AMS gives more choice than FPTP. In AMS you get 2 votes one for your regional list MSP for example

The less accountable allows the peers to speak their mind on issues and not be puppets of their party unlike the MPs in the House of Commons who have to be voting with their party or otherwise they will get sacked/kicked out or never be promoted.

FPTP offers a clear, elected MP that is responsible for their constituency, and can be held accountable if the constituent’s issues are not heard. For example, Sandra Osborne is the MP for the Ayrshire constituency, and is known as the sole representative of the constituents. If anyone wants their views represented in the House of Commons, they can contact Sandra directly and raise their issue with her. This clear link between a voter and an MP increases representation for voters, as their views can be raised in parliament. However, AMS doesn’t provide this clear link between a voter and an MSP, as the constituencies are: too large; contain multiple MSPs and are divided between constituency MSPs and regional MSPs. Because of there being 2 different types of MSPs – one elected and one not- there may be animosity between representatives that are supposed to be working together. There have been cases of constituency MSPs referring to list MSPs as “a lower breed” of politician. If there is conflict between MSPs that are supposed to be working together, are they able to fully represent a voters views? This divide may also create confusion for voters, as they may not know who to contact with their issues. There is also the problem of what are, essentially, unelected MSPs. List MSPs are decided by the party, not by the voter. AMS also doesn’t allow for by-elections, resulting in

It has become widely accepted that Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. However, this system may not be in the best interest of Canada any more. There are many reasons why Canada should change its electoral system to a mixed member proportional one, a variant of proportional representation. With a first past the post system, the elected officials will always be of the majority and this excludes minorities from fair representation. Adopting MMP can create stronger voter turnouts, more personal campaigning, better individual representation, and better party selection. John Hiemstra and Harold Janson, are both in favour of a MMP electoral system. They understand that with the switch, the citizens will get more representation in

SMP voting is often seen as easy for the voter to use because you only have to mark X on the paper ballot beside the candidate you choose with a pencil and then at the end of election day all the X are counted to determine the winner. The results are usually known within a few hours of the polls closing and the public knows which party is forming the new government by the end of the night. (Wilson 4) this results in a better chance at a strong majority government being elected. Those in favour of SMP argue that majority governments are needed because they create

The first reason that FPTP should continue to be used for elections to the House of Commons is that it produces effective constituency representation because there are single member constituencies, meaning that people know which MP represents them in the House of Commons, and thus who they can take their grievances to. This is a strength because it results in a strong working link between an MP and a geographical area, thus connecting communities to central politics. For example, Greg Barker, the Conservative MP for Bexhill and Battle, has worked with his constituents, since he won 51.6% of the vote and was thus elected to the House of Commons in 2010, to represent

Furthermore, Additional Member system leads to different outcomes as it’s a proportional system which means the proportion of seats won by the candidates and the votes they received are proportional. For example in Scotland in 2007 the SNP received 31% of the votes and won 47 seats and Labour won 29.2% of the votes and won 46 seats. This means that often political parties are rewarded with a fair share of the seats for the votes they obtained, also in AMS the outcome is made more proportional by its constituency list top up, thus making it easier for third party candidates to make a inroad into politics. Thus AMS produces different outcomes to other electoral systems due its hybrid nature, where it combines F-P-T-P voting system with closed list system.

First-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system in general allows candidates to win who may not have a majority of the vote. It privileges big parties and majorities at the cost of smaller parties and coalitions. It also favours parties with strong regional concentrations over parties whose electoral base is more spread out. This is Canada’s current election system and for the past couple of years. In the years that Harper has been in power, he has won majority of the seats with less than 50 percent of the votes. In fact, in 2011, “Stephen Harper won a majority government with 54.1 percent of the seats and only 39.6 percent of the total vote” (Aucoin 161). Harper was able to form a majority government without a majority of the vote and he had a plurality of votes that was less than 50 percent. Canada has been electing its government in this way and the winning party does not hold the majority of the votes, with a few exceptions. In terms of changing the election system, FPTP system is able to produce a clear majority and the majority that wins is able to produce a clear line of power through a majority government. Also, supporters of FPTP, such as Brian Crowly, say that clear lines of power are

