Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
"first past the post" versus "a proportional representation" voting system
Electoral systems used in uk
The growth of democracy in Britain
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
UK and the System of PR for General Elections In our current system, First-Past-The-Post (FPTP), there are only two parties capable of being elected into government, the Labour and Conservative parties, perhaps including the Liberal Democrats as a potentially influential party. In our 'democratic' society, if you do not vote for one of these three parties, your vote has been wasted. There are only about 250 seats in the House of Commons that regularly veer between parties out of the 650 available, therefore, for a Labour voter in Malvern or a Conservative voter in Ebber Vale your vote has essentially been wasted, either you move to a different constituency or you change parties, otherwise your vote will effectively not count. This raises the question whether a fairer proportional representation system would lead to a fairer government, but as past examples such as the Weimar Republic have shown, proportional representation also holds problems. The result of smaller parties gaining seats is that in order to gain a majority the larger parties must form a coalition government with the smaller who then gain a disproportionate say in government as the larger party needs their support to get legislation through. No government since World War II has been elected on more than 50% of the vote, even the recent 'landslide' victory of Tony Blair's New Labour won with only 41.9% of the vote. This shows that the smaller parties would most certainly be necessary for a successful government in Britain. Therefore, although proportional representation has benefits such as giving a truer reflection of the vote, it can also have undesirable character... ... middle of paper ... ...lable to them Overall, I believe that the UK should reform its electoral system, but I think it should adopt the Jenkins Commission and AV+. The Independent Commission would have considered all types of reform, looked at the UK's political history, and produced a system that would best suit it. Although FPTP is not the uniquely British idiocy that it is sometimes portrayed as, it is used in 62 countries, covering more than half the world's electors, it has many faults, and I feel it allows the government to become too powerful with large majorities. I also feel that because of the UK's political history, coalition governments would not be seen as strong governments. Although AV+ may sometimes produce coalitions it is least likely than any other system to do so and it does allow for single-party governments.
Under this system, the MP for each constituency is the one who gained the most votes. Many claim that this wastes votes, and is unfair. For example, in the 2010 General Election, the Conservative Party gained 36% of the vote and gained 47% of the seats in the House of Commons. Simply put, this demonstrates a lack of democracy- with the representatives of the people not being those chosen by the electorate. Yet, it can also be argued that FPTP is a healthy aspect of the UK system, as it ensures that extremist parties are unlikely to gain power, and it tends to create strong, majority governments.
The Electoral College system should be scrapped and be replaced with popular vote because it is unfair. By abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with popular vote, it would represent citizens equally, it would allow citizens to elect their president just as they elect their governors and senators, and it would motivate and encourage citizens to participate in voting.
...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.
...eft our own system to fester and decay. Unfortunately for Canadians, the only way that we can actually change our electoral system is if the party in power lets us. The problem with that is the ruling party generally has been granted a phony majority from the antiquated SMP system, and so changing the electoral system is the last thing that they want to do, unless they one day find themselves on the outside looking in. In 1984 when he was campaigning for the Liberal leadership, Chretien told reporters in Brandon that if elected he would introduce proportional representation “right after the next election”6. In 1993, two elections later, Chretien would win a majority with only 41% of the popular vote, and interestingly enough noble plans for reform were soon scuttled. In 1997 the Liberals won only 39% of the vote, and in 2000 only 42%, and then in 2003 Chretien retired after ten years as our unjustly elected dictator without ever raising the issue of electoral reform. With the current minority government, we have an unprecedented chance to create real change, and we can only hope that the voice of the majority gets through and our government does what the people actually want.
