The single-member district election system is the most common and best-known electoral system currently in use in America. It is used to elect the U.S. House Representatives, as well as many state and local legislatures. Under single member district systems, an area is divided into a number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their district’s representative, with the individual receiving the most votes winning election. This method of electing representatives is better than any alternative solution in various ways. Four compelling reasons to support the single-member district election system include the fact that single-member districts give each voter a single, easily identifiable district member; the way single-member district voting helps protect against overreaching party influence; that single-member districts ensure geographic representation; and finally, that single-member districts are the best way to maximize representatives’ accountability.
Giving each voter a specific representative is extremely important. Doing so helps to encourage constituency service by providing voters with an easily identifiable “ombudsman.” Voters feel like they are well represented and can go to their congressman (or whoever their representative may be) with questions and requests, and their representative will understand them because he or she is “one of them.” Having a specific representative also helps people to avoid the worry that they don’t have any say in who governs them. Likewise, more individuals will tend to vote because people are voting for an actual person rather than a group or a party.
Single-member districts also help minimize the perennial danger...
... middle of paper ...
...
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.
Every ten years after a census, politicians redraw the district boundaries that determine the house and state legislature. The problem with this system is that the same politicians who redraw the district boundaries are the ones who are being elected by the
If you have ever seen the 435 congressional districts on a map you would probably think to yourself that it resembles something similar to one giant jigsaw puzzle. These districts vary in size and certainly in shape. Unlike how county lines are decided within states, the congressional districts change every ten years after the Census is released. Why do they have to change exactly? Well, the answer to that question receives the same frustrating answer heard again and again: It’s politics. The official name for the act of changing congressional lines to benefit a political party is “gerrymandering.” It has been the cause of many debates as well as many negative effects. Gerrymandering has had an unfair advantage in politics throughout history, as it has tarnished the system and should be changed.
Representation: the effort of elected officials to look out for the interests of those who elect them
The electoral system in Canada has been utilized for over a century, and although it has various strengths which have helped preserve the current system, it also has glaringly obvious weaknesses. In recent years, citizens and experts alike have questioned whether Canada’s current electoral system, known as First Past the Post (FPTP) or plurality, is the most effective system. Although FPTP is a relatively simple and easy to understand electoral system, it has been criticized for not representing the popular vote and favouring regions which are supportive of a particular party. FPTP does have many strengths such as simplicity and easy formation of majority governments, however, its biggest drawback is that it does not proportionally represent
...n over bipartisan commission or even worse, by the state legislature. I think bipartisan commission could ultimately result in bipartisan gerrymandering. On the other hand, the party in control of the state legislature often draws district lines in favor of its own political interest. Independent commission guarantees fair non-political congressional districts plans which cannot be vetoed by the governor who also acts in favor of his political party’s interest. I believe democracy in a state is attainable when the people legitimately vote for the representatives they want but not vice versa.
...f resources and lack of efficiency overall in government, which in turn has a negative impact on society (POLI 463, Lecture 10). Therefore in order for representative democracy to avoid this problem and maximize the representativeness and effectiveness of government, a certain level of congruence between voters and representatives is necessary.
The author argues that without the use of an Electoral College that every vote by an American citizen would still create a big outcome in the election for a candidate. Instead of telling electors who citizens wished to cast their vote for, citizens would be able to really vote for the candidate in which they feel will be most effective for the country. The author believes that the Electoral College has soiled our elections and that we should make a better way in which we can make the elections more efficient and equal for each and every citizen in
Gerrymandering is very essential in our society because it entitles equal representation of seats that represents each district. No state will have too many seats nor too little depending on the census, which is conducted every ten years. Gerrymandering is a method that filters too little representation or too much representation. This term brings a balance of representation to not just the districts, but to the House of Representatives. It is important that each states district has an equal representation because one state can dominant another when it comes to passing, voting, or creating new laws. Our society since the days of our founding fathers spoke about equal representation. However, from reading this issue our society is still struggling with the issue of equal representation.
The United States has strived to be a true democracy, a place in which the citizens are free to govern themselves, since its inception. For a democracy to work, the citizens must remain knowledgeable and elections must remain unbiased. Our current system of electing presidents fails in both of these regards: citizens are only given two choices that stand any chance of winning and their decisions between those two candidates are influenced not by knowledge, but instead by what they have seen on thirty second television commercials. In order to break up the complete political monopoly the Democrat and Republican Parties have on the United States, we as Americans need to reform our presidential elections so that third party and independent candidates have a legitimate chance of holding offices and so that citizens are able to vote on the candidates based on their political beliefs rather than on their ability to fundraise and advertise. Similar reforms should be made to the elections for other offices as well at the federal, state and local levels. The ideas and arguments presented in this paper can be applied to American elections in general although, because of the small scope of this paper, they only speak of the presidential elections.
While Voting Rights legislation had a great impact on changing the composition of Congress, other factors exist as barriers to minority representation in Congress. One of these is the use of single-member districts. Of great debate as to whether it is helping or hindering minority candidates is the establishment of minority districting and the use of racial gerrymandering. The question of constitutionality and these dist...
Ever since the first district was gerrymandered in the late 1700’s by Eldridge Gerry, it paved the way for politicians to keep their seats. It allows politicians to have the freedom to choose which district they would like to govern. In the article, “This Is What Gerrymandering Would Look Like” it talks about enforcing a separate committee to redistrict maps instead of politicians. People that are for Gerrymandering believe it takes power away from them and makes it harder to seek reelection. Thus the new shift of power will disrupt every congressional district in the United States. For instance, areas where people believe in one political ideology would be forced to vote with a party that doesn’t believe in their views. This is why politicians want to have a close involvement with their voters and be a part of what they represent. On the other hand, gerrymandering prevents change politically especially when the ideologies of a voters group changes. This is the same troubling issue private citizens are going through because it creates a wall between voter and candidate. Ridding Gerrymandering from our political system and instituting computerized fixations of the districts creates an even playing ground for
...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.
One of the most important principles behind voting is the idea that each citizen or voter has equal input, a principle often referred to as “one person, one vote”. Theoretically for each vote to carry equal weight each voting district should contain the same number of voters, however with populations constantly shifting this can be difficult to achieve. In order to accomplish this equality, redistricting allows states to redraw the boundaries of their electoral districts following the census every ten years. Typically the majority party has control over redistricting and uses it to redraw districts in order to give their candidates the best chance at winning each district. This practice known as gerrymandering has been a major and controversial aspect of redistricting since its inception. Redistricting has sparked controversy in the Texas government after both the 2000 and 2010 censuses.
In conclusion, Congressional representatives should be limited to serving two terms. Limiting the terms of career politicians will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. It is in our Country’s best interest that our legislator’s decisions are equitable and that compromises are not made to ensure their own or their parties stay in office.
Voters should care about redistricting because it cherry-picks voters, can be used to eliminate an incumbent, eliminate an opponent, skews state-wide representation, dilutes minority voting, and splits up communities. The lines are tailored more to fit the representatives and not the voters.