Note: since I screwed up the due date in the subject line, this will be due on the 26th despite what it says below and in the syllabus.
Hi, everyone! Please note that:
1. I'm posting lecture notes #1 (from previous exam) and #2 (for the upcoming exam) to the blog in separate entries.
2. Exam #2 takes place next Wednesday, February 26. It will cover all of the material in lecture notes #2 (Interest groups and Parties), as well as some of the material in lecture notes #3 (to be distributed on Monday and also available then on the blog), specifically the material on political participation (voter turnout, etc.) in the states.
3. I will also distribute and post a review sheet for the exam on Monday (February 24). Note that the format will be exactly the same as for exam #1.
4. Note also that deadlines are upcoming for both the meeting observation paper and the journal). Take advantage of these gift points!
5. Finally, if you don't understand why you didn't do as well as you'd hoped on exam #1, you should see me (during office hours, after class, or work out another time). If you haven't gotten, exam #1 back yet, they will be available after class again tomorrow (Wednesday, February 19). However, if you haven't gotten it back yet, that means you've missed the last two classes.
Now on to this week's assignment (don't answer until after Wednesday's lecture on parties). It focuses on the difficulties facing third parties (sometimes called minor parties) in elections in the states. We'll concentrate in particular on the state legislature. In most states (West Virginia is a very partial exception), the state is divided into districts of equal population, each of which elects one representative. Whoever gets the most votes in a district wins that seat in the legislature. There is no prize for coming in second or third. Anyone who voted for any candidate but the winner gets no representation.
This provision is the key to why third parties have a difficult time. Voters perceive (and major party candidates encourage voters to perceive) that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote, so they instead for the major party candidate whose views are closest to their own ("the lesser of two evils"). Thus, even when a third party candidate garners some early support, that support usually melts away as election day approaches.
While third party candidates face other obstacles, including the inability to attract campaign contributions, the lack of media coverage, and often being barred from candidate debates, all of those things stem from the single member plurality system. Further, there are other problems with single member plurality. For instance, having each legislator represent a particular geographic area means that representatives focus on that area and not the common good (perhaps resulting in useless government projects). Also, the drawing of the legislative lines, often done by the legislature, can be controversial and is often done to advantage the party in power at the time (the drawing of lines to favor one group over another is called gerrymandering). And, a system that encourages two parties means that each party will try to appeal to people from as much of the ideological spectrum as possible (it may not always seem that way, but, for instance, it explains Mitt Romney's move toward the center during the last months of the presidential campaign). This means that parties don't take strong stands. Finally, with just two parties winning seats, one party will always have a majority in any particular legislative body, meaning that it will control most of the power and not have to compromise with anyone else.
Many countries use a different system of representation called proportional representation. If that system were used in the US, a state with 100 seats in one house of the legislature would not be divided into districts. Rather, people in the state would vote for the party that they preferred, and seats in the legislature would be awarded in proportion to the number of votes for each party. So, if a party got 20% of the votes, it would get 20 seats in the legislative body. A party getting only 5% of the votes would still get 5 seats in the legislature. This encourages votes for third parties. They have a chance to gain representation in the legislature, show citizens what they can do, and then perhaps improve their representation the next time around. This system also removes incentives to exclude minor parties from debates and news coverage, and it encourages donors to support the candidate of their choice, regardless of whether they can win. Proportional representation also means that gerrymandering isn't a problem (there are no district lines to mess with), legislators represent everyone rather than a particular district so they don't focus on things like bringing an unnecessary new bridge to their district (and getting the whole state to pay for it), and it encourages parties to take clear stands on issues. It also results in a situation where, in most cases, no one party has a majority in the legislature, so they have to form coalitions with other parties in order to govern.
Proportional representation does have its disadvantages as well. Sometimes, geographic representation prevents an area with a minority of interests (maybe coal country) from being ignored by the rest of the state. There is no assurance that party tickets will include people from the poorest areas, so they may not get representation either. In some cases, proportional representation also encourages single interest parties, which may just be disruptive to governance. Finally, the coalitions that form are often highly unstable and dysfunctional. At least in a single member plurality system, you're likely to know who is in charge.
Here is a paper on single member plurality, proportional representation, and other related electoral systems.
http://www.lwvutah.org/Studies/Election%20Study%20final%20for%20web-site.pdf
It is from the League of Women Voters. It's got lots of detail and probably leans toward something other than single member plurality (so it's a bit biased). Your assignment is to read the paper, read my comments above, look for other arguments and evidence (there's a ton out there), and then respond. Specifically, should the US move away from single member plurality legislative elections? If so, what type of system should be employed (consider proportional representation and the other systems discussed in the League of Women Voters paper)? One big issue that you'll want to consider is whether a system that encourages minor parties (like proportional representation) is a good thing or a bad thing. Be sure to use reasons and evidence in your response. Again, better responses address those of classmates (politely, of course), make original points, and bring in outside material. Comments are due by 2:00 pm on Monday, February 24.
Good luck!--NB
Specifically, should the US move away from single member plurality legislative elections? If so, what type of system should be employed (consider proportional representation and the other systems discussed in the League of Women Voters paper)? One big issue that you'll want to consider is whether a system that encourages minor parties (like proportional representation) is a good thing or a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteIf the United States wanted to give fairness to its elections process it should move away plurality legislative elections. The day that I wrote this blog assignment the United States Women’s hockey team lost in overtime to Canada and thus losing out on the opportunity to win the gold medal. So how does a hockey game relate to the current blog assignment? The answer is that there was a winner and loser in the outcome of the game just like in elections. The winner of the election should be allowed to impose his or her agenda. Even though that I am feeling bad that the women’s hockey team lost out on the opportunity to win the gold medal , clearly the Canadian team won the game and carried momentum into the latter half of the third period into overtime. My answer to this question is that the United States should not move away from single plurality system. However, changes in the rules on how elections operate should be looked at.
The League of Women Voters paper coupled with our lectures on Monday (2/17/14) and Wednesday (2/19/14) brings up ways the American election system should be reviewed. The first review is that states should allow same day registration when a person comes to his or her polling place. The allowance of same day registration would enable the individual to voice his or her opinion into the electoral process without going through the embarrassment of being turned away at the polls.
Secondly, Gerrymandering is the practice that states legislatures manipulate district boundaries to create partisan advantaged for the incumbent, which basically enables the incumbent to keep his or office and does not allow competitive elections. This needs to be redressed in that independent commissions in the states need to be able to draw lines in the districts when census information comes out every ten years. The independent commissions would take the authority away from the state legislatures, which cloister the current incumbents who hold office.
Third, money in elections has always been debated on whether individuals, corporations, and labor unions should be allowed to give unlimited amounts of money into the elections process. The Citizen’s United case ruled in favor of allowing unlimited amounts of money into the election and broke the floodgates for corporations and labor unions to spend freely on elections. This needs to be changed. If unlimited amount of money is allowed into elections then there should be full public disclosure on who gave what and how much. Also a Constitutional Amendment should be debated on whether a corporation counts as an individual.
Fourth, I would recommend that states should adopt a Jungle ballot when elections are being decided. The Jungle ballot is being used in California, which would open more opportunity for people to run for elected office. All of these ideas would enable third party candidate’s/minor parties opportunities to get involved more in the political process. These ideas would change the rules of the game on how American elections are held. Yet, Federalism would still be the challenge to each of these ideas because states will not be willing to change their election processes.
I believe that the U.S. should move away from single-member plurality in favor of proportional representation. I don't like that someone can win without the popular vote, and I also don't like the "winner takes all" mentality. The single-member plurality system also greatly discourages third parties. In my sociology class today, our class was asked which party they believed represented them (between the Democratic and Republican parties), and if neither there was an option to choose Independent. The result in my class showed that there were more Independents than Democrats. In another sociology class, there were more Independents than both Republicans and Democrats. This means that over half of the people in those two classes have zero representation in government. I think that proportional representation would fix this particular problem. However, this system is also far from perfect. For example, just how many parties should be 'allowed' representation? What should the threshold be to determine that a party gets a certain number of seats? While it seems a bit hypocritical to deny anyone representation, allowing all parties, regardless of how much support or lack thereof that party holds, has caused problems. A prime example is Israel. However, if this threshold is set to be fair to each state, I think that this system could work for the U.S. Another issue would be whether or not to have closed or open voting. There are pros and cons to both. A closed election would ensure that no party could manipulate another party's votes, however in certain situations it discourages voters to choose their favorite candidate. Perhaps I'm a Republican, but in this election I agree more with an independent candidate, then I may as well not even vote. If this was an open election, this would not be a problem. In this case, I believe open elections would be the most beneficial. Whether or not our government will move towards a different voting system is unlikely, but if it were to happen, I believe the proportional representation system would be our best option in terms of ensuring that the majority of Americans are represented within our country as oppose to a candidate who may or may not have received the most votes and who only represents the most "popular" party.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the U.S. should favor proportional representation over single member plurality. The proportional representation system is to make sure that the majority of Americans are represented within our country by a candidate of their choosing instead of a candidate who may or may not have received the most votes and who only represents the most popular party.
ReplyDeleteThe League of Women Voters paper brought up some ways the American election system could be reviewed. The first review is that states should allow same day registration when a person comes to his or her polling place. The allowance of same day registration would enable the individual to voice his or her opinion without having to worry about not getting to vote.
The second review is that money in elections has always been based on the fact that individuals, corporations, and labor unions are allowed to give unlimited amounts of money into the elections process. I think that only so much money should be allowed to be put into the election process by outside sources.
The third review is gerrymandering which is the practice that state legislatures can manipulate district boundaries to create partisan advantage for their incumbent. This can be fixed by reducing the power of the state legislature so that they cant manipulate the district boundaries to give their incumbent a better chance of winning. This will take power away from the political office and give other people the chance to win instead of the same person being voted in over and over again.
The election process i believe we should adopt would be a closed election which would ensure that no party could manipulate another party's votes which would decrease the power of parties. Being a closed election system means that people have to register ahead of time to vote so its less likely that votes can be manipulated and it dosent allow for someone to be voted in who shouldnt be there.
I believe one of the most important notions to think about concerning the single member plurality system is just how it reflects the history of American politics. The fact that national representatives are beholden to local or district affairs is a direct result of the federal system of government that the US is founded upon. It is both positive and negative that elected leaders, especially on the national scale, must address their constituencies. On the one hand they are likely to press for federal funds for "pork," but on the other they genuinely reflect the desires of those whom they are elected to represent.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I personally believe that the proportional system would be a more democratic model of representation. I especially find the greater representation of third parties particularly attractive. Greater competition for political influence would help to spark new ideas. America's political system does not reflect its economic one. Democrats and Republicans currently have an effective monopoly on power, therefore reducing the ability of the American political consumer to have real buying power.
In agreement to something that Mari Phillips (above) noted, the proportional system would also have the benefit of eliminating the "winner-take-all" mentality, which in my opinion reduces voter participation in regions where one party historically has held greater sway over the other.
I agree that it would be generate more fairness in the for third parties to gain representation but the way the system is set up now will be almost impossible to change the rules of the game. Yes new ideas will be a welcomed in our political discourse but it is has been amazing how the current two party system has adapted some of these ideas,, namely Ross Perot call for a balance budgets in the 90's which affected the way the Clinton administration ran its White House and agenda and how the Tea Party call for limited government which as affected the Republican politics agenda since 2010 via the debt ceiling debate and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts...
DeleteThe Single Member Plurality system supports encouragement to focus on only specific districts rather than the wider area. A candidate could win in a specific district and take the seat but lose the majority vote. This, to any group of ten year olds voting on which game to play, seems quite backwards. So should we continue with the Plurality System?
ReplyDeleteI think yes, for one the idea of geographically defining voting districts can obviously lead to corruption and what is referred to as gerrymandering, drawing district lines to fit what someone may think gives them a better chance of wining. Two, it does not always result in the election of the most popular candidate, similar to the electoral collage where certain states are worth “more points”. Three, it discourages third parties. The already established parties keep others from joining in because they’re geographically drawn lines are almost full proof to win.
The Single member plurality system prevents representation and enforces the old. If the US where to move out of this method and experiment with portioned representation, third parties would have a say, a small say but a start, in government actions. While their percentage would still be low due to low exposure, they would still have a chance to step up and make what difference they could in hopes of getting more attention next time. Competition is what encourages growth and improvement, currently out election method only encourages the system o stay the same and produce no further improvements to governing actions. A more equally representation proportion of the people would result in a more satisfactory government.
The Single Member Plurality method is old and possibly it was more effective when people rode by horse and carriage to neighboring towns. It was a way to get elected to congress by only local areas rather than an entire state, however; we now live in the TV world where, for example, north and south California are equally as connected. I personally think its time we move to a more democratic way of electing officials.
I firmly believe that the U.S. should move away from the traditional single member plurality system in favor of the proportional system. Many people feel as though they are not represented adequately and do not believe in their representatives. I think that many people would say that they would prefer a third party candidate over a Republican or Democratic candidate. However, these people that vote have to decide to choose the lesser of two evils and vote for someone that they do not firmly believe in. By changing the voting system to a proportional system the third party candidates would have more of a chance of taking office and representing independents. Also I believe that the switch to proportional representative system would increase voter turnout come election time. I think that more people would feel a connection to the third party and would go out and vote.
ReplyDeleteI find the Single Member Plurality system a little contradictory to this whole idea of a democracy. In this winner takes all system you basically always end up with a state legislator from one of the two major parties. In most cases these candidates have a lot of things working out for them. If a candidate is running for a party already in control then chances are that they have the best shot. "Safe seats" an gerrymandering both work in favor toward the current party in control. Lines are drawn to bring out the more favorable voter turnout. The major parties even seem to move their views into the center of the ideological line just to keep their share of votes away from third and minor parties. Basically, if you are not associated with the major party, your voice as the little fish in the big pond is not heard. This really ends up hurting small towns, minorities and anyone outside the majority vote.
ReplyDeleteSo its not surprising to wonder why even vote or run for a third party. I feel like our country could really benefit from utilizing a Proportional Representation style. In this system there are no district lines. There are only seat numbers assigned by percentage of votes. Sure there will still be majority groups in legislature but everyone in a sense will still have some representation. I feel it could really encourage people to get out and vote especially in an era like this where tons of young people don't.
The posted reading mentioned (and I think everyone would agree) that it gives third party leaders a shot. They could prove themselves and start gaining those contributions and that media coverage that was impossible for them to once get.Whether it works out or not for them it would still beat the other system where the only option is win or lose (frequently the latter).
Finally, I realize every system has its disadvantages. If Proportional representation were to be utilized there could be a mess of topics listed as a priority by every party division. This could hurt the state by focusing on issues less relevant. There could ultimately be a lot of time wasted on arguing and money wasted on less important projects.
I agree with what Rob said about the contradictory nature of single member plurality. The system in our version of a democratic society seems to influence the opposite of fair and open voting and allows for misrepresentation and the requirement for many people to settle with one major party or another. Proportional representation is the best idea for our country politically at this time because almost everyone has a different view politically and they should be allowed to vote and have a different opinion than what a major party says.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest issue that is preventing opportunistic third parties from developing is the PAC system that dominates every election local or national. If more people had more share of the wealth then changes like this could and probably would happen. Enough people have strong, independant opioions on how to run the country, their city, town or region that more money evenly distributed amongst the masses could influence huge positive change in the future,
The League of Women Voters may be biased in this article because they want to see more gender equality with voting, but what they put in the article could have a fundamental shift in how people vote and think about social politics if they had enough national support to make that change a realistic possibility. Money runs the country and that won't change, but how people spend their money can change if their is enough support for it.
Yes, I believe the US government should move away from the current system and focus on changing to a system more beneficial to third party candidates more specifically one based on proportional representation as employed by Ireland, Australia and Russia. I agree with Matt's statement above that there are Americans who would prefer a third party candidate over the traditional Democratic or Republican candidate however they believe that without more recognition they believe their vote will be a waste. By changing systems the American population would be more free to vote for the candidate they see fit. Also with more recognition the third party candidates would be able to bring more diverse issues to the table. The league of women voters may be a little biased as Alex mentions above but the fundamental reasoning behind it is similar, in that both sides wish to see a change in the structure of the voting process.
ReplyDeleteThere are many reasons through the paper and in class discussions that mention why single member plurality is just not a good idea. In America, we are big on the freedom of expression, but the single member plurality tends to limit this expression. The third party or minority parties want to express their views and ideologies through elections, but do not get a chance to be heard due to America being strictly a two-party system country. Also in America, simplicity is key. If something is simple, Americans love it. This is one large reason why the single member plurality system works so well. Though easy, it is simply unfair for everyone who wants to run in these elections. The winner-takes-all makes it impossible for a third party to ever win seats. To answer the first question, yes, I do believe the United States should move away from single member plurality legislative elections. Elections should be fair and this method is not fair.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of my classmates that the United States should move more in the direction of the proportional representation system. This system is a great way for everyone to be represented instead of just those who win the majority of the votes. I think this is more of a democratic system than the single member plurality system. Not only that, but I agree with Matthew Grogg that the people in this country would feel more represented by those who have seats, because it would not just focus on the democrat side or the republican side. In the system we have now, people tend to pick the lesser of two evils due to the fact that they do not want to waste their vote on a third party candidate they know will not win.
Another benefit to having the PR system is that voter turnout would increase. Due to people thinking their votes would be a waste, they simply don’t vote. They think that them voting wouldn’t make a difference. With PR, they would vote because they know their vote will matter and they will be represented.
It is a good idea, as I stated before, to encourage minority parties because representation would increase among citizens in the United States. As mentioned in the reading, it introduces new political ideas into the policymaking process. People want to see a difference in politics, but a difference will not be seen if they simply rely on democratic and republican opinions in making these policies. Another good reason is that it would represent racial and ethnic diversity. It would increase a fair representation of groups.
The United States should move away from the single-member plurality because it discourages third parties. Everyone’s voice should be heard. I think the only people that benefit from this type of government are the rich and I don’t understand the mentality that “winner takes all” because this encourages more dishonesty in the government. People that give the most money to a party get their voice heard the loudest.
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of the proportional representation because winner does not take it all. Instead, the percentage of votes is what matters, not who has the highest amount of votes. For example if you were to get 20% of the votes, you would not be out of the race but instead get 20% of the available seats. It would allow other voices to be heard, not just the majority.
As the League of Women Voters brought up some interesting points about “both allowing minority points of view to be represented at the table and coalitions can sometimes be difficult, why should we support an election system which allows it?” because the minority need a voice too.
In conclusion, I agree with Joseph point of view that there should be a limited amount of money spent on a election because without this limitation it becomes a situation where whoever has the most money wins.