Parliamentary Sovereignty is one of the most significant factors of the Constitution of the United Kingdom, and makes the Parliament the most powerful legal force, who dominates themselves. It involves the legal relationship between the courts and the Parliament, and has remained a traditional value for many centuries, and its doctrine is what makes their system different from other widely held states. However, although the parliament has its strength, it also has some lack of power to control and amend those Acts of the European Union, who tend to override them; such as the European Communities Act 1972, and the Human Rights Act 1998. This paper is going to define and compare the impacts of both Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Communities Act 1972, by showing both similar and contrasting effects on the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
middle of paper ... ... d therefore the smaller parties can be considered to have very little effect on the overall political situation. In conclusion, the UK can still best be described as a two party system, provided two considerations are taken into account. The first is that Conservative dominance victories between 1979-97 was not a suggestion of party dominance and that eventually, the swing of the political pendulum will be even for both sides. This can perhaps be seen today with Labour's two landslide victories in 1997 and 2001.
Democracy is defined as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system (Democracy, n.d.). Canadians generally pride themselves in being able to call this democratic nation home, however is our electoral system reflective of this belief? Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy that has been adopted from the British system. Few amendments have been made since its creation, which has left our modern nation with an archaic system that fails to represent the opinions of citizens. Canada’s current “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) system continues to elect “false majorities” which are not representative of the actual percentage of votes cast. Upon closer examination of the current system, it appears that there are a number of discrepancies between our electoral system and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other nations provide Canada with excellent examples of electoral systems that more accurately represent the opinions of voters, such as proportional representation. This is a system of voting that allocates seats to a political party based on the percentage of votes cast for that party nationwide. Canada’s current system of voting is undemocratic because it fails to accurately translate the percentage of votes cast to the number of seats won by each party, therefore we should adopt a mixed member proportional representation system to ensure our elections remain democratic.
In 2007 the Scottish Parliament implemented the “Single Transferable Vote” (STV) system for local elections as part of the Local Governance, as a consequence of the 2003 election when the Labour party was in need of the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition and the Liberals requested the use of STV for local elections which provides more PR to local authorities.
Gregory A. Boyd & Paul R. Eddy, in their book across the spectrum, pose a scenario:
The Political System of Scotland Unlike Wales, which was subdued by conquest in the thirteenth century,
...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.
Britain is considering changing current first past the post voting system (FPTP) to proportional representation (PR). The main reason is that FPTP is “quasi-democratic” voting system under which there is only one majority party ruling the government and it does not represent wishes of all voters as some votes are wasted. Whereas, PR seems to be the best alternative voting system with proportionality of seats in mandatory places, more parties ruling government and etc. Let us look at these two voting systems and analyze whether PR is suitable and alternative change for FPTP and do advantages of PR outweigh disadvantages.
The government ensures that the citizens are living in a peaceful country, with security, better service delivery and it also a good thing allowing people to participate in decision making through voting. The political parties play a role in providing these resources to the people like; clean water, repair roads, remove garbage, etc. When we come to voting between different parties that under the government we vote for how they deliver services to the society. The election time where every party goes to an electoral campaign to present the candidate that they nominated to stand for them in the political office and make promises to the people into how they can change the world and how they can deliver services much better than the party that is already in charge. They normally d...
Many people may describe realizing that they have been divinely chosen as one of their most empowering moments. They would never forget the instant when enlightening thoughts, overwhelming feelings, and memories collided and fueled the emulation of heavenly standards. Being recruited into God’s forces challenges the understanding of profiting from an investment. The converted did not possess any characteristic justifying selection. No person in human history has displayed enough independent virtue, wisdom, or strength to seize the attention of creation’s architect. Hence, no individual would have a justified case against the Most High for failing to deliver their ensuing benefits. Therefore, the doctrine of election is a complicated and multi-layered topic because it encapsulates topics of will, standard, judgment and reward.
It is well known that the British political system is one of the oldest political systems in the world. Obviously, it was formed within the time. The United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the constitutional monarchy, providing stability, continuity and national focus. The monarch is the head of state, but only Parliament has the right to create and undertake the legislation. The basis of the United Kingdom’s political system is a parliamentary democracy. Therefore, people think the role of the Queen as worthless and mainly unnecessarily demanding for funding, but is it like that?