Majoritarian Electoral Democracy

From the early 1840s to the present day, a democracy can be described as a flawed establishment which has been shaped by the power of wealth and control, complex social relations, and most importantly the people’s desire to live a fulfilling life. Throughout this time period the principles of democracy, such as equality, protection of the people’s interest, and promotion of human rights were shifting in order to increase the democracy efficiency. Therefore the continued importance of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and Constitution remain significant since, in American today, democracy is a system that is continuously being shaped by the people within it.

There are two types of democracies, direct democracy and representative democracy. As one would expect, the two are very similar. Direct democracy and representative democracy are both systems of government in which power lies with the people whom are govern though the power of voting. The power of voting is how both systems emphasis the importance of people’s rights. There is also a common sense of self-empowerment to the people being govern in both types of government due to this right. Furthermore, there is a mutual prominence towards majority rule in the two systems.

The Americans fought long and hard in their Revolution and deservingly so defeated the British and won their independence in 1783. From there, the US transferred to a government set by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation did not turn out to provide a much better life than the Americans had under the British, with the states not able to work with each other. The lack of state's collaboration brought about this idea of too much Democracy. After the disaster that the AofC was, there was a new Constitution being drafted; however, many Americans were divided upon which path the new Constitution should take, one with or without a strong central government. This distinction in ideology put the country's elite at odds. The

Along with the majoritarian democracy, there is also relationship in the models of pluralist democracy. Everything slightly revolves around one another; elections, majoritarian, and pluralist democracies. As said in Dr. Overton’s PowerPoint, “Majoritarianism is growing in the Congress due to the rise in party unity. Problem is: they hate each other!” (Overton). The pluralist democracy can be defined as the top of a pyramid

With every Presidential election, the United States’ electoral college takes place. The electoral college has been around for about 200 years and it is still going strong with its intended purpose. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Democracy is defined as a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. This definition is accurate in the way that supreme power is held by the people but also that there are two forms, direct and indirect. Direct democracy is a system of government in which members of the polity, or political organization, meet to discuss all policy decisions and then agree to abide. This is also is called true democracy. In the form everyone is equal and their votes would count. So by voting, they will be able to voice their opinion and majority rule is the majority of the people, all 320 millions people in the United States of America.

The majoritarian model is currently being used in Canadas political economy, however, Canada’s would be better off with a shift to the consensus model as it included all minority groups and represented the true meaning of democracy. The consensus model represented the people in a society by including minority groups, using a federal or decentralized government and a multi-party system. The consensus model ensured the inclusion of groups in plural societies, where this was absent under a majoritarian ruling. A majoritarian model of government only made decisions in the hands of a select few, whereas, in a consensus model the power was divided in a federal or decentralized government. Finally, a consensus model allowed for multiple parties to run for election under the multiparty system and voting was done under proportional representation. However, in a majoritarian government, there are two parties running for office which operated under a disproportional election.

In spite of the fact that the legislature is mandated to create and pass laws on behalf of the state, elements of direct democracy have always acted as constraints. The most famous forms of direct democracy include referendum and initiative (Damore, Bowler, and Nicholson 368). Initiatives are often used to defend the interest of specific groups of citizens. The implication is that instead of the legislature deciding on issues, the citizens are left with the responsibility of determining the fate of certain policies. Initiatives need a particular number of citizens to agree to a petition so that the public can be allowed to vote on the matter in question. It means that if people feel that a certain policy championed by the legislature is not

In a majoritarian system, voters are able to easily identify which representative they should be holding accountable when unacceptable actions are being taken. This is possible because the majoritarian system uses single- member districts in which members of the legislature are elected one at a time in small districts (Amy 29). It also important to note that candidates are elected based on who receives the most votes. This means that it is easy for constituents to not only identify which representative was elected to serve them but to hold them accountable as well. The same can be said about political parties, because of the two party system it is very likely that one party will win the majority of the seats in the legislature, which means that voters will know who to blame for unacceptable actions (Amy

A Direct Democracy is where the people rule the country themselves. Getting all together and hashing out how their country will be ran. A Representative Democracy is where the people vote on someone to make their decisions for them. Obviously a direct democracy is favorable but when you grow to size of thousands than millions of people it becomes an unrealistic expectation to get everyone to agree to do it one way or another. A representative democracy or a republic is a much more feasible option for highly populated areas. Republics are countries that have no monarch and are governed by the people. (Magleby, D)

On a very basic level, direct democracy can be seen as mob rule or rule by decree. The system allows the mob to overrule the decisions made by the government, refusing any consistent social contracts between the citizens. In this pure form, direct democracy cannot even be considered a system of governance at all. It is not the most fair or just system. (Schneider). In order for any individual to indulge in a causal contract with other members of the society, it is necessary that they feel that they can rely on the constitution of the society they are contracting with.

In this ever changing world it is time to evolve from the paper ballots and move towards a easier, more reliable way of voting.

I agree electonical voting is a bad idea, even though paper ballots take alot of time I believe they are safer to use. As stated in (electronic voting is a bad idea) some supporters claim that EVMs are easier to use, but others do not. Using EMVs in some situations are better than paper ballots but if you look at the situation it would be cheaper and safer to train people to help with paper ballots and polls.

       In chapter nine, "Varieties I Democracy On Different Scales" of the novel, On Democracy by Robert A. Dahl discussed: "the words democracy and democratic are bandied about indiscriminately, it is tempting to adopt the view of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Lloking Glass (Dahl, R. A., 1998, pg.100)." From Humpty Dumpty's perspective, each person has the freedom to refer any goverment a democracy; even a government that's tyrannical. Athens created and used the terminology "democracy". Those involved in a smaller unit had the opportunity to engage in the method to control themselves. Democratic countries believed it wasn't necessary to remove the representative system.

Majoritarian politics can be described as distributed benefits and distributed costs. Public policy enforcement was determined primarily by the ideology and personal convictions of the current presidential administration. For example, politicians and business leaders committed to a strong antitrust policy during the reform era. Interest group politics is concentrated benefits with concentrated costs. Organized interest groups are powerful when regulatory policies confer benefits on one organized group and costs on another equally organized group. For example, in 1935 labor unions sought government protection for their rights but business firms were in opposition. Client politics involve concentrated benefits and distributed costs. It is when

The Chinese majoritarian democracy is definitely more concentrated than the British one, if they are to be compared. The main decisions are made by the CPC Central Committee. From a Western view it is severely against the principle of democracy, which is the division of power. Admittedly the defects are disturbing. However, there are also some indisputable advantages with this model, and the result is significant.