I think that the United States should consider moving away from the single-member plurality system because of how it does not let third party candidates a fair chance at elections. however I do think this system is fair because if a party cant raise the money or figure a way to get the word out about them or what they want to do than that is their fault. I think some of these other systems would be some what biased and favor minority parties and that would also be unfair.an example of this would be semi proportional voting which I think would cause more problems than our current system. I do agree with my classmates as well because I do think that everyones voice should be heard but at the same time we should not have to make things easier on people so they can be in the mix of elections. I do think that proportional representation is a good idea because it seems to be an easy concept especially to understand.i think Rachel had a good point about increasing voter turn out. I believe it would do this as well because people would feel more represented and they would not have to worry about voting only for a republican or democrat. I also think that geographical representation should not matter today because I think someone can do the job for your area from anywhere. I believe that it is the ideas and beliefs of the candidates that should matter.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the U.S. should move away from single-member plurality system. It seems unfair that someone can win without the popular vote. I find that a great reason for the U.S. to move away from this includes the fact that the single-member plurality system greatly discourages third parties, not giving them a fair chance. Of course, there are advantages in this system but I feel that the disadvantages outweigh them. Everybody's voice should be heard, and this system limits us from having our voices being heard. I am in favor of changing the voting system to a proportional system. This is because the third party candidates would have more of a chance of taking office and representing independents. I also believe that if it were to change the possibility of voting outcomes would increase. More people would have the opportunity to be heard. I like that the winner does not take all, it is more justified and fair.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S using a single member plurality system seems abit outdated to me. Trying to move away from this type of system would shack the whole political system from how one would make legislative decisions to how to actually get elected. The tradition of this system is rich and it had severed its purpose but to keep American an open democracy allowing thoughts like the proportional representation system seem logical. America is becoming a country with so many viewpoints that making these new political parties makes sense, but if only they had a fighting chance verse the Republicans and the Democrats. These two head parties don’t treat outsides kindly and would try and prevent the nonsense that would stop votes from going into their favor. Proportional Representation has been setup in roughly fifty countries including power houses like Germany, Japan, and Brazil. It confuses me when you see countries that support diversity but don’t stand on it like the United States does. A key problem with proportional representation that I see is that without government being so divided up not just republicans and democrats, trying to accomplish anything will be a challenge. It is hard to argue away from that considering it takes forever to just get republicans and democrats in the house and senate to pass something. I completely understand trying to keep government from being at a standstill but not too long away the government shutdown so who is to say this would work? You got to pick the best of the worst.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the US should move more towards the proportional system and away from single member plurality. I believe this would create more fairness among elections. This system is more democratic than single member plurality. There needs to be a chance for more than just democrats and republicans to be represented. With the chance of a third party candidate being elected this creates some diversity with the issues that are being brought up and is a different point of view than just two sides. This could also increase the amount of people that show up to vote if they think the third party candidate they support actually has a chance. The idea of a proportional system sounds so much more American than the way things are now. Also even though this sounds like a good idea I don't see things going this way anytime soon.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I agree with my classmate that has stated that "the U.S using a single member plurality system seems a bit outdated." This type of system was designed in the time period in which political outlook was reflected in the area in which one lived. Typically, if you lived in the South, all Southerners had the same political views. Today, with migration and moving easier than ever, that is no longer the point. No matter which part of the United States that you are in, you are guaranteed to access multiple, diverse political views. This being said, it is no longer logical to use the single member plurality system, where political views are now so diverse and not granted by location by any means.
ReplyDeleteAnother positive of any other system other than the single member plurality system is that not only one representative is chosen. With the single member system, your vote is really only considered if you are part of the majority. With the proportional system, whether or not your candidate gets the highest amount of votes, they still are allowed the chance to represent you and therefore, you feel represented in the legislature. If you consider Duverger's Law, which is in favor of a single member plurality. The law argues that even when using a proportional system, such as in Australia, the larger parties still end up with the most representation and therefore have the most impact in the system. To refute this idea, I believe that even though you couldn't argue that currently,this may be the point, I believe that eventually, the third parties would be equal with the democrat and republican parties. It is a modern move for third parties to be in any way popular and political views are only getting more and more varied, with the liberals and independents becoming more of a popular option for the younger generation. In time, I believe that the third parties would have the ability to be just as popular as either democrat and/or republican.
In saying all of this, I believe that the proportional system would be of a fit for American culture. With the vast spreading and widening of political views, I believe that allowing for a representation of all ideas is only fair and equal for the future of our country.
The US should move away from single member plurality legislative elections. When we were discussing about third parties in class and how the major parties believe in a wasted vote, I was told that in last year’s election. Since I was unsure on who to vote for out of the two major party candidates, I had heard of some of the third parties candidates’ names and knew some of the things that they stood for and voted for them. I told one friend who I voted for and the first thing they said was, “Wow, what a waste of a vote.” I had never really heard that before since it was my first time voting and wasn’t too aware of the lingo of the political world. When hearing that in class and reading the League of Women Voters paper, I was struck with that moment of being told that. Hearing the discussion in class on Wednesday on third parties, I believe that they should definitely have more recognition. In the US, everyone is so fixed on Democrat and Republican. No one ever thinks of third parties such as Libertarian or Moderates, they are just as some say “A wasted vote.”
ReplyDeleteThe US should consider a proportional representation. With that, we would be able to have more of a chance with recognition of third parties rather than the focus is on the 2 major parties. Sure, it’s a little more complicated when it comes to voting than the Single-Member Plurality vote, but PR focuses more on election based on ideas and the minority would be more likely on the party list. Another benefit of proportional representation is the choice voting. As the League of Women Voters paper mentions that the choice voting is used to minimize wasted votes and also voters are more likely to participate for the election of a candidate which is great for voter turnout. The ranking option of choice voting seems to a little more helpful because there is no bias of just one person; you’re just putting them from who you like as a candidate best to the least likely person you would vote for.
The only downside to this is that geographical representation is not likely. If you are very involved with your town and want the best for your town, this would not be the greatest decision because there is the multi-member district. But a take away from that, as mentioned in the blog assignment topic that Professor Berch said that with Single Member Plurality legislatures, they focus on that particular district and not the common good ending in some people’s opinions with useless government projects because it’s not focusing the society as a whole. And the legislative lines create arguments, with PR there are no geographical problems as the SMP would have and just look at the common good including third parties.
This generation has been about equality, so why not let the political parties including the minor party have equality be presented in there too even if it just a little, it is some kind of change if happened.
While electoral systems are a vital element of any representative democracy, there will never be a 'perfect' structured system for elections. However, I do believe that the U.S should shift away from single member plurality and move towards a proportional system. We are among the few nations who do not use a form of proportional representation for national elections. Supporters of single member plurality systems argue that this structure builds a reliable and more efficient government due to its reinforcement on one-party governments in a legislature and a two-party system. Yet, the unbalanced functions of this systems is the prime reason why the majority of democracies have turned away from single member plurality.
ReplyDeleteSingle member plurality tends to produce a bias legislature in which it does not represent the diversity of political opinion. With that, gaining representation from racial minorities, will be a difficult task for racially diverse areas well known for racially voting unless districts are drawn to make them the majority in that particular legislation district which is extremely hard to do. In addition, due to populations constantly shifting, districts must be redrawn periodically. With this process of redistricting, several political manipulation is caused. Most importantly though, simple majority plurality tends to have lower voter turnout due to the difficulty in increasing practical candidacies from across the spectrum along with having safe districts.
When reflecting on proportional representation, we see that this system allows voters to cast votes for smaller parties knowing that their votes will produce efficient results due to seats being assigned on the basis of the share of the popular vote. This then encourages the formation of minority parties which leads to a representation of a wider spectrum of public opinion in legislation. Proportional representation has a greater voter turnout compared to plurality which results in influential public opinion.
I think that the United States should consider to move towards a proportional system and way from the current single-member plurality system. The reason for this is because it favors the Republican and Democratic parties but does not give the Third party candidates an equal chance at getting elected. By moving towards a proportional system this will help create more equality leading up to elections and actually give the Third party candidates a fighting chance while adding diversity to the parties you can chose from and what issues they stand for or against. I feel that by giving the Third party a chance to make it to the final stages of elections this would show the people that the underdog can compete with the bigger names and maintain the same chance to win as they do. The Democrat and Republican parties have been around for years and have so much support and money behind them but they also seem to both fall under stereotypical stances on certain issues. By throwing the Third party into the mix who doesn’t hold or have to fall under a strict historical stand on certain issues it allows more freedom and a whole new mixture of voters. In the end this will always be a tricky decision since by bending or changing the system to help the Third party you are now giving them the exact same thing that currently helps favor the two primary parties, it could never be completely fair to any parties no matter how you change things around.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should seek an election system based on proportional representation. Third parties are desirable because they prevent the political dialogue of the country being controlled by only a couple major political parties. Federalist Paper #10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10) can be used to justify strong "minor" parties having representation in government. Federalist #10 warns of the dangers of factions in a democracy. While it was written by James Madison to promote a republic instead of a direct democracy, connections can be made to this debate as well. In the essay, Madison states the dangers of majority factions, for they could oppress the minority factions. One of the proposed solutions was making the republic broad so that strong majority factions are less likely. By establishing a proportional election system, local and state governments will become broader by giving third parties more influence. Introducing many factions prevents a single faction, or party, from becoming too powerful. Proportional representation accomplishes this by requiring a coalition government usually as discussed in the attached article from the League of Women Voters.
ReplyDeleteImportantly though, the proportional system should allow voters to rank the candidates in the party lists as well. This enables voters to not only have a greater say in what parties are in power, but it also lets them to decide which candidates from the parties win the seats. This type of proportional representation would limit the lack of geographical representation since citizens could vote for candidates from their region. However, gerrymandering would still be limited thanks to having less districts as mentioned in class.
Creating a proportional representation election system will not create an "unstable" government, rather it will create more competitive state and local elections. Bills will most likely become harder to pass and actions harder to enact, but good government should be judged by the quality of its bills and actions, not its quantity of them. Dismantling the two party system within the United States will create a better democracy.
Lastly, as mentioned in previous posts, there is criteria used to judge the quality of election systems. An article from Harvard University (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/Choosing%20Electoral%20Systems.pdf) lists some of the criteria for judging election systems. First, the article lists "government effectiveness." Proportional representation should result in a more effective government because it will result in higher quality government that is more representative of the people. The Harvard paper also mentions "Fairness to Minor Parties." Not much detail is needed to explain that proportional representation is fairer to third parties. Then, the article discusses "The Impact on Electoral Turnout" and "The Representation of Social Groups" too. Both of these seem to be better served via proportional representation as opposed to a plurality system. In conclusion, proportional representation should be used in the United States instead of single member plurality legislative elections because it creates a more competitive government that more closely represents the population.
-Derek Hunter
I believe that single- member plurality should be replaced in the U.S. in favor of proportional representation. The United States government, under the Constitution, was created to be a democratic republic. An institution where the voices of the people were reflected in the people elected to office. In the state and local elections, the single member plurality prevents an equal representation for all.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that political parties are flawed. They no longer have clear defined lines. Some republicans vote more liberal and democrats vote conservative. The party lines no longer mean anything. I think that people should vote on ideals and platforms, and not be reigned in by arbitrary parameters of the party. People should not be forced to vote for a candidate that may reflect some of their views, but not all. They should not be only able to vote for one candidate because that is who the party elected.
The proportional representation is a better way for people of this country to have a say in the legislation of their area. They get the opportunity to pick candidates that reflect their views, instead of just voting on candidates that the party throws into the ring. proportional representation is more in line with what the original framers of the constitution imagined (in my opinion). Proportional representation is more democratic and it is better way for the citizens of the United States to be more involved in their local governments.
I feel that the single member plurality system is not as useful or "fair" for the representative democracy that the United States is running under. I feel that US should move more towards a proportional system. As the paper stated, there are advantages and disadvantages to every system that could be chosen, but in my opinion, the proportional system seems them most governmentally just.
ReplyDeleteThe single member plurality system is partial to one party and does not allow for others or third parties to voice their thoughts. Single member plurality is based on who gets the most votes. Although this sounds like it is satisfying a lot of voters, it may not always be the majority. This system makes it near impossible for the minority party to be able to win any seats in the legislature.
Proportional Representation is, according to The League of Women Voters, the most used system across the world. The United States is one of only four others countries that do not use this system. This system allows for the the percentage of votes received in the percentage of seats that party receives. It is clear that with using this system, not only in the house more diverse, but now not just one party is happy. All parties, including the most minuscule, gets some type of representation.
I feel that using a proportional representation system would not only help the legislature become more manifold, but I feel it will also increase voter turnout. With the single member plurality, the voters who are voting for the minority, know that they will not win so they will most likely not even show up to vote. If the US shifted to a proportional representation, it might make the voters feel that they have more of a voice and they might head out to the polls more. My argument here solely states that a proportional representation is better suited for the United States culture. I 100% agree with what one of my classmates wrote, stating, "it leads to a representation of a wider spectrum of public opinion in legislation."
Unlike many others in this class, I believe that the United States should not move away from a single-member plurality system. The way our system is currently devised, prevents decisions that are made out of passion. This intentional slowing of the political process requires a large majority of the citizens of this country to support an issue in order to pass legislation. As a result, legislation is passed that a larger majority will find palatable, rather than a small faction of the society.
ReplyDeleteUnlike proportional systems which often require coalitions amongst similarly constructed political parties, the single-member plurality system allows for a clear indication as to which party is in control of a given area of government. For example, the 1994, 2006, and 2010 elections all resulted in major changes to the control of Congress. This is the result of policies that the majority of Americans could no longer support. A switch in political heading like these three examples would not have been as readily possible in a proportional system, as a coalition is made up of several minority parts, rather than a clearly defined majority. This make-up makes holding particular parties accountable for their actions in governing more difficult.
Third parties are also able to rise to power and become major parties in the single-member plurality system. For example, prior to the 1850s, the Republican Party did not exist. The Republicans quickly rose to prominence and replaced the Whigs as a major party, after starting as a third party. This is an illustration of how third parties can rise to power in the American political landscape.
In sum, the single-member plurality system is the best way to hold persons in power responsible for their actions in government. It is a system that allows for quick changes in political heading as a result of elections. This system also allows for the rise of third parties that have the capacity to change the political landscape in the United States. While the single-member plurality system may not be the best system for the allowance of a high quantity of political parties, it allows for the highest quality of policy from government.
While I think the system we have now is satisfactory, I also think it can be improved and I think this can be improved by using the Proportional Voting System.
ReplyDeleteI think it can be improved by using this because third parties can now be more equally represented. Using this system, more people will feel comfortable by following their own beliefs and voting for the candidate that they feel is best for the job and supporting their preferred political party, rather than feeling as if they have to choose Republican or Democrat in order to make their vote count.
Also, I think that one of the main problems in Congress is that there is only two political parties, which means there are only two sides to every arguement, which means they will always consistently butt heads and history will repeat itself. However, if there were other parties in the House of Representatives and the Senate, there would be more different political views and Congress might be able to get things done more effectively. One major party may not always control the government.
This is why I think the Proportional Voting System might be the best system for our government.
I strongly believe in the proportional voting system for the United States. There are several factors as to why I believe this is the case, despite the flaws in the system. As recent as the 2012 presidential election, the result demonstrated how split the country is politically. There were millions who didn't vote and many who voted for a candidate that they thought was just the lesser of two evils. With the proportional voting system, third parties will be empowered even if they only have minor representation. Voters will be more inclined to vote for a candidate who best demonstrates their interests, while many Democratic and Republican candidates fail to do so for many Americans. A significant problem I have with the current single-member plurality system is that many voters don't feel as though their political ideals are being met. As mentioned in the League of Women Voters excerpt, candidates in the system tend to appeal to the public differently at different times in the election process, even going against previous stances on an issue just to gain a vote.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, voter turnout in a proportional voting system would most likely increase, which would result in a much more politically satisfied societal body. If voters have more ideological different candidates to choose from and know their vote truly counts in the results, then of course they would be more inclined to vote. Even if the candidate a voter is voting for represents a minority party, that citizen will still feel as though their political needs are being met.
Like many other students, I don't think the current system best represents the ideals of Americans. The proportional voting system allows much more choice in candidates and their ideals. Republican and Democratic candidates represent virtually opposing ideas on almost everything; politics, the economy, social programs, etc. Not every American is 100% republican or democrat with no real choice of an "in-between." All in all, the continual change in American beliefs would be best represented by a proportional voting system.
The ideal American government is one where all voices are heard and no individual belief is unrepresented where decisions are made. Unfortunately the amount of people per state doesn’t allow for every single opinion to be addressed and heard in government. Certain representation can lead to major changes in a state’s structure and strength. Single Member Plurality Systems, although they under represent third parties candidates are the only electoral system that would allow for stability in the government after the election is over.
ReplyDeleteBy using a proportional representative type electoral system, there are too many voices expressing opinion for certain topics that no actual decision making will be done in legislation. For example, if there were 100 people in a state legislature and there were 5 groups or parties of 20 people each, a decision of where a certain amount of money will go will never be reached. Dr. Berch brings up a valid point as well, by allowing many different voices to be heard and represented in legislation, proportional representation allows for single interest parties which very well could be just disruptive of governance.
An important aspect of Single Member Plurality systems is the geographic representation that it brings to government. Instead of partisan debate, each representative is working for his or her particular district, allowing for no part of that state to be left out and all problems to be heard.
I think the bottom line is that it is virtually impossible to have an electoral system that ensures everyone has their interests represented. Although Single Member Plurality elections can be said to be disadvantageous to the smaller third party candidates as well as even the minority candidates, the disadvantages to proportional representation out way the disadvantages for Single Member Plurality systems, therefore changing the electoral system could cause major disruption in government allowing for minimal accomplishment.
I believe that the U.S. needs to stay with a single-member plurality system. I see most of my classmates disagree with me. I can understand my classmates opinion because this system does cut out the third parties. In my opinion, I would rather cut out third parties than jeopardize creating single interest parties. Single interest parties are pointless because once elected their officials will only focus on one or a few issues. We need parties in Congress and State Legislature that will represent and stand for all issues that need to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteYes, proportional representation gives third parties an equal chance, but I believe it does a worse job representing the people. Districts give each distinct area an opinion in the house. Throughout a state, especially large states, the political opinions and political needs will vary widely.
