There are different types of voting systems used around the world in this assignment all the different types of voting systems will be mentioned and written about briefly

University Degree Mathematical and Computer Sciences

Democratic voting systems

Introduction

The essential element for democracy to work in a country is the voting system used to determine the formation of the government. There are different types of voting systems used around the world in this assignment all the different types of voting systems will be mentioned and written about briefly. The United Kingdom uses First Past the Post system, this system is vastly criticised. The basic outline emphasising arguments for and against FPTP system will be shown. Also the Proportional Representation system will also be mentioned and the outcome of the PR system if it was used in the United Kingdom. In addition arguments for and against PR system will also be pointed out.

First Past the Post

As mentioned above the United Kingdom uses the FPTP system. This system emphasises in single winner plurality voting, each voter is allowed to vote for one candidate, and the winner of the election is whichever candidate represents a plurality of voters which is whoever received the largest number of votes. This system is simple and very effective and forms a very stable government. The FPTP system has many benefits towards it. The FPTP system gives a direct link between MP’s and their constituency members. This makes it easier for constituency members to talk to there MP’s and also if MP’s are performing poorly then the constituency can not vote for that particular MP. The FPTP system also evades multiparty coalitions which is highly unwanted in a government reason for being to form an unstable government. The FPTP system is criticised very much as mentioned above. The first drew back towards FPTP system is that there is massive difference in the value of votes for different parties. Some voters have no one to represent them in the in the government as for the MP they have voted for has not had enough votes for them to have a seat in parliament. There are many safe seats as parties dominated constituency’s for a very long time. Also parties that win the most votes can fail to win the most seats, and actually see another party take an overall majority in the House of Commons.

Proportional Representation

Proportional Representation is an electoral system which tends to make elections result in groups of votes being represented in proportional fractions by the outcome of votes otherwise representation of all parties in proportion to their popular vote. The PR system is highly favoured rather then the FPTP system. The PR system has much compensation one being that there are fewer votes wasted and nearly all constituency members have someone to represent them. The PR system clearly shows the wishes of the voter’s. The Minority parties will end up with a much fairer representation within a government. The PR system is likely to remove 'safe' seats with their characteristics of low turn-outs. The Voters may have more of a choice of candidates using the PR system and it is also possible that those candidates may be of better quality and represent their constituents in a more professional manner forcing bad MP’s to do there best for there constituency so that they can be elected once again. The PR system will also encourage people to vote and discourage the negativity from voters fearing that there vote will not count. The PR system has many advantages towards it but there are a few negative aspects which it tends to have. The PR system is complicated, cost effective and time-consuming to administer and count. The PR system allows minor parties and candidates to win seats which promote instability within a government. The balance of power can be held by a number of members elected by a small minority of the electorate. The PR system also some times tends to lead towards a hung parliament which is known to be highly unfavourable.

Other types of voting system

There are different methods of voting systems which evolved from the PR system. The altered methods of the PR system achieve either a greater degree of proportionality or a greater degree of determinate outcome.

Single Transferable vote

This is a preview of the whole essay

Other types of voting system

Single Transferable vote

The Single Transferable voting system implements much larger constituencies to be created, each electing between three to five MPs. Voters are given a much wider choice of candidates, with the major parties fielding multiple candidates within a constituency. Voters are then required to rank the candidates in order of preference. If the voters first preference candidate doesn’t need the vote, either because they have sufficient first preference votes to win one of the seats, or because they have too few to have a chance of winning a seat, then a proportion of the value of your vote passes to your second choice candidate and so on. The STV system delivers a more proportional result and expresses the views of the voters. The voters have much more power over the elections and the government. The voters have a link between MPs and their constituencies even though the constituencies are larger it is more likely for an electorate to have an MP for whom they have voted for in some way. The STV system will need for a party to have more then 50% of votes to have a majority within parliament otherwise a multi-party coalition will have to be made with another party. Multi-party coalitions are regarded as appealing and unstable, but they are also seen as good for expressing the views of the voters. The STV system is harder for the voters to understand and particularly when main parties are fielding multiple candidates in every constituency. The Smaller parties are still unlikely to be represented by MPs. The STV system is disliked by politicians because it is removing power from them and giving it to the voters. The major drawback about the STV system is that multi-party coalitions

