How Did Sweden Improve The Proportionality Of Its Electoral Results

Sweden improved the proportionality of its electoral results by introducing the Saint-Laguë method instead of D’Hondt method. The highest average system awards seats by taking the vote totals for each party and dividing them by numbers to get a ranking. Both the Saint-Laguë and D’Hondt methods use the highest average system to award seats, but the Saint-Laguë method starts with a divisor of 1.4 and uses odd integers from 3 up (ESCE). The Saint-Laguë method yields results that are more proportional to the total votes. Sweden has a parliamentary system with multiple parties since the thresholds are not too high to discourage smaller parties from forming. The proportional electoral system has awarded seats to many different parties with current

Voters in Sweden have a more difficult time holding the incumbent politicians accountable because the proportional system divides the government into various parties. This allows politicians to blame other parties for the failures of government. The mixed cabinet allows for the party in power to blame certain factions of the government without taking responsibility for possible failures. In this case, it is the job of the opposition to convince voters that the government is failing because of the current political party in power. It is easier to wield influence from being in opposition in Britain because the government is generally controlled by a single

A democratic government allows for all people to be a part of the decision-making process, which means that both the majority and minority are fairly represented in government (What is Democracy). Britain allows for a majority to take full control of the government, giving less power to the opposition and other parties in the minority. Although it is easier to hold this type of government responsible in the next election, giving full power to a political party based on plurality isn’t as democratic as a proportional