Looking at the history of U.S. politics, we have almost always had a two party system. I believe the reason for this is because most arguments have two sides to them. Third parties, such as Independents, usually agree with one side on an issue and the other side for another issue. So by creating more seats of third parties in the Congress, this really would not prevent the issue of butting heads, but rather they will just take the side of Democrats on one issue and the side of Republicans on the next. Having two parties, makes voting so much simpler for the U.S. citizens. For example, when voting for a Republican you know they are most likely pro-life. By creating third parties, citizens will have to do more research to understand their platforms, which I believe this is our responsibility. But honestly how many people actually do this. America already has a problem with people not being educated about politics, adding more parties will make this problem even worse.
I believe that the U.S. should stay with the single-member plurality system. The U.S. has used it for as long as we have been around, they will more than likely never change that due to all of the problems the two major parties would see with it. They are the ones with all of the power and make the decisions, and if something like taking away the single-member plurality system will limit their representation they won't support it.
ReplyDeleteThe third party appeals to some people, but it takes away important votes, just like Ralph Nader did in Florida. Our country could possibly be in a completely different place if it was not for Nader taking away some of the votes from Gore in Florida. The proportional representation is a good idea, but I just can not see the United States completely switching over to it from the single-member plurality system. I believe that would be a better system for the U.S. but we the people are so stuck and used to a primarily two party system that people would not support it.
In order to truly represent the democracy that America strives to become, I do believe it would be a wise decision to move towards a proportional representation election process. This helps ease the impeding powers of the political party juggernauts: Republicans and Democrats. The best method I found in the League of Women Voters paper was the proportional representation option of choice voting. As described, it allows voters to rank all potential candidates in their own personal numeric order. For example, a voter would place a “1” next to their top candidate, a “2” next to their second choice and so on. Personally, I think overall this would be a great method, because it doesn’t lock you into only one candidate and yourself into a “one vote one chance” scenario. By listing your top to bottom choices, you can systematically show your political wishes. Those who receive the highest average rankings win the seats, regardless of political parties. Due to this reasoning, minor parties have a greater chance of being elected by being able to gain a portion of the rankings and votes.
ReplyDeleteThis ideology of voting is identical to instant-runoff voting. If you visit http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/instant-runoff-voting/endorsers-of-instant-runoff-voting/, you can the seemingly endless list of those who endorse this type of voting. It seems to be a popular interest among several political figureheads and groups. Interestingly, Barack Obama and John McCain, the two recent presidential candidates, have both openly expressed their desire to integrate this system into today’s election procedures.
However, there can be flaws to this system – as there are in any political reform. As the Women Voters paper stated, there would be a high cost in manufacturing and purchasing new voting equipment to allow access to this procedure. Also, since minor parties can be represented more easily –-- the easier more extreme radical groups can find their way into our legislature. Perhaps having a less cohesive legislature would make decision-making more difficult. On the other hand, having a more mixed legislature can have opinions that generally do not get the time of day heard.
- Kelsey Montgomery
I believe that the U.S. should move away from the single-member plurality system, and work towards a proportional representation system. As talked about in the League of Women Voters paper, the "winner-takes-all" system discourages minority parties and forms a two party system. Gerrymandering (dividing of the districts) takes place, and there's often wasted votes with the current single-member system. In a PR system, the amount of its seats in an office are about the same amount (percent) of the votes they had. For example, if a party wins 30% of the vote, it should receive about 30% of the seats. This is in contrast in the winner-takes-all system, where in this case, 30% would receive no representation, because they did not vote for the candidate who actually won.
ReplyDeleteI think the PR system helps with voter turnout also. Often in our elections, people may not even vote because they see the vote as being wasted. The PR system doesn't discourage third parties, because it assures representation in the legislature for them (In the sense that it's not winner-takes-all; they still get seats in proportion to their votes).
I think the elections should be moved away from the plurality system. In this system is has created a fortress against other parties having a say and participating in government giving all the power to the compromised majority. The system should be more inclusive of other people’s opinions and ideal and give better representation to those being affected by the legislation. Also in moving away from the plurality system it may make it less easy for voters to use but I think it would increase participation of many people who wouldn’t have participated previously because they didn’t think they could make any difference. As in said in the article from the League of women Voters it would encourage sincere voting of people’s actual beliefs and wants rather than compromising and voting strategically. This is important for the third parties that are currently kept out by the plurality system. A big problem for me with the plurality system is that it is not always even the one with the majority of the votes that gets elected, in the situations where the votes are majority split between other candidates and another one just happens to win out of the split vote situation. In those situations even the majority of people are losing their representation just because they don’t agree. I believe for the candidates to actually start to represent the areas they run for accurately a different more open system in necessary.
ReplyDeleteAs we see in the above article, a single-member plurality system does a poor job of representing minority groups in America and discourages third party canidates that would give these minorites a voice. Single-member plurality needs to be eliminated and replaced with a system that does not gaurentee the traditional two-party system because tradition is not always right. We are living in a country that grows in diversity and more importantly wants to appreciate that diversity. By hindering our minorities we are not presenting voters with fair options because those options have been limited. And for what? An ease of choice for other voters? Election laws should be seriously revised (not by those who created them) so that the rightful parties get on the ballots. So much of party loyalty that skews voters' opinions is straight from history when it was monetarily advantageous for an idividual to be loyal to one party over the other. Now no such loyalty exists and the problems do, so which should be the biggest factor when it comes to deciding who to vote for?
ReplyDeleteThe proportional representation system has many benefits that address the very issues my classmates and I have expressed concerns over. A proportional representation system is hands down a more democratic system, giving citizens a broader voice. As Sara Logsdon stated above, our main political strife is stemming from the war between democrats and republicans, not real social issues. We need a fresh perspective that could ease the extreme views of each side so that the U.S. may fall into some productivity. Not only would the presence of a third party help with petty feuding but it would shed light on minority groups. One of the main reasons voter turn-out is so low is due to the fact that most voters feel that they have no influence, they do not like either of the canidates so they abstain, or some of both. With a proportional representation system people may feel more encourged to go and test the limits of their influence. There could be positive and negative effects from hearing what the oppressed have to say in regards to this country, however if we refuse to listen then we may want to consider revising the Constitution.
I think that the United States should look more into moving away from the single-member plurality system because it does not allow third party candidates to have an equally fair chance when it comes to gaining votes. Although I have to say that the system is somehwhat fair because if a party cant gain votes from popularity, money, or just making the people genuinally like them, along with their potential palns for the futrue, they are the only ones at fault in that sitation. I also think that geographical representation can lead to a huge set back because as we have seen from previous elections, the represenattives seem to focus more on their particular geographic area which then leads to worthless government projects. If the US decided to move more towards a proportional representation, it might make the voters feel that they have a higher chance of winning because they would feel more conifident being able to have more of a say and more of a voice so they might feel like going to the polls is not a waste of time. I believe that a proportional representation is the best bet for the United States. I agree with some of my class mates who have stated that it will lead to a wider public opinion and gain. I always think that all ideas and suggestions of the people and canidates are the most important to have a functional election.
ReplyDeleteI believe third parties could be strong and present a decent opposition in an election if they could find more power to promote and present themselves tot he population of voters. However, the way the system functions currently, the gain of any power is extremely difficult for third party candidates. As for single member plurality system with focus so zoned in on individuals as opposed to a wide range of issues. This system was much more effective when time were different and not nearly as advanced in this new era. I do believe the government should move away from the way it is currently and into a move open system. If opportunities were more abundant in the political spectrum, third parties could make serious changes in the current government powers. I believe if these changes were made by increasing the power of third party candidates, things such a government funding, and over all campaign could reach much higher goals. The current system is two traditionalistic in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI, like the majority of my classmates, agree that the US should move away from single member plurality legislative elections. However, I don’t agree with my classmates who think that proportional representation is the better alternative for a democratically oriented nation. Instead, I think instant run-off voting is a better choice for promoting democracy while still encouraging third-party participation. As stated in the League of Women Voters paper, “One characteristic of a good election system is ensuring majority rule. This decision-making principle is one of the cornerstones of democratic government”. IRV, like single member plurality elections, is also a plurality-majority election system. In this system, however, a candidate must win the majority of votes in order to win the election. This way, voters who like two candidates almost equally, can reflect their preference in the ranking of their votes; a candidate with a minority of votes can’t win just because the majority of votes are split between two similar opponents.
ReplyDeleteA system like instant run-off voting that encourages third-parties to run in elections is a good thing. In the class lecture about third-parties, Professor Berch discussed how our current single member plurality system places these candidates at an unfair disadvantage. For example, under our current election system, a voter who identifies with both a Democrat or Republican candidate and a third-party candidate must choose to cast their vote for one of the two. Historically, third-party candidates lose votes because constituents think that their vote won’t count as much if they use it on a third-party candidate. This discouragement of third-parties can be solved through the implementation of instant run-off voting. Under this system, the aforementioned voter can show her/his support of both the candidates by ranking them as her/his first and second choices. This method more clearly reflects a populations’ preference for various candidates, including third-parties.
In addition to encouraging third-party candidates to run in elections, commoncause.org describes two other major benefits of IRV that our current system is lacking. One, voters will more likely participate in elections because ranking choices allows them to feel like their vote really does count. Two, politicians will be less likely to run negative campaigns because there isn’t a “winner takes all” mentality. Even if they aren’t a voter’s first choice, politicians can receive their second, third, fourth, etc. vote by remaining civil and focusing on real issues, rather than bashing down their opponents (http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQI
wG&b=4849119).
Overall, single member plurality elections are seriously lacking in their effectiveness to choose a candidate of the people. Instead, it discourages third-parties, promotes negative campaigning, and discourages voter participation. While no election system is perfect, an instant run-off election can solve some of the major problems the US has with its current system.
I believe that third parties could be extremely strong and could pose a decent threat to the two major parties. I think if third parties could promote themselves better and find a way to reach out to the public better, then I think they could have some sort of impact. As the system is today, it would be extremely hard to have a third party succeed.
ReplyDeleteI find this Single-member plurality system a little faulty in a sense. There is almost always a member from congress who gets elected from one of the two major parties. The system doesn't give third parties a chance to have a voice in anything it seems like. The system should be more inclusive of other people’s opinions and ideal and give better representation to those being affected by the legislation. I agree with some of my class mates who have mentioned that it will lead to a wider public opinion and gain, but I think with this system the third party will never have a chance in any election. I always think that all ideas and suggestions of the people and canidates are the most important to have a functional election.
I have a tendency to believe that even there are holes in the system that the US should continue to use the single-member plurality system. Using proportional representation would open up the floor for different views and interests, it would only open up interests for small groups of people to be heard rather than a majority.
ReplyDeleteAlso as David mentioned above 3rd parties do rise to power. Such as the republican party replacing the Whigs as the other major party. I believe that having two major parties is more effective when it comes to policies and decision making. Providing equal representation for a third party in my opinion will just create more problems and conflicts throughout districts.
Also as Sara stated above that each side both republican and democrats have opposing opinions and a third party will agree in some areas of one party, but disagree with some as well. Providing that middle ground would make voting much more difficult in my mind, and providing dominantly two choices makes the whole process much simpler. Is there pros and cons with both single-member plurality and proportional representation? Yes, but I do believe that the US has established itself as the greatest country in the world using the single-member plurality voting system and it should remain in this way. Also as Sara stated there is a huge problem with people voting without being educated about who they are voting for, and what they represent. I believe that adding representation will worsen this problem as well.
Being from a quite liberal small town in Vermont, I strongly believe that the US should steer away form The Single Member Plurality system. The concepts that come along with this system as mentioned above of by other students. “Winner takes all”, “Safe seats”, and “Gerrymandering”. Are all troubling concepts to me that do not represent democracy? To me it has become almost sickening the fact our political system and representatives are mainly driven by gaining economic power. The people who are “representing” the average American, According to data collected from personal financial disclosure forms filed by all members of Congress and candidates who succeeded at the polls in November, the median net worth of the 94 incoming lawmakers at the end of 2011 was $1,066,515. The most recent numbers available from the U.S. Census show that the median net worth of the typical American household is $66,740.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.census.gov/2012/06/18/changes-in-household-net-worth-from-2005-to-2010/
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/new-congress-new-and-more-wealth.html
In addition, Single Member Plurality voting limits the American people in their choice of candidates. As we learned in class parties are really becoming a thing of the past and that interest groups are what really are starting to have more influence than ever. With the two major parties in the US trying to cater to interest groups on both ends of the spectrum what issues/ interests are actually getting addressing and represented in the fashion that they should be in order to “ represent” the American people as a whole. With a proportional representation system it would allow for the percentage of votes received in the percentage of seats that party receives. Diversity will skyrocket with this system, making it more likely that a fair proportion of each party/ interest group is represented. With fair representation I personally believe that social issues that have been trying to be addressed could be approach in a new fashion due to the more diverse representation. I do understand where a few other students are coming from when they argue that switching to a Proportional representative system would cause disturbance in government allowing for minimal accomplishment. I agree that at first it will be difficult for our government to adjust to the new vast range of representatives and be able to pass legislation. But I argue that it is a struggle we should be willing to take on in order to achieve fair representation and start to more toward this great “Democracy” we as Americans pride ourselves on.
Although I tend to believe a single-member plurality system would be a better system, my belief gets tossed to the side when I consider the large-scale legalized fixing of elections. The idea of fixing elections may seem farfetched, but if you were to look at elections in the United States a certain way, this is easy to be understood. For example, gerrymandering has simply disenfranchised voters from their power to elect whom they want to represent them. As you stated in your original post, this practice can be controversial and favors one party. I, however, am willing to go further and couch for the idea that gerrymandering districts by legislatures takes simple voting rights away from people in certain areas due to the fixing of districts to make sure a certain candidate wins. A democratic legislature may change the lines to combine a large democratic county and a smaller republican county who used to vote a republican every year. Now, the votes from the republicans are simply wasted due to the population of the democratic county. This lack of a simple right to Americans is enough to make me feel as though single member plurality is wrong.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I believe single member plurality is wrong for America, I still believe it is the right system if human instinct to rig elections was not in play. The move towards the center of the country by both parties seems very reasonable to me, however corporate interests in Washington have submerged any interest in this. Even the president of the United States has been affected by this. Leading up to the elections, President Obama was called everything from a communist to a socialist to an atheist and at the same time a jihadist Muslim (I still haven’t figured this one out). And yet, he has done nothing to reform the corruption affecting this system of politics and has in fact added to it. Recently, he has supported the Trans-Pacific Pact, which would allow corporations to sue countries for taking away rights. Without single member plurality, these absurd actions may be harder to take place.
So begrudgingly, I believe a proportional representation system should work best in the current state of the U.S. This would have an impact due to the fact some people would be able to get into Congress without being corrupted by large sums of money and the American people would have better choices. Third parties in America seem close to nonexistent and this would certainly strengthen them. I do worry however, about certain groups who seem undesirable gaining power due to small offsets of the population ganging together to vote in extremists. For example, in Greece’s 2012 election, neo-Nazis won 7% of the vote and gained 21 of the 300 seats. This however, comes with the territory of allowing third parties more control. Although this is a risk, I believe changing the U.S.’s system of electorate from single-member plurality to proportional representation would do much to fix the problems in politics plaguing the nation today.
The central theoretical criticisms of single-member plurality election systems like that in the U.S. are that minor parties are often excluded, leaving segments of the population without a voice in their governance, the “winner take all” component results in significant “wasted votes,” leaving segments of the population not represented in government at all, and parties end up with disproportionately more or less seats than the results of the popular vote. Majority vote may not necessarily result in majority rule. Voter turnout is relatively low, and candidates are elected with only 50%-60% of voters actually voting, likely partly because some voters feel disenfranchised, knowing their votes will be wasted. Minor parties or “third parties” are at a disadvantage and have significant barriers to being represented in the election process, often lacking the financial backing and media exposure enjoyed by the major political parties and excluded in debates widely viewed by the voting public. Additionally, in our system, minorities, including women and racial minorities, are underrepresented. These issues certainly cause us to question whether or not our election system is just and characteristic of a good election system and what our Founding Fathers envisioned.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for a move toward some form of proportional elections is compelling and addresses the problems of our single-member plurality system. Minor parties are not only represented but encouraged. More voters have a voice and more voters participate because they can vote their first-choice candidate and not “the lesser of two evils”. The paper cites voter participation in proportional elections can be as much as 80%-90% and voter participation in the U.S. would likely increase 10%-12% with a move to proportional elections. Because minor parties have a real chance to win elections, their candidates can attract more campaign funds, attract more media attention, and would be seen as worthy to include in public political debates. Minorities are also noted to be more fairly represented.
The biggest obstacle for a move to proportional elections is government destabilization. Because minor parties are represented, there are sometimes too many divergent interests at work at the same time. Minor parties may be singularly focused on a cause or issue, disinterested in truly governing, and may not necessarily advocate for the “common good”. Small extremist parties gaining power and disrupting or destabilizing the government are also a concern. In 2013, Israel had 32 minor parties in the election, with voters electing 12 minor parties into the government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Israel). Minor parties in a proportional system are forced to form coalitions because each individual party does not carry enough voting power to effect the changes or the issues they want. While coalitions can be seen as legislators coordinating and compromising with each other, coalitions can result in “super majorities”, which don’t reflect the voting will of the majority of the voters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation). Coalitions are often not permanent and shifts in alliances can cause wide swings in policies and laws, also threatening the stability of governments. Additionally, segments of the voting population can be ignored. These can include those in a particular geographic area, those with minority interests, or the poor.
The proportional representation voting system would be a better choice for the United States compared to the single-member plurality voting system. The League of Women Voters reading discusses how the U.S. government is one of the four democracies out of 21 that are not using proportional representation. The U.S. needs to update their government system to better represent the U.S. citizens by choosing a system that allows of multi-member districts (page 4 of the reading). This would mean that the political parties would get only the percentage of seats that they were voted such as the 30% of seats example that the reading used. This could potentially lead to disagreements at first, but if this system is working effectively for 17 other governments then the U.S. should be able to adapt. This type of government would allow for voters to feel less pressured to chose someone they do not agree with just so that the person they really doesn't get elected (such as Mr. Berch was saying in class).
ReplyDeleteI believe that the proportional representation would allow for third party candidates to make their way into the important government positions. This would be a good thing for the people who do not like the democrats or the republicans. They would be able to choose the candidate that best represents their views instead of choosing the less of the two evils as previously discussed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe the US should move away from the Single Member Plurality system and move toward a proportional representation system. Although this would be almost impossible to do so now since we use the SMP for so long. However, I feel a PR system would benefit the US system greatly.
ReplyDeleteA major problem I have with our current system is the recycling of leaders from one of our two parties and with each new candidate it seems we are getting the same leaders no matter which party they come from. This causes entrenchment of these two parties and often stalemates that leads to no progress. Since these two parties know it is only them that can gain power they turn into catch-all parties that only care about winning elections and getting votes. This leads to many promises and side changing in order to appeal to more people to get the win.
