Global Electoral Norms

“…that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

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

One factor that was alarming about the “first past the post” system is shown through this example; given four candidates (A, B, C, and D) the one that has the

In this essay I will assess the outcomes of Additional Member system, First Past the Post system and the Closed Party List system. The F-P-T-P system is used to elect the members of House of Commons and local government in England and Wales. Voters select candidates, and do so by marking his or her name with an ‘X’ on the ballot paper. This reflects the principle of ‘one person, one vote’. The Additional Members system is used in Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly, and Northern Ireland Assembly and Greater London assembly. It is a mixed system made up of F-P-T-P and party-list elements. The Regional party list (or the closed party list) is used to elect the

Douglas, J. A. (2013). The Foundational Importance of Voting: A Response to Professor Flanders. Retrieved September 06, 2017, from http://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/297/

The most important issue in relation to the Canadian electoral process is the debate over whether or not the state should implement electoral reform for federal elections. It is my stance that replacing the Single Member Plurality system (SMP) with the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) is undeniably in the best interest of Canadians, and I will attempt to prove this by contrasting The Limits: Electoral Systems and Electoral Reform - Or How I Came to Love SMP by Christopher Kam, who believes in the current SMP system, and Getting What You Vote For by John Hiemstra, who pushes for a change in favour of the MMP system. This paper will conclude with further critical analysis, as well as my justified stance the MMP system is clearly superior.

When adopting plurality electoral system, many third party supporters had a strong preference for their party over all others, and therefore “reluctant to rally rather either of the top two contestants” (Blais: 2002, p.449). Moreover, many parties overestimated their chance of winning, hence did not feel that their vote would be wasted. Blais suggests that parties and political leaders are the main reasons why there are fewer parties and candidates in plurality elections, due to the fact that potential candidates perceiving their chances of winning are small and are more reluctant to run and invest a lot of money and time in their election campaign. Contrastingly, the proportional representation could demonstrate a fairer turnout for Canada, which reduces the problem of excluding candidates and lesson the problem of concentrating votes for a single candidate. For example, Chile’s reformation of adopting proportional representation demonstrates that their new electoral system have many routes to proportionality. It turned out to have “strengthen(ed) the parties” and “contribute(d) to less complex strategic coordination” (Gamboa & Morales: 2015, p.63). If our candidates are loyal to the party, the votes of candidates should not only benefit the candidates, but also the

This research relies heavily on theoretical data especially in relation to elections taking place in the nineteenth century. Because of this one might question the validity and reliability of the conclusions. The sources I used to reach those conclusions are qualitative and they aim to understand why the elections have turned out the way they ultimately did. Some numerical data exists for the 2000 election and I will utilize those figures in relation to that election to explore corruption. While the information will be helpful in further understanding one election it will not be when comparing all elections.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries were times of significant political change for the societies of Western Civilization. New political movements forced more governments to expand suffrage to larger segments of the population. These changes caused politicians to change the way they operated in the political arena. An expanded electorate meant that larger groups of voters had to be catered to and that their needs and desires needed to be taken into account. As the political landscape was undergoing this transformation new innovations in technology accelerated the changes that politics were undergoing.

Canada’s electoral system has come under scrutiny by citizens who believe it is not a fair representation of a modern democracy. The idea of reformation has been an issue in Canada through out it’s history. Most recently, the idea of an electoral system reformation was a key political goal of the Liberal party in the 2015 election, but was later abandoned by the party, outraging many Liberal voters who saw the reformation as an issue for which they voted for (Liberal Party of Canada 2015). It has become clear that Canadians want change in the way they elect their government. The current Canadian electoral system is in dire need of reform to better represent voters, increase voter turnout, and discourage strategic voting. The Canadian government

The issue depends totally on whether the presidential voting framework is improved. That would take an interstate smaller between states with a larger part of constituent votes. That would set aside some time to go sufficiently through states – maybe 3-6 years once things got going – so it's somewhat of a long shot for the following 10 years. The presidential voting framework utilized as a part of the US is majority voting, sifted through the discretionary school. The experimental perception that this framework all around prompts two-gathering predominance is known as Duverger's law. It bodes well; the length of you can vote in favor of only one applicant, you would be advised to vote in favor of one of the two leaders.

As the text book defines it, franchise or suffrage is the right to vote. In the United States, it took many years to gain universal suffrage, or the ability of all citizens to have the right to vote. In the late 1700’s only about 5% of Americans were eligible to vote (wealthy, white, males of certain religious affiliations). By the early 1800’s, the properly ownership and religion requirements were dropped allowing most white males to vote.

Universal suffrage is said to be immoral as it causes imbalance on the power of voters. Hudson (2012) believes a neighbor's money is his personal money. Therefore, only the owner of the money gets to 'vote' where the money ought to be used it. This proves social injustice among those who fund the government. Because the case is no different in government where only those who contribute in public treasury out to have the moral obligation to decide on how the funds is to be used. This policy argues for the natural order where men with property had the right to represent in parliament as to protect and represent their asset. Similarly, the same principle of representation applies to limiting suffrage rights to taxpayers who pay taxes to fund the

Voting establishes choice; it allows opportunities and variety to be discovered amongst individuals. In Canada, voters choose to elect one Member of Parliament in their riding. The political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons becomes the government’s ruling party. If this party wins more than half the seats, it forms a majority government. If they win less than half the seats, it results in a hung parliament, which can either, be a minority government or a coalition. Canada mostly forms minority governments, which are made up of cabinet ministers from the party alone and the rest is left up to chance that opposing members will support their plans. I agree with the statement that minority governments are preferable to majority governments because in order to remain in power and maintain confidence in the House of Commons they have to negotiate with other parties. Since they do not have a majority, they cannot use “party discipline” to confirm support in legislature. (Minority Governments in Canada, 2007) Due to this, they must work with opposition parties in order to garner support for their government legislation.

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.