The Is The Second Most Used Electoral System

FPTP offers a clear, elected MP that is responsible for their constituency, and can be held accountable if the constituent’s issues are not heard. For example, Sandra Osborne is the MP for the Ayrshire constituency, and is known as the sole representative of the constituents. If anyone wants their views represented in the House of Commons, they can contact Sandra directly and raise their issue with her. This clear link between a voter and an MP increases representation for voters, as their views can be raised in parliament. However, AMS doesn’t provide this clear link between a voter and an MSP, as the constituencies are: too large; contain multiple MSPs and are divided between constituency MSPs and regional MSPs. Because of there being 2 different types of MSPs – one elected and one not- there may be animosity between representatives that are supposed to be working together. There have been cases of constituency MSPs referring to list MSPs as “a lower breed” of politician. If there is conflict between MSPs that are supposed to be working together, are they able to fully represent a voters views? This divide may also create confusion for voters, as they may not know who to contact with their issues. There is also the problem of what are, essentially, unelected MSPs. List MSPs are decided by the party, not by the voter. AMS also doesn’t allow for by-elections, resulting in

However the government is held to account by the British public in general elections because the First Past The Post (FPTP) electoral system favours the two party

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

Another Advantage to SMP is that it allows for accountability, every four year or so voters have a hand in choosing their government, they are able to reward a party by keeping them in power or punishing them by electing a new government. It is relatively easy for constituents to give credit or to blame the party when they don’t follow through with the promises they made when they do not have to weigh the competing claims of a number of parties making up a governing coalition. With proportional representation the governments overall accountability is compromised because a proportional voting system rarely results in a majority government, they lead to coalition or minority governments which lack transparency.

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

It provides a clear-cut choice for voters between two main parties. The inbuilt disadvantages faced by third and fragmented minority parties under FPTP in many cases cause the party system to gravitate towards a party of the ‘left’ and a party of the ‘right’, alternating in power. Third parties often wither away and almost never reach a level of popular support above which their national vote yields

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.

In this essay, I will discuss whether elections in the UK are fair. The viewpoint which I will be arguing for is viewpoint two: we need to make some sensible adjustments to elections by, for example, encouraging people to vote electronically in order to discourage fraud but shouldn 't change much else other than that. I will also evaluate the other viewpoints and why I do not believe these viewpoints are the key to making UK elections fairer and more just . As of now, the UK uses the first-past-the-post system in their elections; this means that the candidate with the most votes becomes the MP for their constituency.

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

Westminster is the location of the Houses of Parliament, where the majority of political decisions (other than those for devolved states) are made for the nation. The current Westminster electoral system is First Past the Post (FPTP) which is used for general elections every 5 years (due to the new fixed-term parliaments brought in by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.) The FPTP system is constituency based, each person votes for a representative for their constituency and whichever party wins the most constituencies gains governmental power. First Past the Post works on the basis of a plurality of votes, that is, that the winning party need only gain the most votes out of all parties to gain power, they do not need an overall

Another important reason that Canada should select a different election system is that the FPTP system has a large impact on smaller parties. According to Political Scientist Maurice Duverger’s Law, given enough time FPTP systems will eventually become a

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).

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.

The electoral systems are important due to a number of reasons. They are designed to define and elaborate how a political system is expected to function. Rhetorically, the electoral systems can be considered as the mechanism that works to ensure the proper functioning of the democracy by keeping the wheels straight. Almost every course of politics considers some particular themes as concerned topics of importance. They include elections and representations, parties and party organizations, the structure of government and the politics of coalitions. All these areas, however, are not complete without the electoral system playing a major part. The design of an electoral system defines whether it is easy or difficult for the politicians to win the seats. It also defines whether it would be hard or simple for a particular party to gain representation in parliament. Thus, an electoral system greatly affects the functioning of political systems (Farrell 2).