The Electoral System in the UK: Pros and Cons

For as long as American citizens can remember the assigned method of election for the United States presidency would be the use of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a process not a place or institution, in this essay I will briefly describe the Electoral College process as well as describe some pros and cons of the electoral college and lastly, I will attempt to answer the controversial question, if you could improve the electoral college, would I choose to abolish or reform the system?

The AMS and FPTP are voting systems in use for the Scottish Parliament and House of Commons elections respectively. It can be argued that AMS gives voters more choice and better representation than FPTP, and in order to assess the validity of this argument 3 key indicators must be analysed: constituency links; proportionality and representation of smaller parties.

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.

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

One alternative voting procedure that will alleviate the lack of voter participation is proportional representation (PR). Through the implementation of a PR system, the voice of more American voters can be heard-and a more representative government created. The exorbitant amount of wasted votes that exist under today's system will be greatly reduced. The lower threshold of votes needed to elect a candidate under PR will allow smaller groups to elect representative officials more in tune with their political philosophy without the having to constitute the majority of the voting body. This also translates into the vote of each person carrying a greater weight, thus giving that person more of an incentive to become involved in the political process. By providing a greater number of people voting incentives, paired with the increased likelihood that third-party candidates can be voted in, PR insures a more representative government that will better serve the American people.

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

The first reason that FPTP should continue to be used for elections to the House of Commons is that it produces effective constituency representation because there are single member constituencies, meaning that people know which MP represents them in the House of Commons, and thus who they can take their grievances to. This is a strength because it results in a strong working link between an MP and a geographical area, thus connecting communities to central politics. For example, Greg Barker, the Conservative MP for Bexhill and Battle, has worked with his constituents, since he won 51.6% of the vote and was thus elected to the House of Commons in 2010, to represent

FPTP is the voting system used for the election of MPs to 'seats' in the UK Parliament. It is a system in which the 'winner takes all' and usually gives a clear majority both at constituency and national level. This means that a candidate in a constituency only needs one more vote than the nearest rival to win the seat. Similarly, political parties only need to win one more seat in the House of Commons to have a majority.

FPTP usually provides a majority government this means parliament can put bills through easier. For example in 1997 and 2001 labour received most votes with landslide victories. Whereas using an AMS system you would usually get a coalition or an minority government. For example a majority SNP government was in place in 2007. This means that manifesto pledges couldn’t be made because the SNP would need support from other parties this shows that FPTP makes passing bills easier.

Also F-P-T-P ensures that one party obtains a majority of seats, for example, there have only been three full coalition governments in the UK- two in world wars and one in 2010. Therefore, F-P-T-P voting system produces different outcomes to other voting systems as it’s a majority system.

On the other hand, the Canadian electoral system has also been accused of being undemocratic and unrepresentative in many aspects. Although the Canadian single member plurality

The (FPTP) system is also known as the 'winner-take-all' system, in which the candidate with the most votes gets elected. FPTP voting methods can be used for single and multiple member elections. In a single member election the candidate with the highest number, not necessarily a majority, of votes is elected.

The system that the Law Commission ultimately recommended was the mixed-member proportional electoral system. In the MMP system a portion of representatives, usually between 50 and 60 percent, are elected from single-member districts, similar to FPTP, with the remainder of seats being elected from party lists, based on the party’s share of the popular vote (Law Commission 22). Each voter gets to cast two votes, one for the party that they support and another for the representative member that they prefer. Party lists can be either closed, where voters are not able to influence the order of candidates, or open, where voters have the ability to influence the ranking of candidates. A threshold for representation is usually set in order to prevent fringe and extremist parties from gaining seats in government. This system is used in Germany, New Zealand, Venezuela and Lesotho (Joseph 113).

The alleged problems with the proportionality under SMP that STV seem to solve, may be more beneficial on a national level, rather than on a provincial level as the population size is much smaller and less diverse, therefor voters needs are far more similar than on a national level.

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.