In a PR system parties now have to become more accountable for their actions due to high party numbers and a more wide range of possibilities for voters to chose from. This will lead to smaller parties who represent the minorities to have a say and influence policy. it will also lead to more coalitions between major and minor parties which in its own sense is democratic and makes parties and their candidates prove what they say rather than say what you want to hear to make sure they get re-elected.
A PR system makes the games candidates and parties play obsolete. redistricting becomes unneeded, the quality of candidates would rise because each party would make sure of this since the power is in the hands of more parties and more options for better leaders.
To me, the idea that we can only chose two candidates that are from entrenched parties that prove every election cycle that they are willing to say whatever to gain power is unsettling. If we adopted a new system that allows for the peoples to chose who gains power, it will only benefit our country. There are disadvantages to a PR system as pointed out in the essay from the League of Women Voters, however the disadvantages to a two party winner take all system is a system of entrenchment, catch all candidates, and stagnation that is evident in the current governments shut downs, stalemates, inability to get anything done and etc.. If there were more parties and candidates to chose from that really resonate with voters, it would lead to more accountability and more production in government and our society.
http://prfound.org/basics/benefits-of-pr/
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/22271/pros-and-cons-proportional-representation
I believe we should have proportional representation. This way everyone has a say in something. Everyone's opinion matters which is what the government should focus on. Although the third party is not popular, they should be. People look as voting for the third party a "waste" and it is not because they are the representation of majority of the United States and their issues. They are the voice of those who are neither Republican or Democrat. This will give the chance of third parties to earn their votes. The more they do and accomplish will help their outcome in voting for the next election, then there will be more third party seats. However, if there is proportional representation they still must focus on all districts they are representing. That way everyone is thought of and their issues. The more the parties can fix, the more there voters will vote for them the next elections. The makeup of the legislature will be in proportion to the concerns of the people. Everyone will get their fair coverage and debates. Proportional representation would be more democratic. The ballots would be more fair with more options to choose from. All political concepts should be valued rather than just the candidate who is most "fit".
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that at one time in the United States single member plurality elections did work, when the majority of the nation fell under very similar categories with similar needs and interests. In todays culture with more and more different cultures flooding into the country I think that proportional representation would be a tremendous idea, even if these members only got a few seats in the house that is better then nothing and hopefully over the next few years they can gain more seats which would then give them even more power. Just as the paper says the United states is one of the four out of twenty one democracies not using the proportional representation system, obviously it is working in other countries. The proportional representation system would make people feel less pressured while voting, they wont feel like there wasting their vote even though that who they truly want to be representing them. I think that this is the only way for the smaller yet still important third parties to get their voices heard.
ReplyDeleteBrendan Durkee
I do agree with my classmates that the U.S. does need to move away from the single member plurality legislative elections. Although, I do believe that we should move in the direction of the instant run-off voting (IRV) I believe there are many benefits to this system that could help change the voting direction in a positive way.
ReplyDeleteThe IRV system is obviously working for other countries I don’t see how the US could be any different. Although, it may be unfamiliar to many voters it would be an easy fix to change the way voters view elections. If counting votes seems too difficult I believe that putting extra money into machines and computers to make this type of voting easy and possible is just what the US needs to do in order to sustain a safe and reliable way for citizens to cast their “fair” vote.
I think this type of voting system is great because a voter can still cast a vote for a candidate who isn’t likely to win. This then gives the voter another chance to vote for their next candidate option. I defiantly understand how this type of voting may help eliminate negative campaigns by giving every candidate a chance to win and if one does show disrespectful behavior they would be losing voters.
I believe that it is time for the United States to move away from the single-member plurality system of voting in state and local elections. This system makes it nearly impossible for any third party to get recognition. Especially in politics today, many Americans are fed up with both the Republican and Democratic parties, but with the way our voting system works, we aren't left with many options. I feel as if a choice voting system would be extremely beneficial to state and local elections, both partisan and nonpartisan. The choice voting system would allow for several candidates to be on the ballot, making it easier for a third party to be on the ballot. It also allows voters to cross party lines. A voter should not be forced to vote strictly within their party. Choice voting also minimizes the "wasted votes". Without Republicans and Democrats influencing voters to not waste their vote, there would be more support for a third party candidate come election day. This way, voters can support a candidate based on party, geography, ethics, moral values, and several other things. Most importantly, it will allow for a third party to gain strength and be elected into office.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that the US should move away from single member plurality legislative elections. Addressing Dr. Berch's comments on the disadvantages of this system, gerrymandering is a common practice and I think the party in control at the time should be able to draw districts as they see fit. It is not necessary for parties to take strong stands on issues because, besides making the distinction between the two parties clearer, polarization of the parties themselves is almost useless. I say this because people don't vote for an actual party, but they vote for who they perceive to be the most qualified candidate in that situation and technically that person could represent either party. I also have no problem with the majority party having most of the power because winning the election allows them to do so. This country was built on monopolies and the majority party could almost be considered a monopoly on power.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that a system which encourages third parties is a bad thing, however, I am not in favor of such a system. Third parties are "third" for a reason: either they do not possess they capital or the name recognition to be highly regarded by the public or to campaign aggressively enough to compete with majority parties. Voters should feel free to vote however they wish, but if they really want to have a voice in government, it is more logical to vote for a majority party candidate. This makes the idea of wasted votes a big issue. According to the reading, wasted votes causes voter apathy and some people do not have any representation if the candidate they voted for does not win. I do agree that it is a problem for people's interests not to be represented, but perhaps there is some provision that could account for that. Elimination of third parties could possibly cause people to identify more with majority candidates, even though this would not necessarily remedy this issue of representation.
I do not think the United States should completely move away from single member plurality legislative elections in favor of true proportional representation. While it would be great for every minority and every interest group to have a voice and a party all of their own, it would cause too much conflict between the parties and make it even harder for the legislative bodies to come to agreements. I understand that the single member plurality system is not perfect, it makes it very hard for third parties to win elections because it encourages voters to view voting for third parties as wasting their vote. This system also allows for one political party to hold majority of the power, leaving a lot of people’s opinions, needs and wants unrepresented. The single member plurality system also causes candidates to take a neutral stance on many topics in order to appeal to the most amounts of people. However, I don’t think that way of thinking is always a bad thing. Sometimes siding with “the lesser of the two evils” is how you get things done. I think that the two main political parties allow for just enough minority representation, for instance liberal republicans and conservative democrats. I think that a true proportional representation system would lead to a different political party for every issue. Having so many different political parties being represented almost equally would make it very hard for the legislatures to come to agreements and make decisions. It would most likely result in the legislatures wasting even more time arguing since there would be too many conflicting opinions. Compromising on issues, or picking the candidate who supports almost everything you believe in, is how legislatures get things done and move forward. It is also how life works, sometimes you don’t always get everything you want. While the single member plurality system is far from perfect, I still think that it allows the states’ legislative bodies to make decisions in a faster and more efficient way than a proportional representation system would.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the instant run-off voting system that was discussed in the League of Women Voters' paper may be a better election system than the single member plurality system. According to the paper, an IRV election allows voters to rank the candidates in their order of preference. On a paper or computer ballot voters mark 1 after the name of their first choice, 2 for their second choice, etc. IRV provides a majority winner in one election and it encourages sincere voting because voters who support a third party candidate who is likely to loose can still vote for them, but know that their vote isn’t wasted because even if their first choice is eliminated their vote count for their second choice. This system gives third party candidates a better chance of winning, but it wouldn’t allow too many different parties to be represented since the candidates still need a majority vote and there is only one winner per election.
Most states in the US use the Single member pluarilty system over the proportional representation system and I think that is the right thing to do for several reasons. Single Member plurality systems are basically a winner take all system, it is easier to know who is in charge and also easier for them to get things done due to the fact that one person can do things more easily then say five ppl. Professor Berch mentions that single member plurality systems have a disadvantage that each geographic area is represented by one member and that member is only looking out for that district rather then looking out for the greater good which is true, however, I think that in single member districts members are looking out for their geographic areas but they can also look out for the greater good if they work together through gerrymandering and redistricting so that other areas can be represented equally. I think that there are to many disadvantages of the proportional representation
ReplyDeleteSuch as "wasted votes" as mentioned in the article, with single member plurality systems no votes go to waste but in the proportional representation system votes actually do go to waste and could decrease voter turnout if ppl knew that their vote was wasted. Also, if 10 ppl are in one part of legislature but have different ideas of what they want to get done you wont be able to see any change due to the fact that their is no one specifically in charge. i think that a third party system is not worth it. America has always been a two party system and I agree with Derek when he says that they are a "third" party for a reason because they do not have enough capital or resources to actually become a full fledge party and make a difference. If it works their is no need to fix it.
Firstly, I believe the "winner-takes-all" system is incredibly flawed because it puts the power with one single party, and that does not necessarily mean that that particular party is going to get things done. There have been many times when we've had a president who belonged to one party, and a house of representatives that mostly belonged to the opposing party. In this case, just the opposite of what you said was true - they didn't get much done. In cases where both powers are in the same party, perhaps they do get more accomplished, but think about who they are representing - just their one party. And who's to say that everything they "accomplish" can't be undone by the next elected official? Also, perhaps there are no "wasted votes" with the single member plurality system because it so discourages third parties, the geographically disadvantaged, and minority groups that they do not even come out to vote? Also, I do not think it's necessarily true that third parties can't make a difference because of their lack of capital or resources. The system we have in place makes no room for third parties, and in fact, as mentioned in class, encourages voters that third party votes are, as you mentioned, "wasted votes." But if it was not this way, couldn't it be possible that third parties would be more likely to gain support, resources, capital, and even make a difference? A lack of resources should by no means discredit the views of the majority, which in many cases are independent and third party voters.
DeleteAs most of my colleagues stated I believe that the United States should moves away from single member plurality legislative elections and adapt the proportional representation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are advantages and disadvantages to this transition, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Two disadvantages that influenced my decision are the impossibility of third party candidates, this was stated in the League of Women Voters paper. In Wednesday's lecture we learned that third parties have trouble gaining votes because the individuals are unknown, lack funding, or do not receive media coverage. These difficulties are hard for third parties to overcome and should not determine if they are elected or not. The second disadvantage I found alarming was stated by Professor Berch in the blog post, representatives focus on their geographic area and not the common good. Proportional representation focuses on multi-member districts rather than electing one member of the legislature per district.
As I stated, proportional representation should be employed, just as it is in 17 of the 21 developed democracies. I like the idea of third party members being represented, with a proportional representation people will be more likely to consider the third party views rather than feeling like they are just wasting their vote.
I completely agree with Brittany Jackson's views about the frustration with the Republican and Democratic parties and the benefits of a choice voting system.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe electoral system has many different possibilities that are all structured differently. However, I don’t believe that there will ever be a perfect structure for our country. There are pros and cons to every system, yet some seem more suitable for some countries than others. The single member plurality system, also known as the “winner-takes all system”, promotes a two-party system where minority parties don’t stand a chance. I feel that the U.S. should move away from single member plurality and begin using proportional representation, specifically mixed-member proportional (MMP). This voting system is used in New Zealand and Germany. MMP allows for more diverse representation, prevents minority rule, and is Gerrymandering free.
MMP attempts to combine a single-member district system with a proportional voting system. In a mixed-member proportional system each voter has two votes. Note that this example has a 50-50 balance between voting districts and party lists, countries use variations of proportions. This example is also a very short summary of a complex system. The first vote goes for a district representative, similar to the single member district plurality that is currently used in the United States. The highest vote getter wins that seat. If there were 100 possible seats, these votes would fill half of the seats, leaving 50 remaining seats. The second vote casted is for a particular political party. This vote determines how many seats each party will get of the remaining seats. Parties usually must meet a threshold of votes. Ex) if party A receives 2% of the votes, they will receive one seat.
MMP allows for proportional representation but also gives constituents district representatives. Minority parties will now be able to achieve a say in legislature and further grow in result. I agree with many of my peers that proportional representation would be better for the United States and their views that parties are not as concrete as they once were. As Ms. Bignell stated in her blog, “Some republicans vote more liberal and democrats vote conservative. The party lines no longer mean anything.” MMP would make parties stronger by creating more of them. Parties are not as strong because people are more moderate than ever and don’t know what party they should belong to. By introducing more parties and allowing proportional representation, people won’t be forced to be left of right, but instead determine where they really stand. People will have more pride in saying they belong to the libertarian or green party.
I believe that the U.S. should move away from the single member plurity system and start using the proportional system. This could give 3rd parties a more fair chance, and gain more support for their campaign. Many people dont always agree with the two main parties, but ultimately have to side with one of them because their isnt a 3rd party that is represented effectively or has the support to overcome the Republican and Democratic party. Maybe if 3rd parties weremore popular, it would increase voter turn out.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the traditional single member plurality system is corrupt in the sense that it gives 3rd parties slim to no chance of winning the percentage of the vote. It prevents representation, and I feel it was made for local elections rather than state elections. The proportional system is justified to ensure the majority of America is represented by a candidate of our choosing instead of a candidate who won an election without the most votes.
As far as The League of Women Voters paper, it shows ways the American election system should be viewed. It includes how states should allow same day registration. This would add up to more voters, and a better outcome. Another review that was made was gerrymandering, which is the practice that state legislatures can manipulate district boundaries to create partisan advantage for their incumbent. This will take power away from political offices and give it to other people. Lastly, it reviews how money has always been based on the fact that individuals, corporations, and labor unions are allowed to give ultimate amounts of money into the election process. I feel there should be a cap on how much money can be spent on campaigns.
I agree with most of my classmates that the US should shift toward the proportional system . There are more advantages than disadvantages for this system to work.
ReplyDeleteI believe that third parties should have more representation in our government. Most people label themselves as a Republican or Democrat and not a Independent. By switching to this new system it gives third parties more opportunity. If candidate Bob Smith wins 27% of the vote, he will still have some way of representing the third party.
As in the League of Women Voters Paper, it gives many example on how the proportional system will be beneficial. Having same day registration and gerrymandering of some topics that the paper discussed. Having same day registration will increase voter turn out, as we learned in lecture and give third parties more of a chance to win. Gerrymandering give less power to political offices and more power to others. Also, money is always a huge issue in the political world and I think that each party should have a set limit on what they are allowed to spend to make the election equal as possible.
The only disadvantage I see with switching away from the single member plurality system is that it will take time. All states must agree for this change to happen, and it will take a lot for this kind of shift to partake.
But, overall I think we should change to the proportional system to give third parties the voice that needs to be heard. People are too label as a Republican or Democrat and no third member party is ever mentioned.
Like many of my classmates, I do believe that the United States should move away from the Single Member plurality legislative elections. As of right now as we learned in class, third parties get little recognition. Although including the third party might cause much more disagreement between the varying parties, proportional representation would ensure the voters that they are not wasting their vote by not voting for the republican or democrat candidate in election. I read in the comments that many people are Independent. I believe that there are way more independents out there than we think there are. Proportional representation would aim to ensure that it is fair for everyone. A voter should have more than two options. Voting would be honest and the voters would not have to choose "The lesser of two evils." because a third party could represent their views better than a republican or democrat. I also agree with the paper saying that every state should allow same day registration. I believe that it would greatly increase voter turn out. By moving to proportional representation and allowing same day voting registration I believe our country would largely increase the voter turnout.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to the class lecture and reviewing some of my peers comments I believe that the U.S. should favor proportional representation over single member plurality. The proportional representation system is to make sure that the majority of Americans are represented within our country.. I believe a candidate of their choosing should represent them instead of a candidate who may or may not have received the most votes. Something I found interesting in Marcus Cliffords blog post about the pros of proportional representation was, “specifically mixed-member proportional (MMP). This voting system is used in New Zealand and Germany. MMP allows for more diverse representation, prevents minority rule, and is Gerrymandering free.”
ReplyDeleteThe League of Women Voters paper brought up ways in which the American election system could possibly be fixed. The first review I strongly agree with is that states should allow same day registration when a person comes to his or her polling place. Same day registration would allow the individual to voice his or her opinion without having to worry about not getting to vote. This would also bring more voters to the election resulting in a better more exact election. The second review is that money in elections has been based on the fact that individuals, labor unions and corporations are allowed to give unlimited amounts of money into the elections process. I think its only right to monitor how much money these outside sources are bringing in. The third review is gerrymandering which are the practices that state legislatures can manipulate district boundaries to create partisan advantage for their incumbent. This can be fixed by reducing the power of the state legislature so that they cant manipulate the district boundaries to give their incumbent a better chance of winning. This will take power away from the political office and give other people the chance to win instead of the same person being voted in over and over again.
Lastly, I believe we should adopt a closed election, which would ensure that no party could manipulate another party's votes, which would ultimately decrease the power of parties. Being a closed election system means that people have to register ahead of time to vote so its less likely that votes can be manipulated and it doesn’t allow for someone to be voted in who shouldn’t be there.
I think the United states should try to move away from single member plurality rule. As the reading says, Many votes in single member plurality elections are considered to be " wasted" by many political scientists. Republicans in overwhelmingly democratic areas often feel their vote is a waste and vise versa
ReplyDelete. Moving away from single member plurality can open opportunities for third parties to emerge and represent voters that feel their needs were not met by the candidate who received the most number of votes. I agree with many of my classmates in that many voters are often frustrated in having to chose between the same two parties in every election, Often the two major parties do not represent many peoples interests. Obviously third parties face a variety of difficulties in gaining funding and media attention, however i think these challenges can be overcome and moving away from single member plurality can do a better job at representing more peoples interests.
I believe that Americans are creatures of habitat. With the system that we currently have, I am not too sure that American voters will be in favor of electing a third party candidate; predominately in a presidential election. Gaining power and name recognition is difficult for third party candidates. The single member plurality system is not entirely focused on a wide range of issues and tends to focus on individuals. I believe that we should revise our current system in order to increase voter turnout and votes for third party candidates. I think that the new system should be more focused on a range of different issues so citizens will be encouraged to vote. Voters would think that their vote matters because they are voting on an issue compared to voting for a person to take care of the issues. Our current system is traditionalistic (democrat/republican) and I think it would be better to have a more moralistic system. As I learned in class today, moralistic systems have a higher percentage of voter turn out. Overall, the US government should move away from the current system and provide proportional representation for candidates. Americans would benefit from third party candidates but with the system that we currently possess voters believe that their vote for a third party candidate is a waste. Americans should be able to vote with confidence for whichever candidate they think would perform best.
