concept of its consistency with representative democracy and its ability to ensure parties reflect the will of all people. On the contrary, opponents argue that it increases the number of safe seat electorates as well as forcing the ill informed to vote.