The Current Plurality Voting System Essay

Being able to cast my first vote in the 21st century is a privilege. My generation needs to accept their patriotic responsibility and vote because many reforms are needed in order to carry us into the new millennium. Voting reforms are necessary to inspire political participation for other modifications and adjustments needed in areas such as health care, education, and Social Security, all which we as young people will face in the future. Participation in elections is necessary to facilitate and enable progress, but our present day system of voting is expiring by frustrated Americans.

Voting has not always been as easy as it is today. It is interesting to examine how far America has progressed in its process of allowing different types of people to be able to vote. Voting was once aimed at a particular group of people, which were white males that owned their own property. Today, most people over the age of eighteen can vote, except for the mentally incompetent or people who have been convicted of major felonies in some states. The decline of voter participation has always been a debate in the public arena. According to McDonald and Popkin, it is “the most important, most familiar, most analyzed, and most conjectured trend in recent American political history (2001, 963)” The question is, how important is voter

One can come to a conclusion that plurality systems have a major flaw and that is inequality. Adopting a MMP would be a huge step forward in Canadian democracy. With a MMP system in place, more women would be elected to the legislature because it creates fairness. With more women in the legislature, it can make a substantial difference in the types of laws that may be proposed and passed. Another advantage MMP brings to Canada is instead of electing one member of the legislature in each small district, Canada would use larger districts to elect several members. To add to this advantage, the candidates that win the seats in these multi-member districts are determined by the proportion of votes each party receives. With Canada’s current electoral system, one citizen’s vote counts for less than another citizen’s vote. By changing to a MMP system, Canada can give more equality and fairness back to the citizens.

The electoral system in Canada is also known as a “first past the post” system. “First past the post” means the candidate with the highest number of votes wins the congressional seat, whereas the other candidates with a lower number of votes don’t get any representation. There are many cons to this system that will be highlighted throughout this essay. I will argue that the electoral system requires reform due to the discrepancies between the percentage of popular votes and the number of seats won. Canada’s electoral system has many problems and is not seen as fully democratic since it has provided poor representation for both candidates that win and lose. Candidates can win seats with less than 50% of votes, meaning that even if the majority of the nation, or province did not vote for the candidate they still win the election as they consume the highest number of votes among the parties. FPTP allows two people in different ridings to get the same number of votes with the outcome of one winner since the distribution of votes and seats are unequal. The system can also encourage strategic voting such as not voting for whom you think is the best fit but voting for the candidate that seems most likely to win in order to beat candidate you dislike. FPTP leads to an imbalance of power and has the potential for corruption.

Democracy is a system of government where the supreme power is rested in the people. In colonial America, democratic features began early on and common rights were given such as the tolerance of religion, educational opportunities, freedom of speech, and a representative government. The principles of democracy were first mentioned in the Mayflower Compact as it notes about working together as to support the colony. As democracy in colonial America progressed, civil rights were provided to the majority but were limited to the minority. Colonial America granted common rights such as freedom of speech and protection from crime.

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

Canada’s friendly neighbor to the South, the US, has an electoral system that is composed of 3 separate elections, one of them deciding the head of state. The president elected by the people and he or she is the determining person of the country’s political system. In the US runs like a majority system” In Canada, however, elections are held slightly differently. Citizens vote for a Member of Parliament in a 308-seat house and candidates win not by a majority, unlike in the US, but by a plurality. This means that a candidate can actually win by simply having more votes than the other candidates. This method of representative democracy, in general, does not cause too much controversy in a global scope but has

The issue of electoral reform has become more important than ever in Canada in recent years as the general public has come to realize that our current first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system, formally known as single-member plurality (SMP) has produced majority governments of questionable legitimacy. Of the major democracies in the world, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom are the only countries that still have SMP systems in place. Interestingly enough, there has been enormous political tension and division in the last few years in these countries, culminating with the election results in Canada and the USA this year that polarized both countries. In the last year we have seen

After all, a central aspect of the proportional representation argument is that the government should be formatted in a manner that allows for the fair representation of the political opinion of Canadians. However, Kam points out how legislation is passed in an effort to represent the will of the majority of Canadians. But, he also argues that there is no such thing as a true majority, as there is no single policy that voters prefer to all others. In turn, he claims that “manufactured majorities” created as a result of the SMP system are not necessarily a bad thing, as they give parliament the stability needed to pass legislation. In comparison, he points out how the MMP system would give power to a number of smaller parties, and that these parties would impair parliament’s ability to pass policy.

Under the Canadian constitution, the selection process of senators is done by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister who appoints officials. Ultimately, this method has gained an unpopularity and even a call to action to abolish Senate. However, Canadians should be engaging in the work of reconstructing our democratic institution. We should be able to trust our organizations by choosing the officials in them. In the study of the Senate, Bakvis (2001) argues, “an elected Senate would garner the greatest support, and in starting with a clean slate makes it easier to adopt [regional] representation” (p.72). With the availability of choosing representatives instead of the prime minister simply appointing senators, the face of the Senate of Canada can be designed to produce a more legitimate body by an electoral system.

There is a fundamental problem with the democratic process in Canada. This problem is rooted within our electoral system. However, there is a promising solution to this issue. Canada should adopt the mixed-member proportional representation electoral system (MMP) at the federal level if we wish to see the progression of modern democracy. The failure to do so will result in a stagnant political system that is caught in the past and unable to rise to the contemporary challenges that representative democracies face. If Canada chooses to embrace the MMP electoral system it will reap the benefits of greater proportionality, prevent the centralization of power that is occurring in Parliament and among political parties through an increased

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.

This essay will discuss the relative merits or otherwise of first past the post electoral systems (FPTP) and proportional alternatives. There are many supporters for each system who argue the other system is flawed and that their own is the clear choice. Proportional representation (PR) is designed to create fairer more proportional results but also has many other benefits while FPTP is designed to be straightforward to use and produce a clear winner although also as other merits. A merit of PR systems is that it offers parties a share of seats in parliament which should directly reflect the number of votes they won so fairer election results should occur.

Voting systems all around the world serve more functions than to only elect representatives for the people. Elections create a sense of a democratic environment inside a country; they give accountability and legitimacy to the government in power, assuming it is the people’s voice that is being heard. In a world where most countries enjoy democratic governments and freedom and equality are encouraged, Canada’s current voting system is a nothing but disrespectful to these democratic values. Like in many post-colonial countries, the legacy of imperial regimes has made its way to the modern political system in Canada, still attacking central democratic principles . Canada has been using a single-member-plurality (SMP) electoral system, also

There is a fundamental problem with democracy in Canada. The problem is rooted within our federal parliamentary voting-system. However, there is a promising solution to this issue. Canada should adopt the proportional representation system, known as the party list format (party-list PR), at the federal level if we wish to promote the expansion of democracy. If Canada embraces proportional representation in the battle for electoral reform then we will see beneficial results. Party-list PR will increase voter participation, which in turn will create more accurate representation in the parliament and ultimately a positive shift away from our disturbingly partisan dominated political culture.