ReplyDeleteThe question of, "Should the US move away from single member plurality legislative elections?" is difficult to tackle. Government officials can't agree on where to make budget cuts let alone how to overhaul the American voting system. However for the sake of the argument, I feel that the IRV system of majority voting would be more efficient than the single member plurality system.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of my classmates seem to support the PR system for reasons of giving third, fourth, and so on parties active representation in government. From an idealist standpoint, this seems all fair and well, but there is one major problem. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, gridlock is the top reason Americans are critical of Congress, and that is only with two parties, imagine if there were several parties how bad political gridlock would be. It would be even more difficult to pass any sort of legislation regardless of the topic.
In the League of Women Voters article the advantages to an IRV system are things such as it encourages "sincere" voting and it discourages negative campaign ads. Imagine a political elections where the parties talk about what they plan to do to help the people instead of attacking their adversary. Again, this will more than likely never happen, but it does provoke thought. The only disadvantages according to the article are that the administrators may not want to hand count the vote as it would have all of the candidates numbered from most preferred to least preferred. When compared to the benefits of higher voter turnout, more choice for voters, and less wasted votes, this drawback is truly minute. Like our classmate Rachel Duryea said, "Americans like simplicity." Simply numbering their favorite candidates in order gives them much more flexibility in their voter choice, something they can all appreciate.
I think that the US should move toward Semi-Proportional Voting because it keeps some of the guidelines of Single Member Plurality and also bring about some from other forms of legislative elections including Proportional Representation. I believe that Single Member Plurality has many advantages, primarily the idea that the candidate with the most votes wins. This is essential because the citizens should have say in who is going to be representing them.
ReplyDeleteHowever I do not think it is fair that this method makes it extremely difficult for third party candidates to win an election. The major party candidates heavily influence voters by discouraging them, stating that their vote wont contribute since the third party candidate isn’t well known. In Semi-Proportional voting, minorities are given a better chance at winning votes.
It also allows voters to rank the candidates, and they can vote for their desired candidate as many times as they want (according to the number of seats that need to be filled.) I feel that this is an advantage because voters can place more votes with the candidate that they feel is the best for the job, rather than ranking them in order. It also gives the voter the opportunity to place all of their votes in a third party candidate, which in turn results in the voter feeling like their third party vote contributed, and was not a wasted vote. This allows the minor/third parties to gain more votes and have a better chance in the election versus the outcomes of a Single Member Plurality election.
While this is the least common voting method used in the United States, National Voting right advocates have shown a growing interest. It is used in some towns in the South, but has not been adopted by the United States yet. I strongly feel that this would be the best voting method for the United States citizens due to its combinations of the Single Member Plurality advantages, and the Proportional Representation advantages. In turn it also helps eliminate both of the other election styles disadvantages, creating a compromising election strategy.
The argument on whether the US should move away from the single member plurality election system is a question of whether the US is living up to the democracy it promises to American citizens. In order to ensure equality to republicans, democrats, and the third party candidates, moving towards proportional representation is ideal. This type of system should be employed to work effectively in America as it does in many other countries and would ensure complete democracy.
ReplyDeleteControversy over whether a system (like proportional representation) that encourages third parties is a good thing or bad thing is always up in the air but a system like single member plurality does not go hand in hand with the history and equality of our country. As seen in the League of Woman Voters article, single member plurality is defiantly not a good system and a complete burden on third parties. The article touches on the issue of gerrymanding and the idea of “safe seats” which gives favor to the major party. A majority of Americans think that the government we have had like the single member plurality is a reliable form of government but are not reading in between the lines. This type of system is total bias and puts restrictions on our freedom of speech. Not only is this system unfair but was put into place in a time where the states wanted it to be hard for it’s citizens to vote and everyone shared similar ideas and views.
America is a country where everyone has an opinion with so much diversity and opposing views. To ensure equality proportional representation is a good shift. This would be a good change for a number of reasons. One, citizens would be able to chose who is sitting in their government and not just someone who was elected because they were in the most popular party. Two, there would be a higher voting rate and no votes would be wasted. Majority of people that don't vote are persuaded by the major candidates and think it will be a waste of time so their voices and opinions aren't heard. This shift in government would help secure those votes and give them representation. This government also eliminates gerrymandering and also not completely split our country.
In essence, I personally think this system could really help the manipulation that single member plurality system puts on voting and third parties. Proportional representation will encourage more votes and ideas to the states and the country as a whole. As Bill Clinton would say, “keep our old democracy forever young.”
Along with seemingly the rest of my classmates, I am also a proponent of the United States moving toward a system based on proportional representation as opposed to single member plurality. Quite frankly, I believe that a single member plurality system contradicts the governmental values of democracy that our Founding Fathers described in the Constitution. In order for elections at all levels to be as fair as possible, there must be more than just the two traditional political parties, Democrats and Republicans, being represented. However, as stated in the prompt for this blog assignment and during Professor Berch's lectures, third parties face numerous problems in breaking through to their desired population.
ReplyDeleteTo reiterate, political representation is determined by a district's popular vote in a single member plurality system. Thus, it is common for major party candidates to attempt (and often succeed) to convince citizens to not "waste" their votes. For example, many Democrats blame Ralph Nader and those that voted for him for the election of George W. Bush, and not Al Gore, in Florida's 2000 Presidential Election. Democrats were obviously frustrated with a seemingly irrelevant nominee appearing on the ballot and eventually "stealing" votes away from the Gore campaign. While I can personally sympathize with the Democrats in a scenario such as this, I still believe that a third party candidate creates necessary diversity within an election and can serve as a sort of middle ground on the issues voters are concerned with. Also, voter turnout is likely to be higher if a district's population believes that a third party candidate actually stands a chance to win in the election.
I find it to be very unfortunate and more importantly, un-democratic, that third parties in the United States face the problems and restrictions that they do. Whether it be notoriety (rare public donations due to predictions of failure), publicity (debate participation typically determined by Republicans and Democrats; debate viewership [potential free publicity] determined by candidates' popularity), or election laws and administration (requirements to appear on ballots are very stringent; Republican and Democratic legislators often will not approve campaigns such as signature petitions due to increased competition), third parties have always been significantly disadvantaged in comparison to their Republican and Democratic oppositions. The very thought of a much more fair, proportional representation system should be widely appealing to the average American voter. Its alignment with our Constitutional values and core beliefs of equal representation in government make the single member plurality system seem extremely outdated. Hopefully, within a few years, this electoral system will become universal and privilege voters and their respective candidates alike so that our democracy can truly function the way it was previously hypothesized.
I think that the U.S. should move to the Proportional Representation and move away from Single Member Plurality. We are a country that believes everyone should have a chance to be heard and I believe having a proportional representation system would do just that. This type of representation would make sure that the majority of our citizens in America are being heard and not just based on money but based on what they want for the country and what candidate they feel would represent them and their family in the best way. This is a better type of representation then having a candidate basically chosen for them who maybe got the most votes and a candidate who has won based on popularity, money, and on the the fact that they are representing a specific party. A big factor is money and how it comes down to who can have the biggest and most expensive campaign. Whoever can have the best campaign has a very high chance of winning. That is not a way to have a election and chose someone to run our country. I think that the proportional system is the change we need to make in the U.S. and I believe that many Americans would agree and would want a third party candidate rather then choosing the best candidate from the republican side or democratic side. If we did change the voting system third parties would have a better chance and I believe there would be a very high increase in voter turnout. I know a lot of people that do not want to chose between a democratic and republican so instead they just do not vote. Having a third party would bring more citizens to vote during election time.
ReplyDeleteWith the system that we currently have, I am not too sure that American voters will want to elect a third party candidate; predominately in a presidential election. It is difficult for third party candidates to gain name recognition and power. The single member plurality system is not entirely focused on a wide range of issues and tends to focus on individuals. I think that we should revise our current system in order to increase voter turnout and votes for third party candidates. I think that the new system should be more focused on a range of different issues so citizens will be encouraged to vote. If more issues are talked about at hand more people would have more of an interest. Voters would think that their vote matters because they are voting on an issue compared to voting for a person to take care of the issues. Our current system is traditionalistic (democrat/republican) and I think it would be better to have a more moralistic, moralistic systems have a higher percentage of voter turn out. Overall, the US government should move away from the current system and provide proportional representation for candidates. Americans would benefit from third party candidates but with the system that we currently possess voters believe that their vote for a third party candidate is a waste. Americans should be able to vote and know what they are voting for. If Americans knew more about the issues at hand I feel there would be more voter turnout for third party candidates.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the U.S. should move away from single-member plurality and try a system that uses proportional representation. The method that our nation is currently using eliminates any shot of a third party winning, and that essentially defeats the purpose of even voting at all. If third parties were to receive more recognition, politics will no longer be so black or white (democrat or republic). Often times, a gray area in between the two is essential in order to do what is best for everyone in the nation, and third parties serve as that gray area. Single-member plurality only keeps the people power in power (even if many disagree with their right to this power), and little change will ever come if we keep using single-member plurality. Not using single-member plurality would help ensure that everyone’s voice is heard, and that every vote truly counts. As discussed in the paper published by the League of Women Voters, using plurality-majority would eliminate the “winner takes all” concept from voting and would split the responsibilities among those who deserve it. I also agree that the each state should allow same day registration because it does not require any extra work, and would also increase the amount of people who show up to vote. In conclusion, our current system is flawed and change needs to come.
ReplyDeleteI believe the US should move towards the use of a more proportional representation system. Single- member plurality prevents people from having a chance at making any real change. The power is just being kept among those who already have it. At one time I could see this system working, but as of right now there is far too many different cultures and representation that could be a much approved change. The single-member plurality prevents this change. Whats the point in voting if you only have two options to vote for? I've stayed out of politics for the most part because I felt like every election was going to always be decided Democrat or Republican even if a third party was a better choice ultimately. Proportional representation would help give these parties a fight chance come election time. It would increase voting turnout if people actually felt like their parties stood a shot and I agree with same day registration because it offers more people the chance of voting. People won't have an excuse to not vote. We won't see any change politically as long as single-member plurality is still in effect. We need to move away from it.
ReplyDeleteThe goal of elections whether it is on a state, local, or national level is to maximize voter participation and efficiency. The system in place now seems corrupt. Third parties represent the practical issues that everyday citizens face everyday that aren’t covered or even worried about by the two major parties. For example, and as discussed in class and on the blog assignment, people with less resources due to their demographics or psychographics aren’t fairly represented. I strongly believe that everyone should have a say because everyone knows something that you don’t.
ReplyDeleteImplicating a new system would be extremely difficult in this day in age due to the political culture. A two party system has been in effect for too long of a time to change anything drastically. But I believe that something like a proportional voting system should be used. A system based on numbers and representation deserved is the only system that seems fair to everyone. A system like this would increase voter turnout, because most likely there will be a candidate that everyone will want in legislature, rather than picking between two, or a third if none are liked. This topic relates back to the states being considered a laboratory- meaning every state is different and areas within the state need their own representation.
The system we are currently using is corrupt because of the process in which candidates get into office. As discussed in class, money is main factor these days. Parties have gone from needing a lot of people to needing a lot of money coming from PACs and SuperPACs. With this system, the more money the candidate has or can raise will most likely hold a seat in that legislature. This is inefficient and corrupting everyday people because their voices are not heard.
My personal opinion is that the single member plurality is out dated and should no longer be used when it comes to U.S legislative election. I don't think it is fair for the person with the most popular votes to win the whole election seeing since there is only spot to fill. As stated earlier with there being one person elected there are many disadvantages, and not only for the other parties, but for everyone. One being that one person in the to take on the wide variety of issues and responsibilities throughout the US. I feel another important disadvantage is the fact that smaller parties are overlooked and not given the opportunity as the more popular ones. The most important disadvantage in my opinion of the single member plurality is the citizens, the ones who are effected the most by these decisions may feel as if their vote didn't mean anything or was wasted time. Any time a person feels as if their opinion doesn't matter or their vote did not count, it will result in a decrease of votes in the next election and so fourth.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the best method to use for our legislative elections would be the proportional representation. I feel this is a good route to take in this particular election because everyone is heard. I think it is a great idea that whatever percentage of votes a candidate gets that's how many seats they hold in the office. This way there is more than one person that hold a seat, which could result in more issues being handled throughout the US, and it could result in a higher voter turnout if everyone feels as if their vote matters. A system that encourages the minor groups are a better idea because that lets people know that their opinions do count, whether it made a small difference or a huge difference, a difference can be made by one vote. I do realize there are some disadvantages of the proportional representation such as the parties not agreeing and causing a disrupt in the government, but I feel like those are problems that can be resolved within the government and will not cause problems as big as citizens not being heard and their vote being not heard. Times have changes and we cannot keep governing under the same laws we did years and years ago. I think taking a different approach where everyone is heard will solve a lot of problems and issues that we have when it comes to voting and being heard.
I feel that the united stated should not eliminate the single member plurality system. They could instead make some changes to the rules; I feel that it would be more beneficial than getting rid of it. The League of Woman Voters paper talks about how the American elections should be looked over. States should allow registration the same day as the election so that more people get a chance to vote and have a voice in matter of whose being elected. Money is also a topic of discussion. Is having a candidate have an unlimited amount of money in the elections process a good thing? No I don’t think so The Citizen’s united case ruled in favor of allowing unlimited amounts of money into the election and broke the floodgates for corporations and labor unions to spend freely on elections. Change needs to happen here .States should also do the jungle ballots for elections. Jungle ballots will open more opportunity for people to run for elected office. In doing this it will eliminate third party candidates.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should consider moving away from single member plurality system because it's not fair to third parties. Their ideas should be heard and they should get a fair shot at getting a chance to be in the elections. Proportional representation would be best for the US because every party would get a chance and it doesn't rely on the popular vote. It's important for the country to adapt to new trends and make the needed changes within the system so everyone gets a chance to move forward and be heard.
ReplyDeleteThe question of a single member plurality system versus a proportional representation is intriguing and comes with a lot of factors. The difference between the two systems would require an overhaul of the entire election process as well as some adjustments to the constitution. First we need to ask what is wrong with the current system and is it fixable. As mentioned, Gerrymandering is a major problem in state government, to me its one of the worst. A campaign for the house of representatives can be altered to the state legislatures party simply by redistricting the voting lines. Another problem with the single member plurality system is the natural suffocation of any third party due to the government's nature. A third party is seen as a wasted vote and choosing the lesser of two evils is accepted by most voters. Third Parties are also unable to keep up financially in senate and house races with the two major parties.
ReplyDeleteA proportional representation would solve most of these problems, however it also comes with problems of its own. If we think congress is frustrating now, imagine what it would be like with 50 different parties (although realistically around 5) all looking out for their own interests. This system would also require voters to truly study the candidates and their proposed policy. The single member plurality system brings with it a convenience to the voters in which most know every election which candidate they agree with more based on their party affiliation. Voters will need to educate themselves on the different array of parties instead of choosing the party that is known to generally agree with them more.
To me, there are many, many flaws to the single member plurality system (in addition to the irony of its title) that warrant a debate to change it. However, to me the change is too drastic for a government that is built to maintain the status quo. In addition, there are ways to fix, or at least attempt to fix the problems with the current system instead of a complete overhaul. Gerrymandering can be solved by giving the census bureau the power to draw district lines. Perhaps create a council or branch of the bureau in which the district lines are only redrawn if it is mathematically necessary. The problem of third party neglect is more difficult to solve. Jungle ballots has been mentioned a lot in the replies above. I would love to see this style of election in all of the states. However, I believe parties will still support their favorite politician in the form of advertising money, leading to the same problems except party affiliation isn't listed on the ballots. In the end, the system we have is working to a certain extend, with a few changes needed to make it more encompassing of third parties and the losing vote. The proportional representation is intriguing, yet the U.S. constitution is not built for such a system. A change of that magnitude would only bring on new problems.
I believe that the United States should move away from single member legislative elections, and adopt the proportional representation.
ReplyDeleteThird parties should have a voice in our government. Most people label themselves as a Republican or Democrat and not as an independent which hurts a third party who may not have any alliance really with either party. By switching to the proportional system it gives third parties more of an opportunity. There is no winner take all, the percentage of votes is what matters, and not who has the highest amount of votes. In the paper it says basically voter participation in proportional elections can be as much as 80%-90% and voter participation in the U.S. would likely increase 10%-12% with a move to proportional elections. With this you have an increase in voting participation as well as a bigger voting turnout everywhere else. Also gerrymandering, which is the practice that state legislatures can manipulate district boundaries to create partisan advantage for their incumbent, will take power away from political offices and thus less political corruption or controversy may happen.
In conclusion, the US government should move away from the current system and provide proportional representation for candidates. Americans can benefit from third party candidates. Americans should be able to vote whichever candidate they think would perform best. Not someone they sort of agree with or possibly picking a candidate just because they don’t like views of the other party.
I believe that the United States should moves away from single member legislative elections, and adopt the proportional representation.
ReplyDeleteThird parties should have a voice in our government. Most people label themselves as a Republican or Democrat and not as an independent which hurts a third party who may not have any alliance really with either party. By switching to the proportional system it gives third parties more of an opportunity. There is no winner take all, the percentage of votes is what matters, and not who has the highest amount of votes. In the paper it says basically voter participation in proportional elections can be as much as 80%-90% and voter participation in the U.S. would likely increase 10%-12% with a move to proportional elections. With this you have an increase in voting participation as well as a bigger voting turnout everywhere else. Also gerrymandering, which is the practice that state legislatures can manipulate district boundaries to create partisan advantage for their incumbent, will take power away from political offices and thus less political corruption or controversy may happen.
In conclusion, the US government should move away from the current system and provide proportional representation for candidates. Americans can benefit from third party candidates. Americans should be able to vote whichever candidate they think would perform best. Not someone they sort of agree with or possibly picking a candidate just because they don’t like views of the other party.
After reading these comments and using what I learned in class, I agree with the majority of the students and believe the United States should get away from single member plurality. It used to be effective in the past but not anymore, we are in a different society now. They should consider using the proportional representation like many other countries have done. Right now, the third parties have a slim to none chance in winning a debate over the Democrats and Republicans. These third party candidates cover practical issues that are used by civilians everyday, the big parties do not cover these as completely. By using proportional representation, it would give the third parties a much better chance at actually getting a say in what goes on in our country. Especially that we live in a society where we believe everybody deserves a chance, single member plurality gives the third party a very very slim chance winning which isn't fair. They are ostracized and not given a fair chance like the two main parties are when it comes to media coverage. For instance, when it comes to proportional representation, even if a third party only receives 20% of the voting, they still have a say in the house. The negative thing about switching would be in order for the US to actually change from single member plurality to proportional representation it would require every state to agree which would take a very long time to happen I believe. There are ways to improve single member plurality. They could let all citizens vote up until the day of election so more people are aware and have a good understanding on who they're voting for.
