Comparing The Electoral Systems Of Britain And Sweden

In conclusion the introduction of a third major party in Australian politics could be seen as a process to offset the pathetic populist competition between our two major parties. This along with a review on voting structures and a refocusing of political agendas to again centre on party policies would diversify the variety of issues arising in the political arena and benefit national interests. From all political evidence I do agree that Australia’s two-party system is outdated as the continuation of populist politics threatens to overshadow essential policy making.

First past the post is a simple plurality system which requires the plurality of votes to win: that is one more vote than the second candidate. There is no requirement to obtain the votes cast. In contests involving three or more candidates, the winner may fall

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.

A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates chosen by one of the two major parties. Under a two-party system, one of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature and is usually referred to as the majority party while the other is the minority party. The United States of America is considered a two-party system. The chances for third party candidates winning election to any office are remote, although it's possible for groups within the larger parties, or in opposition to one or both of them, to have an influence

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

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.

‘Voting behaviour at UK elections is determined more by issues of personality and image than on the basis of policies or performance in office’. Discuss.

It could be argued, however, that the two party system which was once in place is declining, meaning more parties have a realistic chance to achieve role as government. In the last thirty years the support for the Conservative and Labour parties has been gradually decreasing, leaving them with only 67% of the vote at the 2005 general election, which was the smallest percentage they’d gained since 1918. This is an example of partisan dealignment because the working class started to transfer their party support to Conservative instead of Labour. The Liberal Democrats support was significantly increasing, leaving them with 22% of the vote in the 2005 election as well as 62 seats. Their seat numbers had been increasing since 1974 when they only had 14 seats in parliament, suggesting a change in the dominance of only two parties. Today, the Liberal Democrats, who haven’t been considered a main party since, are currently the weaker part of a coalition government, with Labour in opposition. This shows a clear end to the two party system, with three parties in significant places of power.

Democracy in the United States is based on the indirect representation of the people by elected officials who are usually chosen by direct vote. Almost from the beginning of the United States' history, however, two parties have shared the great majority of the elected positions from the local level to the presidency. However, up until the mid-1850's when the Republican party was formed, other parties such as the Whigs, Federalists, and Anti-Federalists did not last very long. The Democratic Party has existed for much longer, tracing its roots from Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican Party beginning around 1792 (Encarta). The two largest parties have changed, third parties have

Canadian electoral system is largely based on the single member plurality (SMP) system which was inherited from its former British colonial masters. The system dates back to several years before the formation of the Canadian confederation. Some of the common features of the Canadian electoral system include election candidates to represent designated geographical areas popularly known as” ridings”, counting and tallying of the votes casted on the basis of the districts as opposed to the parties of the candidates (Dyck, 622). Finally, a candidate only needs a simple majority over the other candidates in order to be considered a winner, even if the winner has a small percentage of votes. This system has however been heavily criticized for its winner takes all way of judging victory. Critics argue that if the winner takes over the whole system, it may result into unfair representation of the various social groups, but it may also bring into power unstable minority participation in government. For example, a candidate can win even with barely 25% of all the votes casted, while the small parties may end up with no seats in the parliament.

When identifying the presence of a democratic deficit in the European Union, it is important to consider a range of factors, including international treaties and the effect they had on its structured governmental framework. One of the first official agreements established by the European Union (formerly

The current plurality voting system in Canada is regularly attacked for unfairly representing the popular vote and giving some parties a disproportionate amount of legislative power while leaving others with none. Opponents contend that other electoral systems would be far superior and provide a better democracy. Proportional representation (PR) is usually cited as the best alternative; the debate of proportional representation versus plurality often hinges on the balance between fairness and efficiency. Without attempting the political calculus to determine the rate at which fairness should be sacrificed for efficiency, this paper will address the very claim that PR is more fair than the plurality system. The proponents contend that PR is a more accurate representation of the electorate 's vote, that no votes are wasted, and that the will of the people translates into government better than the plurality system; however, the experience of New Zealand challenges that assertion. This paper will establish that the current plurality system produces a government that is more effective, better represents the people, and is more transparent than the proposed alternatives, namely proportional representation.

Until quite recently, all voting within the UK took place utilising the single member, single plurality system- each constituency had a representative, the winner depended on whoever received the majority of votes in one area. Meaning that a candidate with a few extra votes has the majority. However, there was criticisms regarding this voting system and several other have been employed since. These new systems are in place as an attempt to “Bolster popular support for devolution in Scotland and Wales; ensuring representation for the different communities in Northern Ireland” (David D, pg120, 2014) In 2011, a referendum was held on whether the voting system should change from First past the post to the alternative vote system. Although, people did not favour the alternative voting system meaning that First past the post was continued.

Representative democracies all require an electoral system of some sort to serve as the method for electing their representatives. One of the most commonly used electoral systems in the modern world is the first past the post electoral system. In the UK, the first past the post (FPTP) system is the voting method used to elect Members of Parliament to their seats in the House of Commons, and is also the means used to elect the Prime Minister. By design, the system results in the outright victory of whichever person or party gets the majority of their constituents’ votes, regardless of how narrow their margin of victory may have been. This system commonly results in one-party majority governments, with extensive influence, being voted into power. There are 58 countries around the world that use the first past the post voting system including; The United States, Canada, India, Bangladesh and many others. Most European countries do not use the FPTP system and have instead opted for the system of proportional representation, which means that the distribution of seats in their parliaments directly correlates with the percentage of the vote that each political party receives. This essay will look at the political consequences of the first past the post system in the UK and discuss some of the positive and negative effects of the system.