However, as AMS and STV give a much more proportional election result, the chances of voted being wasted are much less likely, as election results are based on the percentages of the vote that each party or MP recieve. While AMS gives a better proportional
Therefore, the candidate who gets the most votes is being elected. Main advantages of this system are that it produces more stable governments with little need for coalition and there is close tie between MP and constituency. Main Disadvantages of this voting system are that proportion of candidates for a party elected is not equal to votes cast. Proportional Representation (PR) system Opponents of First-past-the-post system claim that Promotional Representational system is fairer. The main advantage of this system is to ensure that the number of candidates elected for a party is in proportion to the number of votes cast.
And while it may increase the number of voter turnouts, it could also possibly take away the significance of an individual’s vote all together. It could also very well discourage the level of political education among voters, rather than develop it. After all, is a government really more justifiable if the high voter turnout is against the will of the voters? It has been proven that forcing people to vote only results in an increased number of invalid and blank votes, compared to countries with no mandatory voting laws. People who
Undeniably the amount of money a candidate has to spend should not be the focal point but should be the issues and differences each one brings to the table. Setting spending limits would place the candidates on equal ground, limiting the amount of money a candidate can spend on being elected would force them to be inventive in getting their message out to voters. It’s understandable that a certain amount of money is needed to run a campaign, but it should not have an impact on whether a candidate will be there for the long haul. “Perhaps the most basic complaint about money and politics is that there may be a direct link between dollars spent and votes received”. Candidates spend an astronomical amount of money trying to outdo the competition and get the attention of voters.
Referendums offer the general public a choice, they are not only good for helping the public feel more involved but they are good for deciding important decisions such as changes to the constitution. Referendums help the politicians to know what the public wants and they help the public to voice their opinions on major issues. Referendums also stop the government from having so much power, and therefore maintains a democratic system as there is less chance of having a dictatorship. If there is an issue which divides parties’ on key issues which affect the public the public can have their say. If this is “a government of the people” then there should have been a referendum on tuition fees as this was a controversial subject that affected a lot of people.
Gerrymandering is when partisans in power divide electoral districts to give them an advantage,and usually to give their political party an electoral majority in several districts while focusing on the opposing side’s voting power in the least amount of districts possible.Redistricting occurs once every ten years when the census of each state is updated, and what happens is that lines are redrawn according to the population change in each of the districts. Essentially, gerrymandering and redistricting are the same; however, one is mandated by the U.S. Constitution and the other is a conniving scheme by a partisan(s) in power (Dummies np). Members of Congress and state legislators are elected into office by voters grouped that are grouped by districts. Every ten years, usually after a Census update, district lines are redrawn, block by block. In such a long period of time, populations are subject to change.
Laws accepted in one state may be unnecessary in another. Some may believe this would cause too much laws and chaos throughout our nation, but even though a form of the constitution covers a wide array of problems, it doesn’t get too deep into specific details. Thankfully, this power can narrow down those laws into more specific policies needed for just that state; other states would not be affected and may have different policies of their own. In addition, a separation of powers would hold the executive branch directly accountable by the electorate. Even though some might criticize that these politicians might not make radical choices in order to prevent upsetting their supporters, that’s what democracy is about: for the people and by the people.
Young American voters do not like the way current officials are running the government. These people complain about America’s leaders but never do anything about it. One way we can try and change the way our government is run is by voting in people who share our same ideals and values. Through voting, citizens are allowed to express their opinion about elected leaders and policies. Instead of thinking that one more vote would not count, imagine the difference that one vote would make when it is counted with the millions of others that are cast for the same beliefs.
It is liked due to its simple structure and clear link between electorate and representative. However opponents argue that the overall outcomes are disproportional and unfair and that they perpetuate a two party system. Supplementary Vote This system is a shortened version of the Alternative Vote. Under SV, there are two columns on the ballot paper one for voters to mark their first preference vote and one in which to make a second supplementary vote. Voters mark one ‘X’ in each column, although voters are not required to make a second choice if they do not wish to.
As seen with AV in 2011, the ‘No’ campaign was better funded and better supported which majorly affected the referendum’s outcome – one can argue that wider use of referendums will put even more political decisions in the hands of the rich and influential, detracting from democracy. Referendums are also extremely expensive, as well as being difficult to organize. Many would argue that a wider use of referendums in the UK is a waste of money during a period when the National Debt exceeds £1.2 trillion. Also, governments will not choose to hold a referendum unless confident the result is in their