ReplyDeleteI do believe the US should move away from single member plurality, and move towards a proportional vote. With the pros outweighing the cons in PR voting, it is a good way to get even representation among a diverse America. With there being less and less participation in voting, and more and more people voting for third parties, as evident by the elections of third party governors across the country in the last 24 years, giving third parties a chance to prove their worth would be beneficial towards the US and the states. Also, given the growing division between democrats and republicans, proportional voting would allow for more parties, and possibly more harmony amongst congressmen. As PR voting tends to get rid of majorities, unless that is what the public votes for, this would eliminate some tension and bias in the government as to who has more power because they have a slightly higher number of people, assumingly from “wasted votes.” Along with the elimination of wasted votes, proportional voting will eliminate gerrymandering, which can be used to rig elections, and is a “powerful political tool” (Douglas J. Amy). This will allow for a more fair election process and representation in the United States.
ReplyDeleteIf you agree, or would like an interesting article to read, I recommend https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/redistricting.htm, where I got my citation from.
After reading the paper provided and listening to class lectures, I believe that the government should consider switching to proportional representation rather than having single member plurality elections. I have a huge issue with the fact that someone can win an election without a popular vote. This type of legislation also discriminates completely against third party systems. In my few semesters in which I took sociology classes, we always brought up discussion questions regarding political parties and what we the students thought about them. In all of my classes we took a vote as to which political party we would affiliate ourselves with. In all the classes I can remember, there were always more students who voted in the independent group than in both the democratic party and the republican party. I, myself, voted to be in the independent party. I, like many of my other classmates, felt as if I had no affiliation with either of those parties in government. This being said, the rest of my classmates and myself who voted to be independent feel as if we have no representation in government. If the government changed its representation to proportional representation, I believe that many of the issues we see with single member plurality could be resolved if they changed its ways to proportional representation. Even though I think this change would help in the long run, there are still lots of holes to proportional representation. These include the things that are already set in stone in government today. You would ask how many seats a certain party would receive and based on what, how many parties would be allowed overall, and so forth. This may become a problem if every party is granted a chance at representation because then the government would be overloaded with the numerous amount of parties. I believe if there were a set number of parties like there is a set number of counties or states, then this sort of representation would be suitable for our government. This would also bring about the issue of open or closed voting policies. To avoid all issues, a closed voting system would avoid involvement from all of the involved parties to those who are voting. However, if decided to use a open voting system, every voter would be guaranteed that they could vote for the person who most represents what they believe in. Either way, if the government did in fact switch to a proportional representation system, the person who got the most overall votes for them themselves, and not the most popular party, will win the election. And in our most recent days, this seems to have been the most popular issue with the way our government is represented and our voting takes place.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to whether or not the U.S. should move away from the Single Member Plurality System or not, I too believe that it would be beneficial to move on from it. Some reasons include how the Single Member Plurality System discourages third party voters and for all that vote for them, they end up with a "Wasted vote". It's unfortunate how the third parties get very little recognition and the large tasks that they have in order to get a decent amount of recognition.
ReplyDeleteInstead of the Single Member Plurality legislative elections, we could change to the proportional representation. That way, it wouldn't seem that people who vote for a third party would have a "wasted vote", which will leave the minor parties to actually have a fighting chance. This can also increase the voting turnout due to the fact that people will think that their vote does matter I remember in class, it was mentioned that the US is incredible when it comes to participating in politics but not so much when it comes to voting. It's possible that with this system, we could excel in both. The proportional representation system can make it less about the match between the republicans and democrats, and more about the issues at hand.
I believe that the U.S. needs to move away from the single member plurality system and into a proportional representation system. Although both systems have their pros and cons, certain aspects of single member plurality blatantly go against fundamental democracy. In a single member plurality system, to be voted into legislature, one simply needs the most votes rather than the majority of the votes. For example, candidate A could receive 38 percent of the votes, candidate B 32 percent of the votes, and candidate C 30 percent of the votes. In this situation, candidate A would win, even though 62 percent of the country voted for someone else. The majority becomes very irrelevant in these cases. This is in no way democratic. The fact that the US is politically dominated by two parties makes matters worse. In a hypothetical worst-case scenario, every geographic district could vote an outcome in which the democrats 51 percent of the votes and the republicans won 49 percent of the votes. Democrats would then rule the house. Furthermore, while the single member plurality system is prevalent in the larger democratic countries such as the US, Canada, and the UK, the single member plurality system is actually rare amongst democracies worldwide.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there is the proportional representation system. In this system, if party A wins 51 percent of the votes; it will get 51 percent of the seats in the legislature. If party B wins 35 percent, it will get 35 percent of the seats in legislature. The same rule goes for parties C, D, E etc. This is the system that is used in most democracies and I can see why. Smaller parties are allowed to be heard in this system. Also, statistics show that this system has more political participation than the single member plurality system. This is the more democratic system and this is what our country needs to move towards.
The U.S. should move towards a proportional system and stray from the traditional single member plurality system. Although people don’t have any belief in their representatives and they think that they are not represented well, I believe that people would agree in saying that they would rather have a third party candidate rather than a Republican or Democratic candidate. Going off of that, most of the people that vote have to determine if they want to choose the better of the two therefore they are going to vote for someone that they can’t exactly believe in. By changing to the proportional system this gives a third party candidates a better chance of being in office and allowing representation of the independents. I think that Luke said it well that by changing the system Americans are given the chance to choose based on who they think works best for the job.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the U.S. needs to stay with the single member plurality system simply because it cuts down on the time it takes to elect a candidate. If there are more than 2 people running, it would be nearly impossible for a candidate to get 51% of the vote because there would be 2+ candidates to vote for. The more candidates there are to vote for, the larger the split. In the single member plurality system, if 30% of the vote is the most any candidate got, then they would win the election. If they needed a majority of 51% of the vote to win the election, then the election would go on and on until someone dropped out of the race and stopped splitting the vote.
ReplyDeleteThe single member plurality rule is practical and simple. If you get the most votes, you win.
I personally do not believe that our society should move on to a Proportional System. I believe that there are reasons why third parties are not dominant and that is because only small portions of our population agree with what they stand for. Many third parties mix and match ideologies, but a majority of our population rather disagree with what they stand for. Our society now is obviously based off of majority votes which is in my opinion the fairest way possible.
ReplyDeleteThe Democratic and Republican parties are obviously seen as the two dominant parties in the Single Member Plurality System. This is obviously because the majority of our society wants it to be that way. Not everyone can get what they want, but if you as a citizen do not agree with these two parties, then DON'T vote for them! If every supporting citizen of third parties thinks that it is not worth voting for smaller parties then obviously they will not gain any sort of popularity. I know that it is hard for third parties to gain representation, but if citizens started to not just give in and vote for the "less evil" of the two major parties they may gain some representation over time.Our Single Member Plurality System now has their problems, but even if we changed to a Proportional System there will still be many problems. People get the idea that everyone in our society can get their way, but the truth is that is never going to happen.
I think the use and prevalence of third parties in American politics is a trivial topic. While third parties can be extremely useful for those it appeals to, as they take greater stands on the issues that they are passionate about and are very loyal to their constituents (generally), third parties in large scale elections are meaningless. While I think that third parties should be more involved in the smaller elections like state legislatures and local governmental bodies, I believe that independent candidates should try to steer clear of the big ones, like presidential elections. In large elections, third parties take votes away from whatever side of the spectrum that they most closely align with. This was extremely obvious in 2000 when Ralph Nader had managed to secure a hefty amount of votes in Florida, taking votes away from the Democrats and Al Gore, which eventually helped to crown George Bush as the victor. This changed the entire course of the country over the next ten years with Bush in power and the war in the middle east that would follow. But it is hard for independents to gain momentum and attract voters with the current state of American politics. It is a spending race now, with the victor being the politician who appears in the most commercials or gets the most air time. This may be extremely discouraging to third parties and having previous office holders slice up their district into all sorts of odd shapes (gerrymandering) to benefit themselves does not help independents with campaigning. While I think that independents can do great things and have a substantial impact if elected to office, like Ron Paul has done, I believe that they are better suited for positions in the state and even federal legislatures, not in the White House.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to strongly disagree with you here. Third parties are far more important to the election system than either of the two major parties. The two major parties never have to change due to the fact that people follow this deluded line of thought that only the two major parties can win. They control the entire system and are not accountable to the electorate.
DeleteAs the President is (sadly) an important figure in government, having strong third party candidates is very important. They are more ideologically consistent than either of the two major party candidates and usually more closely align with the people's actual opinions. The two major parties have enforced the lie of only them being able to win by rigging the entire election system in their favor.
Eliminating all political parties would be the most desirable solution. But since they will continue to exist, giving attention to third parties on a national scale is very important.
I believe that we should move away from single member Plurality voting system for the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1. Single member plurality does not do a good enough job at representing racial and ethnic minorities. In this voting system, minorities do not have a realistic opportunity to have their issues represented because they are often unable to submit enough votes (due to their lower population).
2. The majority of votes are considered wasted votes because any candidate who receives, for example, 20% of the vote and loses, causes 20% of the voters to lose out on having their specific issues represented in legislature.
3. In the Single member plurality system voting is traditionally lower than any other democratic government because Americans who are Democrats who live in a predominately Republican region do not feel the need to vote because they know their vote will do nothing to solve their issues. For example, I am from Grand Rapids, MI and although my region is heavily Republican my state is traditionally Democratic in their voting preferences. If I wanted to vote for a Republican candidate, I could, but everybody in the state knows that Republicans will never win and therefore my time would be wasted along with my vote.
I believe we should move toward a Mixed-Member Proportional voting system because a pure form of Proportional Representation does not give Americans in smaller regions any representation and a single member plurality system not only ignores the minority representation, but it also only favors one side or the other and in turn, whoever loses also loses any chance for their issues to be fixed.
A mixed Member Proportional voting system is the compromise between the two systems and is a more complete representation of our incredibly diverse nation. For example, Republicans and Democrats each win 45% of the vote, the remaining 10% would go to minor parties (Third Parties). This would guarantee proportionality in our government. This should also suffice for the proponents of the two major parties because they would still have the majority of representation.
I believe that the U.S. should move away from single-member plurality in favor of proportional representation. The single-member plurality system discourages third parties a great deal. Within politics it is somewhat difficult to determine whether or not you are strictly Democratic or Republican therefore, allowing people to be Independent gives more individuals an opportunity to be affiliated with a party that best fits them.
ReplyDeleteIn the League of Women Voters paper the different ways of how an election could be reviewed were brought to attention. In the paper the first review was that states should allow same day registration when someone arrives at the polling place. The second review stated that money in elections have been based on individuals, corporations, and labor unions giving an unlimited amount of money to the elections process. The third review is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the practice that state legislatures have the power to manipulate district boundaries to create some sort of advantage for that party’s candidate.
Also in the League of Women Voters is to increase minority representation. Good election systems not only promote majority rule but minority representation as well. The presence of minority political views in our legislatures also creates a more healthy and vibrant political dialogue in these institutions and it helps to introduce new political ideas into the policy making process. Therefore, I feel like encouraging minor parties is a good thing. A closed election ensures that no party could manipulate votes from another part, however in certain situations it discourages voters to choose their favorite candidate. I believe that the proportional representation system would be the best way to make sure most of Americans are represented as opposed to someone who represents the “popular party”.
It seems the majority of my classmates believe that the United States should move away from the single member plurality system for the obvious reason that continue to be given such as gerrymandering, lower voter turnout, and loss of representation from third parties. One thing I don't believe is being considered is that yes these are issues we face with this type of electoral system, but as shown all throughout the League of Woman voters paper there are many pros and cons to every type of voting that can be used. Personally I think it would be in the best interest of the United States to stay the way were are now and not try to move to proportional representation for multiple reasons.
ReplyDeleteA few things it seems that others are failing to look at is the way it has always been and the flaws of the proportional representation system of voting. The United States has always used this method of voting, and yes it does in some ways go against what we stand for with democracy, but so do other policies that this country has. Also because we have used this for so long, as discussed in the paper above, the citizens are not fully educated on how any other system woks unless they have chosen to be so that could make it very difficult to switch just because people see a few issues with the way our system works now. Another thing to look at is yes the proportional voting system allows minority parties to be represented but it also allows for groups to form within the government that agree on the same issue but are much weaker than in the system we have, as talked about in the League of Woman voters paper. For a government to decide to change its voting system all together it could turn into quite a process that I'm not sure if most realize and take the time to weigh out the pros and cons of all available options.
I don't believe that we should move away from the single member plurality system. Third parties are called third parties for a reason and i think it would be completely destructive to compose a proportional representation.I understand that American's want more politically options and Personally, i am a republican but do i believe in everything that they stand by? no but politics is all about compromise, composing a third party would make state-wide final elections all over the place, what is going to happen in a state where 40% votes democrat, 40% votes republican and then 20% votes third party? that would put politics in complete shambles, we have to stop thinking idealistically and start thinking REALISTICALLY. Since the early 19th century we have been able to speak our minds about various beliefs that we deem important in society, those beliefs( either for or against) have structured a "two-party blandness". Third parties beliefs are already intertwined in the two dominant parties, it is our political culture to absorb these "third party beliefs" within time and structure them into a specific ideology. There is a reason that we have a democratic party and a republican party, and that is because the majority of people voted for it to be that way, third parties don't gain as much recognition because a very small amount of people agree with their beliefs, It is merely impossible to try and please every single citizen in the United States, it's just absurd and not realistic at all.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, if the US would want a more fair and well-represented election for the people, then the move to proportional representation should be made. The fact that third parties are just an afterthought in almost all elections is not only disappointing, but also unfair. The current system basically gives voters an illusion that they have a chance to make a difference, when in all reality the power is with the two main parties that have the most money. As stated in the introduction to this week’s blog “Voters perceive (and major party candidates encourage voters to perceive) that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote”. With the current system, voters are explicitly discouraged by not only candidates from the major parties, but also by the media. Additionally, it is ridiculous that there is no limit that corporations and labor unions have no limit on the amount of money they can donate to a campaign fund for any given party. Obviously having the most money out of any candidate gives you an upper hand over the other candidates. Furthermore, the fact that gerrymandering is even an accepted behavior blows my mind. Maybe I am misunderstanding the actual process, but having the ability to zone-off areas in order to benefit your party in the coming election is something that is just “ok”? This is why I believe that a proportional representation style is more favorable, because there are no district lines to be gerrymandered and it gives more of a chance to third party candidates, which gives citizens more of a choice and more overall representation.
ReplyDeleteI think the United States should start moving towards a more promotional representational system. A winner-takes-all voting system is much more discouraging to minority parties, then making our elections mainly revolved around the democratic and republican. There’s often wasted votes from the current single-member system. In the Proportional Representational system, the amount of voters are about the same as the amount of seats they had in office. This system is much more democratic and if the US took this to action, the voters might feel like the chance of winning is higher and therefore more people will vote. When a voter doesn’t feel like they have much say, they’re naturally not going to be interested. This is much like the free rider problem. This will help voting to seem like less of a waste of time as Cassy Schmidle answered above. Government funding and campaign could expand and the country could have more opportunities in government power.
ReplyDeleteWhile most of my classmates seem to be leaning, some quite heavily, to the Proportional Representation principle, I believe that our current form of electing representatives, specifically the Plurality-Majority principle, is the best. It exceeds the Instant-Runoff Voting system because it ensures that every citizen has their own vote for exactly who they wanted no matter what, instead of their candidate being potentially dropped from the ballot. Proportional voting may seem like the most reasonable idea yet I believe it really provides the most minimal opportunity for public policy to be effectively passed by those elected officials. If we elect our representatives based off of the PR system, everybody will find themselves with some form of representation yet there may be such minuscule representation that most policies they submit will not get passed unless already supported by the majority. In addition, if there are two or three large groups of representation in the congregate, we may find ourselves floating amongst a stalemate in our electorate and thus it would prove to be an ineffective system. Because of this, I believe that there is no other real solution besides the one that we have instituted already due to its track record of generally being able to effectively pass public policy fairly (kind of) smoothly over the past few years. In addition to its track record, the amount of money and media coverage, as stated by fellow classmates, leans tremendously toward the popular candidates supported by major parties or organizations. This presents an even larger problem for the less popular candidates of a PR system purely because of the amount of exposure they will receive versus that of the candidates with tons of money and coverage. All in all it is better for a Plurality-Majority system because it is easier for the average citizen to use, every candidate has an equal opportunity for election without the risk of being dropped from the ballot, and the congregate will be able to pass public policy with more ease and less conflict than the other systems.
ReplyDeleteUnlike most of my classmates I have to disagree that the U.S needs to move away from a single-memeber plurality systems, and I think they should stay with it. In my opinion I would rather cut out third parties than create single interest groups that focus on one or just a few specific items of interest. In both the state legislature and congress there needs to be parties who will be willing to represent all issues that come about. In large states and opinions and political issues vary wide from region to region, and proportional representation give third parties an equal opportunity, it does not give the people proper representation. In office there have almost always been just two parties, and my opinion on the reason is each issue has two sides to it, and the independent parties usually feel one way or the other about the issue. It makes voting so much more simple for the average US citizen , and it does not eliminate the issue of each side conflicting with each other, but just would add more people conflicting with each other if you added more third party seats as they would side with either the Democrat or the Republican. The platforms of just two parties candidates would be much more simple to understand as well, due to most americans do not even take the time to learn just two candidates platforms, let alone a third parties.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Anjelica. I believe the U.S. should move from the single-member plurality system. Times have changes from the start of our government and I feel it is time for the way it is chosen should as well. Their are a wider variety of interests and issues in today's world which calls for more parties to allow people to choose what they believe is right. In politics I do not believe their are always 2 sides to an argument. Some things like gay marriage and marijuana legalization have many ways they could be brought about and this is why i think third parties are important. It gives the people the opportunity to weigh out their options and match them to what they believe in. I also do not believe that making things easier for voters is necessarily a good thing. If people are constantly hearing about the same 2 people in a race they may just pick one based on things they see or here from the media. With more parties, people could be intrigued to do some research to figure out what really is right for them.
DeleteThe United States should not move away from the single member plurality system due to the fact that it offers the best chance for the representation of the interest in that specific district. By using plurality to elect candidates it shows that the overall consensus was in favor of that candidate based on the number of votes they received. I do agree that the system is hard on minor party candidates and that it effectively produces a two party system. Looking at the aspect of a third party candidate being elected it is safe to assume that they would be hard pressed to gain support from the more powerful political parties. Even minor parties in PR system have to form coalitions in order to help build strength in their respective political arena. These unstable and often changing coalitions make no promises to advance the interest of their constituents which could lead to a political gridlock in some instances.
