Charles Anderson Would Proportional Representation Strengthen the Republic? America, the worlds second oldest Republic, is one of the few democracies that still use the traditional single-winner system to determine the outcome of its elections. Most of Europe, as well as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Israel employ some form of fully proportional or semi-proportional representation in their voting. Proportional Representation (PR) is roughly defined as, a group of voting systems whose major goal is to ensure that parties and political groups are allocated seats in legislative bodies in proportion to their share of the vote, [i.e.] a party receiving 30% of the national vote should receive 30% of the seats in the legislature (PR Library, 2001).
In the UK and in Canada the debate over whether or not to fully embrace PR is ongoing. Should America jump on board with this popular idea too? Is there enough proof of PRs efficiency for us to abandon what weve always done? Despite cries that winner-take-all isnt fair enough, the arguments for a complete withdrawal from our conventional system arent sound enough. For the most part, they seem to legitimize any notion, so long as no one persons notions count more than another persons (Graber, 1996).
In 1788, James Madison spoke of the ascendancy of passion over reason in political decision-making, and thats what a lot of the arguments for PR really amount to. They offer a lot of conjecture and circumstantial evidence in favor of PR, but no real concrete justification for abandoning our current system.
The Term Paper on A Plea For Proportional Representation
... political and socio-economic variables, is the presence of proportional representation (PR) voting systems." One could argue then that plurality should be abolished ... achieved by abolishing the current electoral system of plurality and implementing proportional representation. The current political electoral system in place in Canada today is ...
Under the American winner-take-all system, when the populace goes to the polls they cast one vote per-person for one candidate per-position. The candidate who acquires more votes than any other is elected, regardless of whether or not he or she wins a majority of all votes. Sometimes this method is called first-past-the-post (Types of Electoral Systems, 1999).
Its simple to understand, the person who convinces the largest group of people to vote for him wins. The winner is then however, responsible for properly representing all of his constituents, not just the ones who share his views. The winner must work, theoretically at least, for the good of the whole, not just for his group.
Suppose that a plurality winner enters her state legislature with 47 percent of the popular vote, having upset a frontrunner who got 46 percent, and a third candidate who caught 7 percent. That new representative is very mindful that she isnt the favorite of the majority. She will do everything possibly to gratify everyone, for the reason that she needs to lure scores of voters if she hopes to be reelected. She will actually be aware that she lacks a popular mandate, and act accordingly. That is the positive aspect of a single winner majority-driven republic (Bain, 1999).
In contrast, there are several models of PR in use. Most notably theres preference voting. Specifically its called single-transferable-vote. Voters signify their order of preference amongst different candidates.
Candidates whose first-choice totals attain a winning quota are elected. The last-place candidate is removed, and the left over second-choice votes are added to the totals of the remaining runners. The procedure is repeated until all seats are filled (Types of Electoral Systems, 1999).
Second, theres limited voting. In limited voting either the voter must cast less votes than the amount of seats up for bid or, in a partisan election such as a primary, each party is obligated to nominate fewer candidates than the number of open seats (Richie, 1998).
Third theres party list voting.
Voters simply choose between parties, and seats are given in proportion to the number of votes obtained by each party. Candidates are then seated in the order of votes they received (Types of Electoral Systems, 1999).
The Essay on Voting Why Should We
Why should Americans exercise their right to vote? Why should we vote? Is it really worth our time? The answer is YES. People say that one vote wont change the outcome, but take a look at Florida! Right now, the election of our president is in the people of Floridas hands. [Your] one vote is very important. Many people take voting for granted. You see? By voting, here in Oklahoma, we are really ...
Finally theres cumulative voting, in which voters cast multiple votes for one or more candidates. They can distribute votes in any way they want, including uneven numbers of votes for different candidates, or all votes for one candidate (Richie, 1998).
The basis behind support for Proportional Representation is idea that groups of like-minded individuals deserve easier access to seats in legislatures; in proportion to the fraction of the popular vote they receive (Richie, 1998, p. 1).
Those who champion the call for change, claim that PR creates more representative legislators and that it produces better public policy (Hill, & Richie, 1999).
