The Electoral System Of New Zealand Essay

It has become widely accepted that Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. However, this system may not be in the best interest of Canada any more. There are many reasons why Canada should change its electoral system to a mixed member proportional one, a variant of proportional representation. With a first past the post system, the elected officials will always be of the majority and this excludes minorities from fair representation. Adopting MMP can create stronger voter turnouts, more personal campaigning, better individual representation, and better party selection. John Hiemstra and Harold Janson, are both in favour of a MMP electoral system. They understand that with the switch, the citizens will get more representation in

The Electoral College is the system established by the Founding Fathers to select the President of the United States. It is important that Americans have a fundamental knowledge of this system, and the obstacles overcame in its development. There were many obstacles faced by the Founding Fathers while constructing the government. America was comprised of 13 states that wanted to protect their individual rights and leery of a strong centralized government. The nation’s population lay across a vast area with limited communication capabilities. In addition, the Founders believed that a true gentleman should not campaign for office. “The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office” was the saying. They challenged themselves

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.

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

In Canadian government it best to have legislators who do not vote their own interests and they vote the interests of their constituents. If legislators vote in their own interests they could be going against their own parties or the constituents that voted them in. Even if they know a lot about the subject they should still keep their interests out of their decisions and keep the interests of their constituents. Legislators that vote their own interests might even be going against the party policies, which could get them kicked out of the party or disciplined. Legislators are there to represent the people of their riding, not to vote their own interests in.

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

Basically, voters select one candidate from their riding, just like in an SMP system, but they also place a vote for which party they would like to form the government. This second vote determines the amount of seats that each party gains proportional to the amount of votes they collected in the countries. The representatives from each party are then made up of the elected representatives from each riding (if that party was able to elect any) and other members selected by the leader1. An STV system, which is what the Citizen’s Assembly recommended to the people of BC, can be found in Ireland, Malta, and in some levels of government in Australia. Voters rank candidates according to their priorities, choosing as many as they wish. For example, a certain voter could select a Conservative as his or her first choice, a Liberal as the second, a New Democrat as third, and then cast no votes for the Green Party. When each a candidate reaches a certain quota of first place votes, they are elected, and the extra first place votes that they did not need are distributed to the other parties according to their overall ranking. If a second candidate is then elected, his or her extra votes are then distributed to the remaining parties, and so on . This system is rather complicated, especially when compared to our current system, but computerized voting systems have generally alleviated any problems.

The political system used within Australia should be that of an aristocracy. This is superior to that of the democratic society we live. Today I shall be discussing what an aristocracy is and why it is superior to other political systems. Some issues being addressed are the values of equality, despite the classes within an aristocracy and the rights for the upper class or rulers of their society to be just and uphold the idea of society as a whole opposed to that of a democracy where individuals are favoured. This is followed by the cons of the other political systems and lastly the military and defence, which is presented in an aristocratic society.

In the Electoral College system, as presented by Hamilton, every voice is heard and there is a greater guarantee that the elected will effectively represents those voices in office. During election season, the people in the states vote for the representatives that will make up the Electoral College. The people within the states will votes for the prudent few that they believe best conform to their political interests, just as they do for those voted into the House of Representatives. As a result, the few elected representatives in each state mirror the average person within their state. The desires, beliefs, and interests of those representatives hold the same desires, beliefs, and interests of those within the state. The only difference is that the votes of those few would hold more weight than if everyone in the states vote. Each representative in the Electoral College casts his vote with the knowledge that their vote will change the course of their country and affect the lives of their fellow countrymen. The gravity of such a responsibility would push each representative to give great consideration into who should be elected as president. They would scrutinize over their decision, debate the merits of each candidate, and ultimately elect one prudent man to lead the country. In stark contrast, the process of voting in modern day America is treated with less importance than given most mundane tasks. Today, Americans give little thought to whom they will vote for as

A number of issues plague the current state of Canadian democracy, such as poor voter turnout, the increasing polarization of politics, and even numerous scandals regarding the Senate. Yet, arguably 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, more specifically replacing the Single Member Plurality system (SMP) with the Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP). Some analysts, like Christopher Kam, defend the SMP system and claim that a number of the issues that are used as the basis for the support of MMP are actually the result of larger forces than simply the electoral format. And, that holding politicians

Although Canadian electoral system has always undergone periodic reforms, new challenges always accompany electoral changes and therefore the system should be consistently reformed to meet new circumstances.The current electoral system in Canada is a product of a series of electoral changes that have always taken place since the foundation of the Canadian confederation in the mid 1880s. During the early years, the rights of individuals to vote were significantly limited as only white males had the right to vote but only after meeting certain requirements. A secret ballot was unheard, and it was only after a number of changes were implemented that all social groups in Canada were given the right to vote. Even after these changes, electoral

As one of Europe’s oldest democratic countries, the United Kingdom consequently has one of the oldest voting systems, a plurality system often called First-Past-The-Post. The system relies on a basic principle; voters can vote for only one candidate and the candidate who receives the most votes wins the seat. (UK Parliament Website, 2014) As the quotation from David Cameron shows, the system is often hailed as one of the simplest voting systems possible, and is mainly used in the U.K for national elections.

The New Zealand government at both a Local and National level is an excellent example of a modern, Representative Democracy. Different election systems, including First Past the Post (FPP), Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV), are used to allow electors to select representatives to sit on Councils, Boards and in Parliament. Some elements of Constitutional Monarchy are present in the New Zealand system of democratically elected representatives within a constitutional Monarchy contrasts well with the dictatorship of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Women make up 51% of the New Zealand population, however, women in New Zealand parliament only make up just over 30% in parliament (2014). For women to be represented in parliament, it means that women need to be seen as a ‘norm’ in government, and therefore all positions of power. This under-representation can be linked to factors such as the environment and the culture of the New Zealand parliament and political parties. It is important to note that women are not a homogenous group; and we have to include ethnicity and class, which links into opportunity. This gender gap in parliament has caused societal issues to be silenced and minority groups to be left out of decision making and therefore society.

New Zealand is one of the countries in the world that has unwritten consititution and it is vital because it is the base of a government on how to govern a country based on it. Having a written constitution in New Zealand will give New Zealanders more access about certain documents on the consitution itself. On the other hand, if New Zealand continuously having an unwritten constitution, the citizen may not have knowledge on it due to limited access on it. This essay will clarify on constitution and what is a written constitution. This essay also covers the need to include the Constitution Act 1986, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the Arms Act 1983 and removing the Public Sector Act 1988 from it.