Today’s democratic societies practice representative democracy but the ideal of a true representative democracy, where those elected to power mirror the population of a given society is inconsistent with reality. The reality is that, there is an underrepresentation of different minority groups both in terms of their presence in the political assemblies and in terms of their substantive representation. History has shown that minority groups have been continuously underrepresented in most of the world’s democratic societies, and while there have been small improvements in some countries, for the most part minorities in general have yet to make any impressive gain towards more effective political representation. In the existing literature, the under-representation of minorities in countries across the world and the potential impact of the Single Member Plurality and “pure” Proportional Representation systems on that representation have been studied extensively by authors and social scientists such as Norris (2004), Lijphart (1994), Blais (2008), Pitkin (1997), Reynolds and Reilly (2005) and Diamond (2008). While those studies have shown that minorities are better represented under “pure” proportional representation (PR) than under Single Member Plurality systems, little is known about the propensity of Mixed Member Proportional systems to provide minority groups with access to power and or better representation. If a pure PR system is conducive to the political representation of groups and majoritarian systems discourage it, the big question concerns the effects of mixed systems. By combining the two basic election principles, how do mixed systems contribute to fair representation of societal interests? And secondly, do they improv... ... middle of paper ... ...aper will attempt to answer the following questions: First, to what extent are minority groups elected to and or present in parliaments, and to what extent are they present in sufficient numbers to critically influence policy and decision making? Secondly, how has the type of electoral system in place influences the amount of power or representation that racial and ethnic minorities are able to enjoy? And finally, how can an increase in minority representation lead to an improvement in civic engagement? Based on the arguments presented by Ghai (2003), minority representation is a very important factor to consider when implementing public policies. It is understandable therefore, why one of the driving forces behind the push for electoral reform has been the belief that electoral systems need to better include and represent minority groups (Shugart and Wattenberg,
"Winner-take-all” is a term used to describe single member district and at large election systems that award seats to the highest vote getters without ensuring fair representation for minority groups. In the United States, these are typically single-member district schemes or at-large, block-voting systems. Under winner-take-all rules, a slim majority of voters can control 100% of seats, leaving everyone else effectively without representation.
Reading Chapter four of Ethnic Studies Issues and Approaches, by Philip Q. Yang, one receives a profound understanding of ethnic stratification. First of all, Yang describes ethnic stratification as a “institutionalized ethnic inequality” (61). This definition means the system of ethnic/social rules allowing certain ethnic groups to have access to more wealth and resources, which is unfair to the minority groups. There is a division between majority and minority groups, this is based on who is given more power, wealth and resources not because of a larger number of an ethnicity group. According to Yang, White people are the majority in the United States, but they are called majority for their share of wealth/power unlike the minority group.
Throughout American History, people of power have isolated specific racial and gender groups and established policies to limit their right to vote. These politicians, in desperate attempt to elongate their political reign, resort to “anything that is within the rules to gain electoral advantage, including expanding or contracting the rate of political participation.”(Hicks) Originally in the United States, voting was reserved for white, property-owning gentleman
majority, does not advance the cause of minorities in a meaningful way, and needs to be
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.
Theory of National Minorities," was published as Chapter 5 in J. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov.
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
Direct Democracy vs Representative Democracy The term Democracy is derived from two Greek words, demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning rule. These two words form the word democracy which means rule by the people. Aristotle, and other ancient Greek political philosophers, used the phrase, `the governors are to be the governed', or as we have come to know it, `rule and be ruled in turn'. The two major types of democracy are Representative Democracy and Direct
Starting with methods, such as, pool taxes and literacy tests, cunningly denying individuals their right to vote or convey their political voice continues in America today. Saito in the article “The Political Significance of Race” describes the effects that redistricting and gerrymandering can have on a community, by using the decennial census as a “unique opportunity to examine the relation between race and politics because the 1965 Voting Rights Act requires the recognition and protection of the political rights of ethnic and racial minorities” (120). Redistricting is the redrawing of districts, block by block supposedly to ensure each district has about the same number of people, and to guarantee that each voter has an equal political say. Redistricting can determine which political party is in power in each district by deliberately ensuring the district is drawn to include the people who support a specific party. This is called gerrymandering, the manipulation of district lines to protect or change political power. This can be used as a strategy to dilute the political voice of minority groups by conveniently drawing the lines to minimize their
The ideology behind American democracy can be defined by equal opportunity. More specifically it is ability for all citizens to have equal economic opportunity, such as education and also equal political opportunity, such as being able to vote and bail out of prison. The novels Our Kids and Just Mercy, by authors Robert Putnam and Brian Stevenson respectively, are both intellectual literacies following stories of inequalities in America. Focusing on two distinct types of inequality-socioeconomic and race- each book gives explicit insight to how it is affecting American democracy. Socioeconomic and racial inequalities are undermining the foundation of democracy. Citizens in poverty and racial minority groups are finding themselves to have unequal opportunities in education, incarceration, political efficacy.
Some minorities speak out and ask why there are not more high-ranking offices being held by minorities. There are other high offices that are obtained by minorities.
at times, because the thoughts and ideas of a minority are not always fairly represented. In fact in
A considerable body of research has been injected into the nature and impact of both majority and minority influences. Moscovici (1980 in Hogg and Vaughan 2007) claimed that both majorities and minorities exert influence in different ways.
In context, according to the demographics in Roots and Reform, race and ethnicity is an important factor that aids in contributing and forming political opinions. The opinions of racial groups such as black, whites, and Hispanics vary, but do share similar characteristics. For example, Hispanics are more likely to favor immigration rights that protect the