ReplyDeleteThe advantages of using a two party system lies in the fact that they are dependable and will always have a pull when it comes to political power. They might not expressly represent your views directly like a minor party might, but they can be swayed to the center on issues. Because they do directly represent the people in that geographic area and rely on popular support to achieve reelection. The election system itself does not need to be completely changed, but only the laws governing certain practices. A reform to policies concerning gerrymandering may be able to help elevate some of the issues surrounding safe seats and party rule over a district. The second issue is attracting voters to participate and become aware of the political issues that concern them.
I think the United States should stop using single member plurality system voting. With this type of voting only one member from a geographic area is elected. I do not think this is fair because just because people are located close to each other geographically doesn't mean that they share the same issues or concerns. I also found on fair vote.org that in racially diverse areas this type of voting causes a lot of issues. I agree with some of my classmates that the country should start using a proportional representation. In this type of voting more voters will have a say. I don't mind that this system encourages minor parties as well. I think with more choices voters will do more research about the candidates running for office, that way they will be able to make an educated decision.
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should no longer use the single member plurality system. Instead, they should switch to the proportional system. The United States is currently one of the four developed democracies that does not use the proportional system. I do agree with my other classmates who say that the single member plurality system is an outdated system. Because the United States has used this system for so long it would be hard to adjust the voters to it. At this time, voters are comfortable with how things are done and they understand how the votes will later be interpreted. If this system was to change, the people of the United States would have to be better educated on how it works. It would be important for the people to understand that the plurality system has its advantages and disadvantages just like the single member plurality system has.
ReplyDeleteIn the plurality system 15% of people may vote one way and as a result, they will not be represented. In contrast, if the proportional system was being used that 15% would still be represented. This type of system would allow the third party candidates to have a better chance at earning a seat as well. As stated in the original blog post, this system would also allow for no one party to overpower the other. This would allow for the different parties to work together and make mutual decisions. Instead of focusing on how it can benefit the people of one party, they would be focusing on how it can benefit everyone.
If the United States ever did switch to this type of system it could still result in some problems. Some areas of a state may not get represented because it is not definite that underprivileged areas will have a representative on the party tickets.
I think that the United States should move away from the single-member plurality system and replace it with proportional representation. The single-member district plurality system is in the Plurality-Majority election family, according to the League of Women Voters, in where candidates run to be elected to a single seat in a specific geographic area, and the candidate with the most-received votes wins the seat. There are many problems with this system. It is common for candidates who win a seat to have more votes that were against them than for them, there are so many wasted votes in this election system and the single-member plurality system poorly represents minorities in the country. I do not think that this voting system is fair. The United States is a republic, in where the power is held by its citizens. This system does not work under the United States Constitution because it takes away the power of the people to elect their representatives.
ReplyDeleteProportional representation is a better system that should be put in place. In this voting system, the number of legislative seats that are won by a party, or group, is proportionate to the amount of votes it received. According to the League of Women Voters, this system uses multi-member districts to elect multiple members in each district. This makes the results much more proportional than they would be in the single-member plurality system. This system gives the people a chance to better communicate their feelings about certain issues and candidates, which shows in the results. However, the only form of proportional representation that has been used in the United States is choice voting. Choice voting can be used in partisan elections, as well as nonpartisan elections and reduces wasted votes. It is a great system in that voters truly get a say in who is elected. Also, I agree with Kelsey Bignell’s statement about proportional representation being a better system to be put in place so that the people of this country have an actual say of the representation of their legislations in their area. This statement very much coincides with my views on the matter.
Furthermore, proportional representation encourages minor parties, which I think is a great thing. Today in politics, there are so many conflicting views within each of the two predominant parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. I think that these parties have lost their focus, and thus, there have become blurred lines. In minor parties, their positions on core issues that they believe in are clearer and are more representative of their original principles. Minor parties do not compromise their views to please the public. They stand for what they believe in, such as the Libertarian party, which stands for individual rights and a world of liberties.
-Alexa Nagy
Absolutely the U.S. should move away from a system of single plurality voting. As Prof. Berch pointed out, this system advocates the voting of a "lesser of two evils" when choosing candidates. The League of Women Voters paper makes a point of saying that a large majority of the votes in this type of system are wasted, because many of the peoples votes will not make a difference either way in whether or not the candidates wins or loses. If people know this, it will only decrease the already declining voter turnout that our country is facing, in which, stated by NB in class, is at a mere 50% for presidential elections and 35% for midterm elections. The proportional representation would definitely be a good system to turn to, in that it allows many more people a say in our government, the notion our country was founded upon, without handing all the power and influence to a select few number of people. Every vote counts, and any vote towards one particular candidate or area will add more and more to the influence of that area. I think Abigail Roberts (above) makes a good point about the financial aspect of the overall issue. Money is huge in determining elections, it provides the advertising for candidates, and gets their message and image across to more and more people across the country. If one particular party generates or has more money than the other, which the two main parties, Democrats and Republicans, would easily have over third parties, it makes the election less of a fair and equal process. Set a limit on the amount of funds each party is allowed to have access to, and this leads to a more fair and proportioned system of electing.
ReplyDeleteAfter taking a look at fairvote.org, my stance to have the US switch to proportional representation is strengthened even further. As the website points out, this proportional system is more likely to "provide fair representation to voters" which I think is the biggest aspect of the election process, and one of the key aspects of an ideal democracy. With this system, we would no longer have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and instead have our vote count towards something we fully stand behind.
As most people in this day and age I see so many things wrong with several ways the US operates. Our country should move towards a proportional representation for so many reasons, one being that more voters will have a say in so many things. With this system smaller parties will have more of a chance to get out there and have their message be heard. I agree with the comments above me from Alexa and Amber
ReplyDeleteIn both my opinion and the opinion of many of my classmates, the United States would be much more fairly and evenly represented if it were to adopt proportional election system. There are numerous reasons for this opinion. The main reason I think this is because it allows voters to have a voice and representation even if they are a part of the minority. Voters are able to vote for the candidates that they truly support without feeling that they are wasting their vote by doing so. This method also makes elections more competitive and causes candidates to have to appeal to an even larger population. Another reason that proportional elections would be better is that they would give third party candidates a fighting chance in elections. In the current system, these candidates are heavily disadvantaged due to limited to no media coverage, barring from debates, and more limited campaign assets.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this kind of election system is not without its disadvantages. The main disadvantage is that by giving any minority group representation has the possibility of creating a cluttered legislature with too many different factions to get any true legislative work done. From what I have seen, many are using this as the reason to rule out proportional elections completely. However, as these elections are used in many other countries, successfully, it is not fair to dispel its merits and advantages so easily.
I believe that the US should move away from single member plurality legislative elections because it makes it difficult for third party candidates to get any type of significant recognition. This lack of recognition is a result of a lack of legitimate opportunity to succeed. A moralistic system where the issues are the primary concern instead of the candidates themselves would, in my opinion, be better for the people than the traditionalistic system that is currently in place. Using a moralistic system is likely to increase the number of people that want to participate in the election process because it is the issues being highlighted instead of the candidate. Less focus on the candidates themselves would give third party candidates a chance to be more of a factor than they currently are. Proportional representation for candidates is the best solution because then voting for a third party candidate could potentially count for something instead of adding to a lost cause.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with most people that the single-member plurality system is not the best way of voting. This system is flawed and causes many citizens to go without representation and could also be why the voter turnout in the US is much lower than in many other democratic countries. Many people who live in an area in which their political views are not the majority may feel that their vote is pointless and may not even vote at all. My family is republican and living in Maryland, which has been a democratic state for at least as long as I can remember in my lifetime. My family’s votes are basically considered wasted because more people in Maryland are democrats than republicans and it is a winner-take-all system. It is almost as if Maryland is completely ignoring the fact that any republicans live in their state at all.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the idea of IRV. Ranking candidates in order of preference gives voters the ability to have influence on elections even if their first choice does not win. I also liked the fact that the paper from the League of Women Voters pointed out that this system would discourage negative political campaigns, which is one of my least favorite things about campaigns today. Candidates could still win from being the second choice of some voters so they do not want to risk losing votes by attacking their opponents. In the IRV system the candidate that gets the majority of the votes wins. I like that fact because when it comes to our current system in presidential elections a candidate can win even if another candidate had overall majority though it is rare. It makes no sense to me that a candidate could lose an election although they got the majority.
Although the single member plurality system is satisfactory, I believe that there could be a couple of changes in order to be more beneficial and successful. In order to gain equal opportunities between all political parties, the U.S. must advance to a proportional representation. I believe the biggest problem the U.S. faces today with using a single member plurality system is that no matter what, third parties are automatically shot down and have no chance of gaining the popularity or majority of the two main political parties. One positive benefit for third parties in a proportional representation is that the idea of excluding minor parties from debates and news coverage is eliminated, and it encourages donors to support the candidate of their choice, regardless of whether they can win. Voters can now feel confident in who they vote for knowing that the percentage of the amount of votes the party receives, receives a seat in the legislature.
ReplyDeleteThe Proportional Representation system is more suitable to serving more americans than the Single Member Plurality system. While the Single Member Plurality system has created deep rooted support for either Democratic or Republican parties, we have to realize that not all Americans are so comfortable with dedicating themselves to an affiliation with either one side or the other. Many Americans, as I believe someone else mentioned above, are actually Independents, and some more may even support a third party. Also we must take into consideration that with a Single Member Plurality system one side wins and one side looses, which leaves not only the independent and third party supporters with no representation at all, but also leaves one major parties die hard supporters also with lack or representation. With a Proportional Representation System everyone wins, as opposed to the hit or miss, winner takes all concept that is applied to the Single Member Plurality system. If we consider an instance with 51% percent of voters voting democrat, and 49% of voters voting democrat that means that in a Single Member Plurality system this would leave 49% of our voters with no representation. I think it would be much more effective to use a Proportional Representation System so that in the same instance seats in the legislature would be given to candidates accordingly with the number of supporters, or well the percentage of votes each recieved. To add, a Single Member Plurality system also negates that possiblities for a third party to flourish or become succesful in American Politics, with a Proportional Representation System the competition between the two far sides of the political spectrum could be eased, with a sense of everybody wins, and this could create better possibilities for the prosperity of third parties beyond just Democrat and Republican. With the variations and diversity among the American people, and the flexibility that we often demand and expect as a freedom, I think that the Proportional Representation System is a better move for America and would better serve a wider range of American Citizens.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/plurality.htm
ReplyDeleteThrough reading this article as well as the one provided along with the information, and previous posts I came up my with my opinion.
I feel the system of single member plurality legislative elections; while not perfect, is superior to other forms of elections. I agree with Joseph Wakim's mention of possible improvements to the current system. The current system could be improved to allow for greater participation, education, and representation. Joseph mentions addressing gerrymandering, issues of money, and flexibility in voter registration. All excellent ideas. Eliminations gerrymandering might allow for less cynicism on the part of the voters and bring more trust into the process. Somehow addressing the issue of the huge amounts of money involved in elections could allow more candidates to be heard and become part of the process.
David Hancock's makes a good point when he explains that the current system prevents hasty decisions made in acts of passion. It allows for a more deliberative process which is what the overall system was designed to achieve. David's point about how the current system allows for a more clearer political direction also makes much sense. It is costly to an economy when there is constant uncertainty as to overall policy direction.
An article published by the Department of Politics at Mount Holyoke College describes the attributes of the various systems used in elections. In describing the attributes of the single member plurality legislative elections it backs up many of the views of those of us to argue in keeping the current system. It mentions that this system is good at ensuring a plurality of voters are represented and that all geographic areas have a voice in the Legislature. It also mentions that it helps to ensure a stable two-party system with a single party majority. This helps to keep a check on small extreme parties. And although proportional representation encourages third parities it's disadvantages do not out way the single member plurality system or the improvements that could be made to improvements that could be made to the system.
In a country built upon the notions of liberty and freedom, there needs to be an updated electoral system to better represent the system currently in place. Reading the comments of my classmates, most, except a few, agree that the system the U.S. is implementing is “imperfect”, “outdated”, and “unfair”, to name a few adjectives others have used. The major concern that my classmates are skeptical about is what it would take to implement a new system. It is impossible to please everyone in any situation. Strong democrats and strong republicans may be opposed to the change because it would take seats away from them. Voters would also have to be educated on the new system.
ReplyDeleteMinor parties should not only be able to have a stake in the U.S. government, but encouraged to have one as well. If we are built off freedom, people should not have to choose between the standards of two parties, but have their own political views. Unfortunately, the dominant two-party system discourages substantial representation from those with views other than democratic and republican ones. Currently, there is not much room for them in Congress. According to the lecture, winning office requires the minor party candidates to be rich, famous, or have lousy opponents, with the more of those the better.
The dynamics of parties have changed over the last century. How many strong democrats agree with absolutely every democratic view? What if a politician has liberal fiscal views, but a conservative social stand? The current single-member plurality system encourages politicians to change their platforms, opposed to committing to all of their original beliefs. Mitt Romney moved his stance on energy during the last election more towards the center to draw in more voters. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romney-energy-plan-shows-changing-views-draws-questions-about-job-claims/2012/06/08/gJQAnPANOV_story.html) Do we want to force politicians to change their mind due to increased pressure, or do we want to be able to vote for a politician with unchanging ideals? Because proportional representation takes away the stress on the two-party system, the encouragement of minor parties would allow politicians to be true to themselves and keep their beliefs.
The League of Women Voters paper also leans toward changing from a single member plurality. My argument aligns with its comments on the different ideas that the U.S. should adopt. It also suggests instant runoff voting (IRV) to rank candidates. This system would elect the person that the voters rank the highest. I think that this system would better elect an official as well.
Implementing the proportional representation system, like many other countries use, would make room for third party systems in our government. An article compares the two electoral systems, outlining many more advantages for a proportional representation. It points at the fact that the corrupt system of gerrymandering is eliminated. Politicians do not have to worry about individual district votes. The writer also makes the claim that countries that use a proportional representation are happy with it and has had no movement to change their electoral system, while countries that are on a plurality system are. (http://rangevoting.org/Lijphart.html)
After evaluating the paper on single member plurality, proportional representation, and other electoral systems from the League of Women Voters, I strongly believe that the United States should enforce proportional representation. One of the main reasons that I think proportional representation should be the enforced electoral system is because it would make every vote count. One of the many reasons that voter turnout is lower in some states than it is in others, as we went over in lecture, is that people are less likely to vote if they don’t believe that their vote will count or make a difference. Proportional representation voting systems give parties precisely what the voters asked for, instead of one that only a minority of voters helped to elect. Another reason why I think proportional representation should be implemented is because it would help bring more diversity into the system. For example, as a woman, if I was running for office, I would feel more confident getting elected as a third party representative if I were a part of the proportional representation electoral system rather than single member plurality. Even if only 30% of Americans voted for me, that would still give me 30% of the seats, which I would have not gotten any if I were running in a single member plurality election.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the League of Woman Voters also pointed out a very important point. “One of the characteristics of PR governments is coalitions. If no party wins a majority of seats in a legislature, which frequently happens, two or more parties must form a governing coalition”. I think this is good because it would basically force politicians from different parties to learn to work together. This would make the two different parties put apart their dissimilarities and work together in an established, long-term way. Overall, I think the proportion representation electoral system is the best because it gives the third party candidates a fair chance at elections.
I do believe we need to move away from the system of single member plurality elections. As a libertarian, in the last election my vote was for libertarian candidate Governor Gary Johnson. He received 1 percent of the popular vote. With the current system candidates such as himself are given no chance whatsoever. I talked to numerous people who also were supporters of a third party candidate, but didn't vote for them because they felt like it was a waste of their vote. The system we have now pretty much forces you to choose between too sides. This also results in citizens just not voting at all. People think they the person who I want to vote for has no chance so I'm just not going to vote. The system is unfair and it does not take the interest of the people. We need a system that is based on popular vote. There should be no electoral college. Voters will be more confident in who they vote for and that there vote actually counts and I think more people that don't usually vote will start voting.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading through some of the previous posts from my classmates, I agree with them and lean more away from the United States and single-member plurality systems and elections. I believe it would be clash with the rest of the parties in the US. Although it is nice for smaller groups, I feel like it takes too much from the other groups.
ReplyDeleteWhen the president and representatives in other officers sometimes tend to butt-heads when they are not in the same parties and have different views. I think that if there was more of a majority of the same party, more might get done and they would be able to agree. Although I can see the downfall of having a majority of one party as not getting everyone’s voice out there, more decisions might be able to be achieved. Sometimes the government does need a voice from different sides to be able to make a more educated decision. It honestly just depends on the situations.
In lecture, we talked about the difficulties third party members had getting voted for. They lacked many of the vital parts of being elected including, funding and media coverage. A candidate that doesn’t have the money to get their name out and get the media involved with the campaigns is going to have a very difficult time getting enough of a hype to get voted for.
Even with the pros and cons, I still think the United States should move more away from the single member. The government and elections need to be open. It’s hard in this day and age because of the media and how they perceive people because what’s on the TV or the Internet is what the majority of the people voting are going to know and pay attention to. They need to be more willing to search for more of their own information to be able to make a better-educated vote.
I think we should move toward proportional representation as a voting system in the United States. Like Steven, I am also a Libertarian, and I am consistently upset with how little representation my party gets in media and in representation in general. With PR, every party is represented to a degree. I think PR functions well as an electoral system because it ensures majority rule (the majority will still receive the most representatives), it allows minority representation, and widely increases voter participation and options.
ReplyDeleteI will admit, PR does have its drawbacks. For example, what if too many parties emerge? That creates a lack of majority. I still feel like this could encourage the parties to work together and decrease the party line tension that is so prevalent in our current political system. Also, while PR discourages extremism by dividing up issues into different parties, extreme parties could still emerge.
One article I found that promotes PR is this one from a Cambridge, Mass. news website: http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20140225/NEWS/140227796
The headline is "Cambridge's Proportional Representation is an 'uncommonly fair' democratic system." It talks about how the town's city council and school committee uses PR to ensure that ethnic and political minority groups are represented. To me, this is proof that PR can work, and all groups can be included. I think this will, in turn, encourage more people to vote and become educated voters.