Party List System

The PLS System has a number of variations which can used with it. The simplest PLS System is the closed party system. The closed party system involves voters casting a single vote for a party. Then the nation share a vote which is translated into a directly proportional number of MPs by which each party has a list of candidates, internally drawn up, ordered in preference the allocated candidate’s sit in the House of Commons depending upon the number of seats won by the party. The other PLS System employs multi-seat constituencies and open list systems whereby voters are able to vote either for the party list, or for individual candidates. The PLS System is very simple for voters to understand. There is true proportionality in that every party wins a fair number of seats based upon its share of the vote. The minority parties have some MPs to represent them and everyone's vote counts theoretically. The arguments against the PLS System is that there is no link between MPs and there geographic constituency. The PLS System makes it imposable for a single party to win an absolute majority in the House of Commons, leading to governments forming multi-party coalitions. There is too much power held by the party as they decide upon the candidates and their order of preference, rather than the local party organisations.

Additional Member System

The AM system is a combination system in which a voter has two votes, one for a constituency MP, and the other for a national party. The majority of MPs would be elected by the FTTP method. The national party vote is used to allocate candidates via the Party List system as a top up to constituency MPs. The List of candidates are not allocated to parties simply on the basis of the share of the national vote, rather they are used to make up for differences in the number of seats won at a constituency level. The AM system is more proportional than the FPTP system, however for it to make a significant improvement in proportionality then a significant proportion of the seats need to be allocated under the top-up system. The AM system retains the link between MPs and there constituencies. The voters can express personal support for a local candidate by voting for them, but use the national vote to show dissatisfaction for the party that candidate represents. The arguments against the AM system are that the system is not straightforward for voters to understand. There is going to be two types of MP created, half of whom represent constituencies, half of whom don’t. The central party would have control over the ranking/selection of list MPs. It is also possible for a party to win more than its share of seats from the constituency element of the election - potentially required MPs could be included/removed from the House of Commons each Parliament.

The Alternative Vote

The AV system still uses constituency boundaries and the voters still chose one candidate to represent them. The voters rank their preferred candidate in order of their preference instead of just putting an x next to their candidate. If a candidate receives a majority of first place votes, he or she would be elected just as under the present system. However if no single candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the second choices for the candidate at the bottom are redistributed and counted this process is repeated until a candidate gets a majority. The AV system retains the relationship between MPs and their constituents. All MPs would have the support of a majority of their constituents. The AV system prevents MPs being elected on a minority of the vote which has happened in the past. The AV system removes the negative voting syndrome as electors can vote for their first choice of candidate without the fear of wasting their vote. The AV system main disagreement is that there is no transfer of powers from party authorities to the voters, and it does not produce a proportional parliament.

Proportional Representation assessment

The government formed in country X will be

Party A have 40,000 votes so therefore they will have 11 MPs in parliament

Party B have 25,000 votes so therefore they will have 4 MPs in parliament

Party C have 35,000 votes so therefore they will have 5 MPs in parliament

The total number of MPs will be 20. Party A have the largest majority in parliament so they will form the government.

If country X was using the PR system the formation of the government will be different and also have a great affect on the governing party.

Party A have 40,000 votes so therefore they will have 40% of the votes giving them 8 candidates in parliament.

Party B have 25,000 votes so therefore they will have 25% of the votes giving them 5 candidates in parliament.

Party B have 35,000 votes so therefore they will have 35% of the votes giving them 7 candidates in parliament.

Party A will still have a majority in parliament so again they will form a government, but they will find it harder to get litigations through the parliament since they only have only one MP more then the other parties.

If party A wants to raise tax, privatise all land and invade their neighbours country the FPTP system will be the best system for them. The FPTP system will give them a majority in parliament and will not need full support from their party to pass the above articles.

The best democratic system for any country to use is the PR system. The PR system clearly expresses the views of the voter and also far more votes are wasted. The Minority parties will end up with a much fairer representation and more MPs to represent there parties. The PR system will remove safe seats. The PR system will make MPs work harder for their litigations to pass. The government will be more

Democratic.

References used:

.historylearningsite internet WWW page at URL:

(Accessed 05/01/06)

Mtholyoke.internet WWW page at URL: http:// (Accessed 09/01/06)

whoshouldyouvotefor.internet WWW page at URL: http://

(Accessed 08/01/06)

Wikipedia.internet WWW page at URL: http:// (Accessed 11/01/06)

Ahmed Abuzaid principles of law