ipl-logo

Single-Member Districts With Plurality Voting System

1334 Words6 Pages

An Electoral System (With Single-member Districts with Plurality Voting Rule) is for the Better
The plurality voting rule that is structured with a single-member district highly favors the two-party systems. The system involves voters in a single member casting a vote for only one candidate. The candidate who garners the most votes wins the election. This system has advantages and disadvantages. This system should be retained.
All the voters in one district tend to cast one vote for their candidate. The geographically defined regions form districts which send one representative to the legislature. The design tends to make it hard for new parties to enter and compete. This aspect should be maintained. The aspect is characterized by a synthesis …show more content…

The single-member plurality voting system is beneficial as it creates a strong local representation for the districts as each representative speak and forwards the interest of the people in their specific districts. This also benefits the districts with better services since they have an easily identifiable representative. The system is supported by its ability to reinforce one party government in the legislature as well as a two party system leading to more efficient government and greater accountability. The aspect of having a single representative means they can be held to account and be re-elected or not depending on their performance. The system is also suitable for ensuring geographical representation. The division into various districts ensures each region is recognized and given a chance to participate in the electoral system. The regions also get a representation to the legislature who stands for and fights for the people, their interest and …show more content…

The two parties mostly forward two candidates who face each other where one is elected. This aspect tends to substantially limit the choice of the voters for variety which is disadvantageous. It is impossible for one party to adequately tackle all the interests of the different segments of voters. The system also ignores alternative choices as two sides that seek unity fail to acknowledge alternative options. The winner takes all mechanism makes the losing party lose all relevance despite their significant following. Their interests and opinions are also ignored and shelved. It is also criticized on the grounds that a single person cannot adequately tackle all the opinions and interests of an entire

Show More
Related
493 Words | 2 Pages

In most states populations are not evenly distributed across the entire region. Thus, drawing various districts based on population is very necessary and provides a solution to this

Read More
982 Words | 4 Pages

It allows them to use tactics such as packing and cracking which can have a tremendous impact on elections. Packing is when politicians draw out district maps for each party based on population. Packing can swing the vote because the population of one party could out weight the population of the minority party within the same district, causing the entire district to swing with the majority. Voters feel that the other tactic, cracking, gives them a disadvantage because the political parties are being spread out between multiple districts which causes one district to have the majority party in multiple areas (King, Elizabeth). When the politicians of the party in power have drawn out the voters’ map, they maintain power over the lines of the map.

Read More
935 Words | 4 Pages

The pros of having a more representative system are strong enough that it is something that Canada needs to adopt if it wants to consider itself a truly democratic, inclusive and fair country. The flaws of the MMP system revolve around the fact that the likelihood of governments having majorities is lower, which creates a higher likelihood of coalitions for more “power” so to speak. The more representative system also allows for people to have more choice in their votes, which leads to shorter lifetimes for most parties as voters have more control with their votes. A party that is run badly is less likely to see another term, this is of course a good thing, but inconsistent governments is brought up as a con against the Mixed-Member Proportional System. The Mixed-Member Proportional system also allows a better foundation for smaller parties to form, parties with more singular focuses have a much higher chance of having seats.

Read More
712 Words | 3 Pages

The alternative is to let votes go, in which case politicians who catered to cities would win overwhelmingly, as that is where the population is thickest, which wouldn't be a problem. Also, it allows politicians, who could not otherwise get elected, to be elected, though electing a majority in congress even if they didn’t receive the general ballot support. Politicians make certain votes worthier than others by ensuring that there are no consequences for their actions as it is their party that drew out the district. The reason this is bad, because a politician's main objective is to make a safe district for whichever party holds that seat. In so doing they create 60% - 40% districts in favor of one party or the other.

Read More
187 Words | 1 Pages

Two-party systems are where two political parties dominate voting in almost every election, and most of the elected officials are from one of the two parties. They promote centrism, less extremism, and are more stable and easier to govern than multi-party systems (Hershey). However, two-party systems have been criticized for rejecting different views. They don’t promote diverse viewpoints like multi-party systems do. Also, the winner-take-all attitude discourages independent or third party candidates from running for office (Hershey).

Read More
1241 Words | 5 Pages

This further limits a one person, one vote system of

Read More
1475 Words | 6 Pages

Because of the fact that there is a lack of enough parties to sustain the growing diversity of needs, many people are having to compromise their ideology to vote. While the goal of the two-party system is to simplify the voting process for the voters, it can not accomplish this due to the very definitions that makes two-party system up. Because there is a limited number of parties, each combination of ideas and policies the voter has in mind will not be supported entirely by one of the party. For instance, “a voter who supports the view of one party on a topic but supports the view of the other party on another topic is forced to compromise one of his views” making it harder for the voter to pick a side, according to a trusted Indian MBA exam preparatory website, TestFunda (“A Comparison of Political Systems”). With more variety, the voter has a better chance at not compromising all their ideals.

Read More
1823 Words | 8 Pages

The delegation of smaller government allows the needs of specific groups and local representation to be more accessible to the people that

Read More
1402 Words | 6 Pages

How can this system be rectified? Well, the most simple and effective answer would be for each party to hold one designated day for primaries and

Read More
167 Words | 1 Pages

The United States has a two-party system. The existence of only two dominant parties stems largely from election rules that provide for single-member districts and winner-take-all elections. Each "district" can have only one winner in any election, the person who receives the most votes. So no matter how popular a third party, it will not win a single seat in any legislature until it becomes powerful enough in a single district to take an election. By contrast, many democracies have proportional representation, in which officials are elected based on the percentage of votes their parties receive, and more than two dominant parties.

Read More
1101 Words | 5 Pages

A vote is is held in the House where each state gets one vote and the winning candidate must receive twenty-six votes in order to consider it a victory. While this system seems fair in theory and has worked in the past, the reality is it has become outdated for our democratic

Read More
1514 Words | 7 Pages

However, this can be tough in areas of thick concentrations of either type of party. Districts should be decided based on competitiveness, and then geographic location, never for an individual or party

Read More
968 Words | 4 Pages

The main advantage is that it removes the concentration of power from one individual. This ensures that abuse of power is limited. Giving different individuals from varying parties will also result in the creation of checks and balances in the executive. A lieutenant governor from the Democratic Party will be able to check the activities and the undertakings of a Republican governor thus ensuring that they operate within the confines of the law and the powers of their office. Also, the system allows for the introduction or the enforcement of the manifestos held by both parties, thereby resulting in greater benefits to the population.

Read More
395 Words | 2 Pages

it is often argued that the uk has a 2 and a half party or multiparty system, Parties and Party systems : a framework for analysis - giovanni sartori ‘we have a 2 party format whenever the existence of 3rd parties do not prevent the 2 major parties from governing alone, i.e whenever coalitions are necessary’ (165) this is shown by the uk’s current coalition government furthermore the rising influence of Ukip and the green party potentially shows the uk is more than a two party system. Patrick Dunleavy (2005) argues that Britain has a genuine multiparty system. The share of the vote and number of seats won by the two main parties has fallen. Moreover, voters do not identify with a single party anymore but form opinions about a range of parties,

Read More
905 Words | 4 Pages

In different countries, there are many parties, but there is a disadvantage that votes are divided into more than two parties

Read More

More about Single-Member Districts With Plurality Voting System

Related Topics

Open Document