In particular, its said that people will no longer waste their votes on loosing candidates, that extra diversity will cause lawmakers to work better together, and that all ideas will be equally embraced. Its said too, that the winner-take-all rules are antiquated and that they weaken the accountability of those elected. Advocates also argue that the fundamental fairness of PR will level the playing field (Richie, 1998, p. 1, 6).
First of all, people do not waste their votes by choosing a candidate who doesnt win. Those who say otherwise are sore losers. The only way a vote gets wasted is if a person simply doesnt render one.
One person gets one vote, with which to express his or her political opinion. One-vote, one-value (Graber, 1996, p. 1) means exactly what it sounds like; its not one or multiple votes of variable weight in the name of fairness. Oddly, PR dose, according to its supporters rhetoric, deliver wasted votes. Suppose that voters are given six candidates to rank in order of preference. If a voter feels inclined toward one candidate and apathetic or hostile toward the others, she or he can vote for that one candidate alone, ensuring that the favorite gets a vote and that the others do not. If the favorite candidate is not elected, his or her vote, according to PR policy, is wasted after all.
But above all, the most obviously apparent way for PR to end up with wasted votes is for people to vote aimlessly down a long line up of candidates after picking their first choice. That in fact reflects random chance more than any sort of preference (Bain, 1999).
The Essay on Why You Vote
1920, this year should ring a bell in everybodys mind. Especially in the minds of over 50% of this class. 1920 is the year that women earned the right to vote. After 75 years of struggles, fighting, defeats pain & tears Susan B. Anthony and her followers accomplished their biggest goal by persuading the U.S. Government to give women the right to vote.Then 35 yrs ago in 1965 the federal ...
Furthermore, could municipalities even begin to be able to count proportional votes? Could a system that ranks candidates in sequence; assigning victors in proportion to the share of votes they received work (Bain, 1999)? Bob Richie, of the Center for Voting and Democracy, acknowledges that PR ballot counting is complicated. In 1998 he explained that to agree on winners, PR vote counting systems must establish a formula for determining the quantity of votes required for a candidate to receive office based on the number of seats and ballots. In a race to fill three seats, for instance, the winning quota would be one vote more than 25 percent of the total; a sum that would not be mathematically possible for four candidates to attain. After counting first choice selections, contenders with the winning quota would be elected.
Surplus ballots beyond the winning quota would be transferred to the remaining candidates in accordance to the voters next-choice preferences. In the most defined scheme, each ballot would be transferred at an equally reduced value. After transferring the surplus ballots, the candidate with the least votes would be removed. All of that candidates ballots would then be redistributed between the remaining candidates, according to voters next-choice preferences. He says then that, this progression is continued until all seats are filled. All in all, a system of progressing through first-choices and second-choices, and redistributing other choices seems kind of unpredictable. It certainly doesnt sound more sure fire than ballot counting now.
Next, PR is not more productive than winner-take-all, in fact it may be less so. The belief that a wider diversification of views will somehow produce productive coalitions is preposterous. Under Israels proportional system, for example, no one ever wins a majority. The election is always followed by months of endless coalition and alliance making. Public policy takes a back burner to a series of legislative compromises and inter-party courtships (Voting for, 2003).
In Italy, PR permits even minute parties to have enough power to defeat an unsteady alliance and to halt legislation.
The Essay on Party System Parties Democracy Political
In his speech at Bayeux, General Charles De Gaulle spoke of how "the Greeks in earlier times used to ask the sage Solon, What is the best constitution' He used to reply: Tell me for what people and at what epoch (Suleiman, 137).' " Can simply the organization of government help to stabilize democracy in a given country "While no one particular constitutional arrangement ensures democratic ...
Majority parties are often left weak to the disproportionate power wielded by the over 18 smaller parties (Low Voter Turnout, 1999).
This being said, if PR dose anything, it encourages more issue-oriented parties (Graber, 1996).
This is true, however it wouldnt necessarily bring representatives together, but would instead cause major splits between clearly defined ideological differences. If the U.S.s two ….
