Voting system, candidates, majoritarian electoral systems, evaluating the different systems, plurality systems, electoral systems, party lists, mixed electoral systems, politics
Nowadays, there have been increasing complaints of citizens who believe that politicians are not representing them properly, which makes it interesting to attempt to answer the question: which voting system is best at representing diverse interests? We will try to answer this question by looking at each system and evaluating the difficulty to understand it, how proportional it is, the turnout, and if the candidates have equal chances of winning.
[...] (Baldini, 2009.) Different systems within the majoritarian system have disadvantages and advantages that are specific to them, which will now be explored. A disadvantage presented by the SMDP is that it tends to only allow two candidates to win (Quinn, 2016). Duverger's law effectively theorises that the SMDP discourages third parties and only offers the two major parties a real chance of being elected (Duverger, 1951). This would poorly represent diverse interests, as most parties would then be ignored. A strength that the SMDP offers is that it is ‘the simplest and most common' (Clark & Golder, 2018: p. [...]
[...] Accessed 14/12/18. Available at: http://repository.essex.ac.uk/17668/1/Quinn_Third- Party%20Strategy%20under%20SMDP_ ACCEPTED_%28Version_2%29.pdf Lijphart, A. and Grofman, B. (1984) Choosing an electoral system: Issues and alternatives. New York: Praeger Publishers Inc. Lijphart, A. (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty- Seven Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Farrell, D.M (1997 ) Electoral systems: a comparative introduction. New York: Palgrave. Accessed 2/01/1. [...]
[...] This gives the population a good representation of diverse interests, as a majority of the population will see their interests be defended. This system allows to make each voter count, unlike in other systems where, if the candidate a citizen has voted for is not elected, their vote goes to waste unless there is a second round, where they get another chance of expressing their preference. A main weakness of the majority runoff system is asking for voters to return because it has negative consequences as it can lead to a ‘lower turnout in the second round, reflecting not only voter exhaustion, but also perhaps a degree of disquiet over the reduced choice available' (Farrell : p. [...]
[...] This is a major flaw in the dependent mixed system which undermines the representation of diverse interests. Conclusion In conclusion, it is important to keep in mind that every diverse interest is not always represented by parties, so the analysis of this essay is only applicable if every interest is actually represented. As many have said before, there is no perfect system, as it is impossible to represent every interest in one party or candidate. However, the majority run-off system seems to be the best at representing diverse interests, mainly because of the opportunity for candidates to ally themselves with others who have not made it to the second round of the elections. [...]
[...] This limits the representation of diverse interests, given that it narrows the choice range of the voter. In closed party lists, ‘candidates compete for the attention and endorsement of their superiors in the party hierarchy, or for the approbation of those groups within the party which control candidate nomination, rather than votes' (Chang & Golden, 2007: p. 118). This makes individual identity irrelevant during the elections, which could restrict the ability to show diverse interest, as the candidates would focus on showing popular interests that is typical of the party. [...]
using our reader.