Electoral Rules Functions : The Development And Maintenance Of Democracy

Under a minority government, no party has ultimate control of making policies, it instead rules on consensus with the other parties, conversely, in a majority government, a single-party dominates the legislative process. Though complex agreements between opposition parties, the governing party can maintain confidence. For example, countries including Canada use contract parliamentarism, where opposition parties agree to support the government in return for policy on other concessions (Akash et al., 2010, p. 216). While this promotes collective responsibility, parties are still able to decide their own position on most matters. Therefore, parties collaborate to protect minority agreements that “often survive a full parliamentary term” (Akash et al., p. 216). This can result in motions being passed that cover a broad variety of different topics that ultimately can address issues that all parties see lacking in

The Canadian electoral system is criticized for using the single member plurality (SMP) system more commonly known as first past the post, we adopted system from the British because at the time there were only two political parties in Canada. The current problem now is that many people feel that the system is unfair given that a party is able to gain a majority government even if they received less than fifty percent of the vote. As long as they have the majority of the popular vote, that party wins. However, the first past the post system has been able to establish a clear line of accountability between the elected representative and the voters. Yet, the public still feels that a proportional representation system would be

Since party politics began in Canada, the style in which leaders are elected is comparable to a horse race. Using the single member plurality (SMP), more commonly referred to as “first past the post,” method of seat allocation in both the House of Commons and each province's Legislative Assembly, whoever gets the most votes is asked to form the government; this only takes into accounts the number of seats a party wins, not the overall popular vote. In a political system not limited to two parties, like the United States, many times over 50% of Canadians do not want the party that won, to win. In this current electoral system, votes are wasted, smaller parties are terribly misrepresented and, in some cases, a party with a lower percent of

As the most widely adopted form of democratic government there are many strengths associated with a parliamentary government. The parliamentary system is often praised for the fast and efficient way in which it is able to pass legislation. The reason this is possible is because unlike a presidential system the legislative and executive power in a parliamentary system are merged together. Due to this fusion of power legislation does not have to undergo a lengthy process and therefore laws can be formulated and put into place much quicker(Bates, 1986: 114-5). Another advantage of a parliamentary system is that the majority of the power is not held by one individual head of state but rather is more evenly divided among a single party or coalition. One of the main benefits of this is that as there is more of a division of power a parliamentary government is less prone to authoritarianism than a presidential system. Juan Linz argues that a presidential system is more dangerous due to the fact that; “Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate”(Linz, 1990: 56), this sharp line between winners and losers increases tension between these two groups and allows the winner to isolate themselves from other political parties (Linz, 1990: 56). Due to this tension and isolation a presidential system is at a higher risk of turning into an authoritarian regime than a parliamentary system.

Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the

Ever since the advent of democratic systems of political decision-making in Ancient Greece, one of the primary concerns about democratic functioning has been the principle of majority rule. Whether a majoritarian system is divisive in its essence, paves the way for demagoguery, or obstructs minority groups from having a fair say in public affairs, criticisms of majority rule have and still persist nowadays. Indeed, notorious political figures such as Hamilton, Madison or Mill expressed concerns about the potential threat of a tyranny of the majority which would infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover and recently, the outcome of the Brexit referendum has renewed the debate around majority rule and its flaws. However, within the context of the contemporary world in which democracy prevails, majority rule is the norm many states follow. Why is this so; how can majority rule be defended and what are its limits? In order to provide an articulate and coherent answer, it is first necessary to lay down some premises to the functioning of the democratic process. Then, after arguing for majority rule, its flaws shall be assessed before eventually drawing potential alternatives from such dysfunctions.