Basically, voters select one candidate from their riding, just like in an SMP system, but they also place a vote for which party they would like to form the government. This second vote determines the amount of seats that each party gains proportional to the amount of votes they collected in the countries. The representatives from each party are then made up of the elected representatives from each riding (if that party was able to elect any) and other members selected by the leader1. An STV system, which is what the Citizen’s Assembly recommended to the people of BC, can be found in Ireland, Malta, and in some levels of government in Australia. Voters rank candidates according to their priorities, choosing as many as they wish. For example, a certain voter could select a Conservative as his or her first choice, a Liberal as the second, a New Democrat as third, and then cast no votes for the Green Party. When each a candidate reaches a certain quota of first place votes, they are elected, and the extra first place votes that they did not need are distributed to the other parties according to their overall ranking. If a second candidate is then elected, his or her extra votes are then distributed to the remaining parties, and so on . This system is rather complicated, especially when compared to our current system, but computerized voting systems have generally alleviated any problems.

Firstly back bench MPs are a good way of promoting presentation in terms of their constituency boundary as they have been voted in by their electorate and so therefore should have a sound understanding of what the people need and want. However the majority of MPs are white males between

Westminster is the location of the Houses of Parliament, where the majority of political decisions (other than those for devolved states) are made for the nation. The current Westminster electoral system is First Past the Post (FPTP) which is used for general elections every 5 years (due to the new fixed-term parliaments brought in by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.) The FPTP system is constituency based, each person votes for a representative for their constituency and whichever party wins the most constituencies gains governmental power. First Past the Post works on the basis of a plurality of votes, that is, that the winning party need only gain the most votes out of all parties to gain power, they do not need an overall

Canadian electoral system is largely based on the single member plurality (SMP) system which was inherited from its former British colonial masters. The system dates back to several years before the formation of the Canadian confederation. Some of the common features of the Canadian electoral system include election candidates to represent designated geographical areas popularly known as” ridings”, counting and tallying of the votes casted on the basis of the districts as opposed to the parties of the candidates (Dyck, 622). Finally, a candidate only needs a simple majority over the other candidates in order to be considered a winner, even if the winner has a small percentage of votes. This system has however been heavily criticized for its winner takes all way of judging victory. Critics argue that if the winner takes over the whole system, it may result into unfair representation of the various social groups, but it may also bring into power unstable minority participation in government. For example, a candidate can win even with barely 25% of all the votes casted, while the small parties may end up with no seats in the parliament.

In Canada Federal and Provincial First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) elections are based on single member districts or ridings. Each riding chooses one candidate to elect into parliament. In order to win a candidate must obtain the highest number of votes but not necessarily the majority of votes. The party that wins the most ridings is named the official government of Canada with the second place party becoming the official opposition.

Within the United Kingdom, a recurring issue has been raised regarding the political position of Scotland and how the Scottish Parliament could better govern the country. To establish whether the quality of life could be improved for the Scottish people, key events, devolution, and the Scottish Parliament must be evaluated and analysed. The argument for greater power in decision making and the ability to implement change for the citizens of Scotland, has been central to Scottish politics for some time.

The system that the Law Commission ultimately recommended was the mixed-member proportional electoral system. In the MMP system a portion of representatives, usually between 50 and 60 percent, are elected from single-member districts, similar to FPTP, with the remainder of seats being elected from party lists, based on the party’s share of the popular vote (Law Commission 22). Each voter gets to cast two votes, one for the party that they support and another for the representative member that they prefer. Party lists can be either closed, where voters are not able to influence the order of candidates, or open, where voters have the ability to influence the ranking of candidates. A threshold for representation is usually set in order to prevent fringe and extremist parties from gaining seats in government. This system is used in Germany, New Zealand, Venezuela and Lesotho (Joseph 113).

The second consequence of electoral systems is referred to as local representation. LP is extremely poor in STV yet is excellent in SMP. This is the case because the current system elects one MLA per riding and has much smaller constituencies, making contact between the voter and their MLA more feasible and likely easier to get in contact with. Once constituencies grow and become large in size, like it has a tendency to do in STV, there becomes a need for multi-member parties required for one riding. Local representation under STV becomes an issue for voters when constituents are too geographically large as contact with representatives become few and far between. Large constituents with multiple members representing them, seem to be the answer to the problem at hand, however there is no guarantee that there will be enough candidate interest to support these constituents under STV. For example, if many of the towns in Northern Manitoba were grouped into one constituent, due to the sheer amount of travel that would be required by candidates, it would be very difficult to find enough candidates willing to sign up, and even more difficult for voters to engage face-to-face