posted
A bit of background and then a question. This all stems from a discussion I'm having with colleagues at work, and I thought that as Hatrack has a broad spectrum of view points, I'd ask your opinon.
We are talking about what is the best (or least bad) electoral system. Here are some examples of what I mean:
First-Past-The-Post The UK uses the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system. Individual candidates present themsleves for election normally, but not exclusively, under the auspices of a political party (Labour, Lib-Dems, Conservative, Monster Raving Looney etc.) In any election, the political candidate with the most votes wins.
In government the country is split into electoral constituencies who return a Member of Parliament (MP) to the House of Commons. Thus each area has its reperesentative. The party in power is a simple matter of adding up the number of MPs. The winner is the party with the most MPs.
Proportional Representation (PR) Spain (where I vote now), has a purely proportional system. Instead of voting for an individual candidate one votes for a list - presented by a group or political party. At the end of the election the votes are counted and the number fo representatives is calculated as a proportion of the votes gained (above a minimum threshold). Members of Parliament are chosen from the list (the leader of the party being Nš1 and guaranteed a position etc.)
Mixed PR/FPTP In Germany, they have a mixture of the two, where each political constituency has two representatives - one elected by a straight 'first-past-the-post' vote, and the second assigned as a proportion of the total vote.
I'm not 100% sure what happens in the US (this is through my ignorance, not an attempt at sarcasm).
I can see advantages of PR because, in theory, the the representation of the electorate is more, well, representative. However from personal experience, voting for a list leasd to a lack of accountability and a certain feeling of alienation or distance of the voter from the workings of government. This is especially true when trying to identify your member of parliament if you want to raise an issue.
There are many critics of the FPTP system, but I think that it leads to a government more closely in tune with the electorate - especially as there is direct accountability; if you do a bad job, come election day you have to face your voters.
Q) What, in your opinion is an ideal electoral system? How would it be implemented?
Q) How important is direct accountability?
Q) What other systems do you know of?
Thanks in advance, and I look forward to your opinifications.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Canada, we essentially use the FPTP system. It would appear (and I'm sure an American can correct me) that the US system is ... confusing.
If I had to fit it into your three choices, it would be almost an "amplified" FPTP system, where not only is it FPTP by local constituencies but by state as well (for electing a president). It also appears that congressmen and senators are elected separately in FPTP schemes.
I have no idea what an ideal system is, although I can comment on them. I am reminded of a badly paraphrased saying, democracy is the worst system for governing people except for all those other systems.
FPTP: Pro: This tends to amplify the power of the winner. This helps create governments that can make decisions quicker and reduce the power of special interest groups that are nationwide. Con: The same pro is a con, people may feel left out and the winner may often freely ignore the concerns of their "opponent" voters. The power of regional (as opposed to nationwide) special interest groups can be amplified.
PR: Pro: You've covered this. Con: I would add that this amplifies the power of fringe groups that can hold larger groups "hostage" to their demands. It also seems that you also get silly governments that are very unstable as coalition members jump in and out of them.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't like the idea of a proportional system. As it is, I think that far too many people vote based solely on party affiliation. Dropping even the pretense of voting for individuals would, in my opinion, be a huge step backwards.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would tend to agree with that ricree101 in light of the US 2-party system. However, if there were a genuine variety of parties such that I could find one I actually agreed with then my feelings on the matter would change substantially.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth pointing out that, by [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_Theorem]Arrow's Impossibility Theorem[/url], there cannot be a voting system that satisfies all of four very basic requirements of a fair voting process.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link Jhai - it looks good, but I'm going to have to take some time to disgest it.
Another con for PR is that although it implies greater represetnation, in fact it limits the ability of a single person to present themselves for election as you always require a group to form the list. This may not have much impact at a national level, but at a local level it is important.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