Firstly, due to the larger number of political parties, it can cause instability and voter confusion on who they should vote for. This chaos can be seen in “Israel’s proportional representation system during their parliamentary election in 1988 (Barnes)”. Italy as well has dealt with a “voter revolt against a PR system (Barnes).” Political instability is not good for a countries government, especially if the instability allows radical minor parties like Neo-Nazis to gain a seat as representatives. Another issue with proportional representation system are that in order for it to be successful there needs to be a high voter turn-out. However, proportional representation system supporters believe that the system will, in fact, bring more voters to elections because there will be more people to choose from that they feel represent them the best. Proportional representation system supporters also state that reasoning for Israel’s and Italy’s chaos with their proportional system is due to them “using a party list system to allocate the seats (Cossolotto).” The chaos was brought about simply because it is a proportional representation system but what kind of PR system it was. Another solution the PR system has when it comes to making sure radical minority groups don’t come into power is setting a minimum amount of percentage that the party needs in order to claim a seat. When it comes to advantages with

A transition to MMP at the federal level will result in marked improvement in a number of functional electoral areas. The first of which that will be addressed is that of greater voter turnout at elections. The majority of research conducted on electoral systems and voter turnout has supported the notion that voter turnout is greater in countries that have some form of proportional representation (PR) over countries with plurality or majoritarian electoral systems (Karp and Banducci 311). The average increase in voter turnout in countries with PR, as found across a number

Many democracies consist of majoritarian and consensual systems and it is important to be able to distinguish the difference. My understanding of majoritarian is a "winner takes all" concept. A majoritarian democracy consists of the majority rule of society’s citizens and is one that places no limits or constraints via a constitution on what the majority can do. A consensus by definition means widespread agreement, or absence of any dissent. Consensus Democracy seek out to resolve problems that the minority might have, possibly by making a compromise, rather than simply taking a popular outlook. I will elaborate in this essay the key differences in dimensions between a majoritarian and consensual system. The majoritarian model is always concentrated

Competition that otherwise would occur between major parties occurs in majority party. Voters don't participate as much. (Magleby 66)

The United States of America is one of the oldest contemporary democracies, is currently the second largest democracy, and is ranked the 16th best democracy in the world (Campbell et. Al, 2014). Yet there is a legitimate question over whether or not the United States can still truly be considered a democracy, with some studies even suggesting it has begun to resemble an oligarchy (Chumley, 2014). In this essay, I will use Dahl’s criteria of voting equality and effective participation to determine whether or not the United States are truly a democracy.

For decades, Canadians have been defending their right to have a fair and open electoral system. Since its creation in 1867, Canada has been proud to call itself a true democratic country, but today there would be many people who disagree with this statement. The Canadian electoral system, which uses First Past The Post (FPTP), has come under scrutiny for not being as fair as it claims to be. Over the past couple of decades, many countries have switched their system to Proportional Representation (PR) or some form of it. Based on successful results in other nations, Canada’s current FPTP system should change to Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), which is a form of Proportional Representation, as it will allow for more fair elections. The intent of this paper is to outline how an electoral reform from First Past the Post to Proportional Representation or Mixed-Member Proportional, will lead to more confidence in the government, more accurate seat-vote percentage, and better overall representation of the population.

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 discussion of the origins of electoral systems is an ongoing debate that many experts within the field of political science continue to contribute to, offering various perspectives of how electoral systems are established. Amongst the community of experts, there is a consensus that the origins of electoral systems are not attributed solely to a single casual factor. Rather than developing a theory that objectively details the origins of electoral systems, experts propose various explanations, such as historical, political or economic explanations, as the foundation through which electoral systems emerged. While a multitude of literature concerning the origins of electoral systems undoubtedly exists, this review will be looking at three articles in particular that were published in the American Political Science Review, Vol. 104, No. 2. The three articles under examination in this review are: “Historical Knowledge and Quantitative Analysis: The Case of the Origins of Proportional Representation” by Marcus Kreuzer, “Coevolution of Capitalism and Political Representation: The Choice of Electoral Systems” by Thomas Cusack, Torben Iversen and David Soskice (CIS), and “Electoral Markets, Party Strategies, and Proportional Representation” by Carles Boix. Each piece of literature being reviewed engages with existing literature to some degree, presents a main argument and presents evidence that supports its argument. Nonetheless, it is worth noting the Boix’s and CIS’s articles

One of the main benefits that countries which have opted for proportional representation have noticed is an undeniable increase in voter turnout. In a political democracy citizen engagement is incredibly important. In situations where a plurality voting-system has been abandoned in favour of a system utilizing proportional representation the rise in voter turnout averages 7 to 8% (Pilon 155)7. There is no reason to believe that Party-list PR would have any different effect on Canadian parliamentary democracy.