In the closed list system is used in Israel and Spain. This system can be used in multi-member constituencies, but in Israel there is one constituency and 120 seats. Electors must simply vote for a party with an ‘X’ as they have no choice of candidate. This system usually ends up with coalitions as it is so proportional. Despite the proportionality these governments can be unstable, for example, Israel had 3 elections in four years.
The open list system is used in Belgium. It is slightly different from the closed list system as electors may vote for a specific candidate(s) on one party list. This is beneficial as it is a fair reflection of the voter’s wishes. It is also beneficial as it leads to power sharing coalitions, for example the French and the Dutch of Belgium, although this can cause instability.
Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a system which may distort proportionality in some cases. It is in use in the Irish Republic, the north of Ireland, and in Assembly Elections. It is a complicated system in which constituencies must return some of there members, usually three or four, and parties can nominates as many candidates as they want up to this number. Voters have as many votes as candidates and must list them in order of preference, e.g. 1,2,3,4. Electors can vote for candidates from many different parties. Seats are awarded to candidates in rough proportion to the amount of votes they obtain. It is an advantage that When voters use STV they have a great amount of choice, but STV tends to produce results with no overall majorities, which can cause coalitions.
The German system, called A.M.S is of mixed proportionality. It is also known as ‘The Two Vote System’ which was adopted in West Germany in 1949 and has now extended to United Germany. This system creates stable governments.
The electoral has two votes, one for a constituency representative and one for a particular party. The second vote is different from the first. When the votes are counted a constituency representative is elected form the first vote. The constituency representatives fill half of the 656 seats. The amount of seats a party gets is proportional to the amount of votes cast. A party which fails to secure 5% of the votes across the country of three constituency seats cannot take part in allocation of seats based on second votes. There is only one complication which can and does occasionally happen that a party wins more seats from the first that the total entitlement under the second vote. The party is allowed to keep the seats so the budeshag is enlarged. This is a good system as it had good proportionality and has an accurate reflection on vote’s wishes.
Many policies use a PR principle, looking for an assembly that mirrors the pattern of support in the country, for example, the conservatives won 33% of the votes in 2001 and this should have transferred into 217 seats under complete proportionality, but the only won 166 under the ‘First Past the Post’ system.
FPTP is a majority system and is said to be conducive to British politics. It provides a stable government meaning that small parties do not hold the balance of power. It is proportional as there is one vote per. Person and the candidate with the most votes win. There is one big problem, votes for the losing candidate are wasted therefore voters are discouraged from voting at all. This system also exaggerates the winners mandate making it naturally disproportional.
I think that proportionality is the most important feature rather than majority systems. They both have important and positive traits but proportional systems best reflect the wishes of electorate, therefore strengthening the democracy.
