Interpreting the Perfect Electoral System

The election system that we currently have in the UK is a lot like marmite, you either love it or you hate it… There are many different arguments for and against this system, however people forget that within getting rid of the First Past the Post system, you will then need to then replace it. This then poses the vital question of which is the best fitting system and should we really change tradition?

These are flaws, which are reality in the present voting system. Issueless campaigns, low voter turnout, and wasted votes are also characteristic of this system. New and minority parties have little or no chance of emerging. Only a few democracies in the world are still using the voting system similar to that of the United States.

The political system many of us know today as the Electoral College is one that has been in place in our country for over 100 years. The Electoral College is a system that helps determine who is elected as President and Vice President during major elections. The Electoral College is the primary source of determining who is elected. This system although having withheld through the times and stayed in place is not effective to me, and can lead to unfair elections in the eyes of some American People.

The second reason why FPTP should not be used for elections to the House of Commons is that it is not representative, meaning that the percentage share of votes is not proportional to the percentage share of seats, because of single member constituencies. This is a weakness as it means that there is not a fair level of representation within the House of Commons, which makes the system less democratic as not everybody’s views are entirely represented in Parliament. For example, in the 2010 general elections, the Conservative party won 36% of votes, but a staggering 47.1% of seats, whilst UKIP gained 3.1% of votes, but 0% of seats, indicating the tendency of FPTP to radically distort the relationship between votes and seats. Due to the fact that FPTP is a plurality system, rather than a majoritarian one, MPs can win the seat by as little as 1 vote, meaning that

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

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

Winston Churchill later said, "the Electoral College system is probably the worst possible method of choosing a president--except for all the others (Glennon 3)."

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

Do you feel the Electoral system best represents everyone in the US? The United States have using the Electoral College for over 220 years! There have definitely been changes since the first president. The Electoral have many flaws and i'm here to inform you about the flaws about the way we elect our president. I am going to tell you my two biggest flaws that need to be changed. The Electoral College does not represent the people in the best possible way, considering the state's vote represents the majority of the state, not the individual people, which is ideal. The second reason why the Electoral College does not best represent the people is because the smaller populated states don't have an even say compared to the larger states.

Additionally another reason why the Electoral college has not been reformed is because it provides a clear winner with no coalition being formed, the last time the system failed to provide a clear winner was 1800 and 1824 unlike the UK where a coalition was formed between the Conservative and Liberal Democrats because there was no single part that had gained a majority. However the system has proved controversial it terms of the legitimacy the president. For example the 2000 presidential elections was won by Al Gore, that is Al Gore got more votes than

The most recent case of an unfair election was the Bush vs. Al Gore Election. Robert Hall from the Sun Sentinel says that Al Gore should have won because he had 544,000 more votes than Bush, meaning that Al Gore had the majority vote. Al Gore still lost though because of electoral votes. According to Tom Landform, there have been 4 other cases like Al Gore’s where the candidate lost because of the Electoral College. This is completely unfair to the candidate because these people won their election with the majority votes that are needed but the Electoral College took their victory away from them. The public is a victim of this ongoing problem too. The public does not realize this but people’s votes are being “wasted” or thrown away. Tara Ross says that the winner take all system are “wasting” people’s votes. This happens because in an election the majority vote wins and all the electoral votes go to that party. This means that if a party wins with 50.1 percent it is equivalent to winning with 100 percent. This occurred in the Bush vs. Al Gore election also. According to Tara Ross from Democracy, Al Gore had 2.5 million people who voted for him in Texas but were wasted because of the winner take all system. The Electoral College is ruining the people’s say in who they want and what they want to happen. This system that America has is not working and needs to

How we elect our president is described on the federalist paper number 68 created by our founding fathers back in March 12, 1788. They state that if the manner for choosing the president is “not perfect, it is excellent” (Hamilton, 1788). Alexander Hamilton for example, highly praised the Electoral College system as a form of electing the commander and chief of our nation which is still enacted today as it was established in the constitution. However, many United States citizens believe that the Electoral College system should be abolished because the president shall be elected by direct popular vote, as in case of governor, mayors, legislative members, and all other elected officials. Alexander Hamilton’s Electoral College is not perfect nor excellent since it simply does not satisfy everyone, but

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

Democratic theorist, Robert Dahl once said, “…every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal.” This quote greatly summarizes what the Electoral College system means; every person in the United States is guaranteed one vote. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to elect who serves in the government, and we are given that opportunity through this system. This is what the Founding Fathers came up with in order to solve the problems they faced over 200 years ago. However, some have opposed this system is not fit for this democracy, and argue that other systems would work more fairly. On the contrary, I strongly believe that the Electoral College system should be kept because it is the fairest way to elect the President.

First Past the Post is the system we currently use in the UK, but whilst some may enjoy this system, there are limitations to this system. Perhaps the strongest criticism of the system is that it does not proportionally reflect the voting of the people. What is meant by this is that a party may receive less proportion of seats in the General Election than