I do believe that the Single Member Plurality elections is something that needs to be changed. One disadvantage I hate is that the large elections are unable to ensure geographical representation because some minority neighborhoods may have no one on their city council working to address particular problems. Electing people to help a city is the main goal and if that need isn't met, then the city is heading for a upside down spiral. I strongly believe that our country should enforce proportional representation because it would make every vote count and eliminate "wasted votes". I believe that our voter turnout is the 2nd lowest(roughly 8%) because people rather attend meetings or write a letter. But the main reason people don't want to vote is because their vote doesn't mean anything. Also by implementing proportional representation, it will bring a lot more diversity than Single Member Plurality. The reason why is because as a third party supporter, you are highly unlikely to win because of the system. If changed, you are able to at least have a far shot. For example if you ran for office and received a percentage of votes, its still better than receiving none with Single Member Plurality. Finally, I strongly believe we need to take away the electoral college because voters will have a positive mind approach and our voter turnout will improve.
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should move away from the Single Member plurality legislative elections. The third parties of the United States get little to no recognition. Proportional representation would ensure the voters that they are not wasting their vote by not voting for the republican or democrat candidate in election. This leads to more competition.I agree, that many voters are often frustrated in having to chose between the same two parties in every election. Maybe these people don't like either interests of the two major parties.
ReplyDeleteIf the government switched to a proportional representation, things would make more sense. Having a single member plurality election is an issue because defeats the purpose of the president winning because of the most important aspect, people thinking that person is deserving of winning. The fact that the popular vote doesn’t have more impact on allowing a president to win almost defeats the purpose of having a popular vote. If the government changed its representation to proportional representation, many of the issues we see with single member plurality could be resolved if they changed its ways to proportional representation. The League of Women Voters paper relates to two of our lectures that bring up ways the American election system should be looked at. States should allow same day registration when a person comes to vote at the polls. Same day registration would allow the you to voice your own opinion into the electoral process without being turned away at the polls.
ReplyDeleteProportional Representation should be used. Politics in the US praise mostly Democrats and Republicans and we see this in the news all the time. The press should cover other political parties. Without that, people will either choose Democrat or Republican without seeing other political parties that may better suit their interests. I believe the best of the best representatives from each political party should work together to best suit the needs of the American population.
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should move towards a system to allow third party candidates to vote. I think that this would be an important move for the United States because it would allow more freedom of voting. In today’s age many people have varying opinions on who they want to sit in a certain political seat. It is important for Americans to be able to vote for whomever they want. If a person is not happy with the democrat or republican candidate, they should be allowed to vote for another candidate, possibly in a third party. I believe this would be rational due to all of the political changes and how differently the party system is run than it has previously been in the past. Also, as other members of the class have mentioned, many people who vote for third party candidates believe their vote is a waste. With a new system involving a third party, people can feel more unified and satisfied when they vote for who they want in office. I think that the United States should also move away from single-member plurality voting. It is not fair to candidates who are not part of the two main parties. I think it would be beneficial for this system to end. I think that moving towards a system that involves third parties would allow everyone to be involved in the process and aid in a better voting system.
ReplyDeleteI seem to agree with the majority of other student, I believe that the United States should slowly try to move away from single-member districts. In our government we always look at ways to cut down on waste, this is one way that the United States could address the issue of ‘wasted votes’. It also addresses the issue of minority issues being brought to the table through proportional representation. This new change in voting gives all people proportional seats to represent them.
ReplyDeleteThis could change up the political system completely. It could cut down on election corruption and also get more people to go out and vote due to specific voting representation. The article does bring up people might not be used to it so I think the government should start the voting at the most basic level and slowly build its way up to the federal level of voting. As many people are bringing up in the comments minority voices should be heard, this system lets all voices be heard in the government as well as adding slight trust into the government. Third parties only seem to take away votes from the other two big parties thus allowing one party to pull away from the other. Based on my evidence above I believe a proportional representation would work better for the American voters to get their specific voices heard.
-Chris Brunner
After reading closely into this from Mr Berchs point of view and the women's studies paper I do agree with the majority of my classmates, it is time to abandon the single plurality system and move onto proportional representation. As good as it look on paper, there are some extremely serious things that both democrats and republicans do to take advantage of in this system that isn't technically illegal or against the rules of the constitution but goes against what our constitution and true democracy stands for. As some of my other classmates that don't consider themselves a Republican or Democrat have pointed out that there parties are basically useless in many forms, which is simply messed up. In my opinion the whole notion that you are eater a Democrat or Republican is almost mind blowing to me. We as individuals have formed our own set of opinions on everything related to politics which is something that in my opinion forms third parties. For example the demorcatic party, if you are a Democrat you could consider your self one of the following: Socialist, Liberal, Blue dog Democrat, Conservative Democrat, middle left, socially liberal-economically conservative etc.. The list goes on and on. and its the same for republicans as well! Why do they have to conform all of these ideas into one "party" because there not! I will bet you any amount of money that the most "Conservative democrat" and the most liberal of all liberals in the House of Representatives disagree on almost every issue there is, but there still on the same "team" Which is not right in my opinion. Why should both of there views be changed by there overall parties policys. It simply doesn't make sense! This is the main reason why I think congress never has a high approval rating. People Bash the tea party, (including me) there basically a far right portion of the Republican party that have mostly far right views on a lot of issues. As much crap as they get, and speaking as a person who believes highly on this countries rights and democracy I say more power to them! These people have there own views on what they think is right and event though I do not agree with them they have the right to think what they want and how the government should be run they have in form formed there own party.
ReplyDeleteThe single plurality system isn't a complete failure by any means. I think its positives are good ones. The fact that we can technically have a "Majority" in elections is something that I believe speaks for itself. But I don't think most people even really completely truly back the person they vote for. They just conform into what is the closest thing to what they want. Which is not what a true democracy is, and isn't that what we are supposed to look at when we look at America? A Proportional Representation system would make america a true democracy.
I believe that the U.S. should move toward proportional representation. The whole concept of winning without the popular vote just doesn't sit right with me. The single-member plurality system also discourages third parties. I think our government could greatly benefit from a change away from just Republican or Democratic parties. So many people don't identify with either party, yet when election time rolls around they have to choose a side that most fits their views, not the side that they actually want or agree with. I think that proportional representation could help with that problem. However, the system has its flaws. How many parties do you permit on a ticket, delegate seats, how do you introduce these new parties into the system? Open or closed elections also would complicate matters. The likelihood of our government changing their system is obviously unlikely, but it would be interesting to see how Americans would handle more routes of representation, and I think it would definitely help make a more efficient system of voting.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the League of Womens Voting paper it opened up a lot of different view points and ways of voting I didnt even know existed. With the question should the US move away from single member plurality? I think the answer is yes. We should move away from single member plurality because it really limits voters to only two parties usually and neither are usually accurate to the voters wants and needs. Instead we should move towards proportional representation. This way there would be more candidates able to run giving the voters a more wide selection potentially raising the voter turn out on election day. Proportional representation promotes more minor parties to run and have the chance for election. The question being is this a good thing? How many parties should run? It brings up a laundry list of questions that probably wont get answered until proportional representation is looked at more seriously. But I believe that it would be a good thing to have many third parties running because it would give the voters a much wider selection as opposed to just two parties attempting to be the middle of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should move way from a Single-Member Plurality system. My reasoning behind this is that sometimes voters may not have a single candidate that they feel strongly about. Especially during Presidential elections, when the pressure is put on to make a choice. The system that really stood out to me would have to be the IRV system that is commonly used in Ireland. I believe that this system would allow the voter to be honest with their vote, like the article says. Many people may not want to waste their vote on a third party candidate because it is very unlikely that their candidate would not make it further. However, I really liked the idea that with the IRV system, you could put the third party candidate as your top choice and one of the main candidates as a lesser choice. In this case, the vote still would be valid. Also, this could help in the terms of associations with parties. Perhaps someone is voting for the third party candidate because they do not want a particular party to win. When the IRV system is in place, the voter would be allowed to put the party they do not want elected at the bottom of the list. Lastly, this also helps out unsure voters. Some voters may not be completely one way or another. In example of the 2012 elections, perhaps they wanted Obama as President but agreed that Mitt Romney could have done a fair job as well. In this case, they could put Obama as their first preference and Romney as their second. In my personal opinion, this voting method seems much more fair and honest, especially when a voter is not entirely right or left wing.
ReplyDeleteI agree fully with Steven Kaplan and with most of the people who have posted. The system of single member plurality elections is unfair; the government should consider switching to proportional representation. The switch will benefit people who are underrepresented in opinion and electoral votes. For example, the class lectures and paper presented how every vote in proportional representation is worth the same. This means that there is better correlation between the number of votes a political party gets and the amount of influence it has.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the single member plurality system is that it is a “winner-take-all” system. It awards seats to the highest vote getters without ensuring fair representation. There are a plethora of future problems. As said on fairvote.org, minorities are underrepresented, a dominant ideology results in no-choice elections, 50% of votes are wasted, and parties do not address challenging issues due to the lack of cross-party support. The proportional representation system can fix most of these problems.
In the United Kingdom, the people live under a proportional representation system, where the number of seats won is proportional to the number of votes. The system reduces the number of voters who vote tactically, because there are no benefits to voting for a party whose policies you don’t believe in. The parties who are covering policies that the people believe are more likely to get votes. Thus, voters are encouraged to vote and also vote wisely to challenge issues. However, minorities may still suffer from a persisting problem.
Although minorities may have representation, they may not have full representation. The reason is because minorities are a small part of the community. As the case in most aspects of life, the majority often drowns the minority voice out. Yet, comparing the proportional representation to the single-member plurality, the minority representation is able to have their voice heard. Thus, if the ideas are critical, they will receive cross-party support. This allows minority ideas to increase in majority with like-minded people. A single member plurality, on the other hand, would award 100% of the representation to a 50.1% majority – meaning minority representation is difficult to develop.
The proportional representation system may have minor flaws, but it is superior to the single member plurality system. Proportional representation allows the growth and the expansion of ideas. The system also allows the community to vote for people who best represent them. This setup draws a lot of interest due to fair voting. Unlike the single member plurality system that has a lot of discouraged voters, this new system encourages people to vote to represent themselves. A diverse United States is in need of this system, because the country needs to exchange ideas to better represent a diverse country.
Scholarly article: “How Proportional Representation Can Empower Minorities and the Poor.” (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/empower.htm)
Website: “Problems with Single Member Plurality Elections.” (http://www.fairvote.org/reforms/fair-voting-proportional-representation/comparing-choice-voting-and-winner-take-all-elections/single-member-plurality-systems/problems-with-single-member-plurality-elections/)
I think that the United States should move away from single member plurality and move toward proportional representation. Proportional representation would allow the opinions and ideas of all parties to be heard, even if they only have one seat. If a voter doesn't identify with a specific party and doesn't like the view of either candidate, chances are they won't vote at all or they might just pick the one that they most agree with even if they don't agree with some major views of that candidate. Overall, it would be best for the American population if there were representatives from each elected party to work together to fit the needs of everyone.
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should move way from a Single-Member Plurality system. I agree with Patrick Burns in the way that I feel it gives more parties a chance to participate in the government. If the United States would move away from the Single-Member Plurality it would help end the democratic/republican battle that has been going on for the past 20 years or so. Especially lately how our government struggled to get by the debt ceiling just because the parties wanted to make points on who they felt should be in charge of the system. I also like what Corey had to say about how the proportional representation allows the growth and the expansion of ideas. If this system were adapted I feel more ideas would be thrown into congress and we would see more diversity of supporters for those ideas. There would be no more minority and majority, all people would have a chance of being somewhat represented by their state. I feel that the way our government currently is with the two party system has destroyed what the U.S. was established on. George Washington even warned about political parties in his farewell address. I agree with his view, I feel that political parties have torn this country apart and now we stand almost as much as a nation divided then one together.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel as though Single Member plurality elections are unfair and are disadvantageous to voters through many ways such as it encourages tactical voting and gerrymandering, causes there to be fewer political parties, and creates a disproportionate influence of smaller parties. This is just an inefficient and ineffective way of holding an election, that can be directly attributed to the low voter turnout rates across the country. I think the United States should implement a Proportional Representation system of voting for many obvious reasons. It allows minority points of views to be brought to the table through a easier system. If 30% of voters of an election are for the Democratic Party, then 30% of the Legislative seats would automatically go to the Democratic Party. This system prevents fraud and political manipulation, provides a reasonable range of voter choice, produces fair and accurate political party representation, and most of all promotes a stable and effective government. This is why I feel this system of voting should be implemented across the United States of America.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the U.S. should keep single member polarity. I do understand why most individuals on the blog believe that it should be changed to bring in more parties to play, but you have to look after the election. There might be more people that better represent you at the time but when the house of reps. or senate sits down to try to put your wants into legislation it will become a disaster. For example if there is four parties and there are all equal numbers of individuals in each party in the house and a bill is being voted on and they all don't want to vote for each others bills in play, nothing will be passed. If it's hard for two parties to play ball together I can't imagine more than two doing anything in power.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the Womens Voting paper there are two major issues that I find to be extremely important. One being same day registration. When one cannot vote because of registration deadlines it is a vote lost, an individuals power hindered. This is done by states to keep the type of people from voting that they don't want voting. That is discrimination. The second is gerrymandering. When a candidate whens when not wining the popular vote in some states, it is clear in some areas this is an issue taking place. Politicians in power should not be afforded the census information until district lines have been drown by a independent section of the census with little to no connection to political parties.
The League of Women's Voting Paper presents several interesting, feasible election techniques that could work under different circumstances. Currently, the US uses a Single Member Plurality system which implements a "winner-take-all" mentality and employs representatives from every district. While it is good that this system allows for representation from every corner of the country, it almost alienates any chance of a third party candidate winning an election, because voters believe that for the most part, third party candidate votes are 'wasted votes.'
ReplyDeleteThe proportional representation system, although has flaws, is a vastly superior method in my opinion. This system allows for more representation from certain areas due to the number of votes casted. Under the current system, there are many people who don't vote because they don't see the point since the person they want representing them either has no shot or isn't even in the running. The proportional representation system actually encourages people to vote so they can acquire the proper representation. Under the current system, the president doesn't have to win the popular vote in order to win elections, which I think is complete silliness. This is another reason why I would love to see a proportional representation system in place. Again, despite its flaws, the proportional representation system is vastly superior to the current system.
I believe that the United States should stay with the single-member plurality system because it has been in place since 1776. Since our founding, we have had faced few troubles within our government compared to countries around the world who have had several rebellions and civil wars. The single-member plurality system is simple and keeps voting to a two-party system that allows voters to make their choices easier.
ReplyDeleteA proportional system, I feel gives the voter too many options, and can make voting a difficult process. Voters today have enough trouble staying informed with two parties and smaller third parties. Having various parties can also put people into power that the majority of the country does not approve of because third parties often cause a split votes in major parties. For an example when Howard Taft ran for reelection, Teddy Roosevelt did not approve of Taft’s reelection so therefore he created the Bull Moose Party. Because of the split within the Republican Party, Woodrow Wilson was able to win the election of 1912 despite the majority of citizens’ republican views.
While the article from the League of Women Voters did bring up some good points, the United States is among four of the strongest countries in the world that uses the single-member plurality system. Just because the majority of the world uses a proportional system does not exactly make it the best decision. The two-party system is a key part of our government and has been since earl colonial days; I believe it is an essential piece to the making of our country. While do I agree that there is room for improvement from an economic stand point, and do believe that congress has become fairly corrupted these are issues that can be fixed without changing the voting system.
-Andrea Carrillo
I believe that the United States should stay with the single-member plurality system because of how it works with the "one man, One vote" system as it gets to vote for one candidate of his/her choice, as plurality also promotes two-party system which is exactly like how the United States is. Also, some other voting systems can end up giving a higher chance of victory to a candidate perceived as having extreme views. Under a first-past-the-post system, voters are often afraid of "wasting" their vote on a candidate unlikely to win, so they cast their vote towards their most preferable choice possible of victory.
ReplyDeleteRueben Lee.
The U.S. should consider moving away from the single member plurality system. The part of it that I think isn't a bad idea was the IRV system that they use in Ireland. It might make people want to come out and vote more knowing that there is a better chance that one of their top choices might be elected.
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of the Proportional system. Even though parties will have different percentages of people in office I think its still good that all parties will be represented and have a voice regarding their issues, ideas and concerns with their state and local governments.
I believe that the proportional representation would be a great alternative to the problematic single member plurality elections we have become accustomed to using. Through research, it is easy to see that proportional representation is used the most worldwide and can be most convenient. Those who use this system see a much higher voter turn out when it comes to legislature elections. It would bring forth minor parties to give a voice and maybe bring something new to the table. It seems as though a two party system might not be the best option for our nation with all the corruption and turmoil we have to deal with. It would create a broader selection of candidates that citizens could choose from based on their standings on certain issues. I can agree with the IRV voting as an alternative, also. It seems like a fair voting system in which the citizens can rank their candidates. Unlike the single member plurality election system, the IRV voting can help a minor candidate stay in the game giving them a chance rather than it be a "Winner Takes All" situation.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that that U.S. should move away from a single member plurality system in order to avoid gerrymandering,"safe seats" and wasted votes. Also I feel that a proportional or even semi-proportional voting system should be implemented in the U.S. to provide minority parties with a fair chance to receive recognition in the legislature. As stated in the League of Women Voters link provided above,"the larger the number of district seats the more proportional the results will be," in regards to a proportional representational voting system. This allows minor parties to be better represented in a PR legislature.
ReplyDeleteI like many of peers who have posted before me believe that the United States should move away from the single-member plurality system that is currently in place. I feel as though this type of system wastes too many votes and encourages a two party system that in my opinion isn't getting the job done. If the United States adopted a proportional system it would encourage voter particpation because not one vote is wasted thus everyone who votes is represented. While a proportional system can sometimes put unpopular parties to into office (the Greek political organization Golden Dawn for example) it's generally such a small amount of seats that their agendas and goals are never met but they are still represented. I disagree with Andrea Carillo, the winner takes all system is flawed because not all votes are represented. A proportional system would encourage less corruption because the number of seats would be less numerous for all parties since the vote is spread out. This would make the candidates who do get to represent their party want to do the most the possibly can for the citizens in order to have a better chance of getting reelected. This is why I believe the United States should wake up and move to a proportional system of representation instead of the current single-member plurality system that is in place today.
ReplyDelete- Tyler Adams
As made obvious by the article from the League of Women Voters, I think it is pretty easy to determine the bias and contradictory element in the single member plurality system. The single member plurality system is set up in a way that a candidate could lose the majority vote, but still end up winning a seat in a specific district. While America is a two-party system, single member plurality hinders third party candidates or minorities. While it is easy and easy to understand the concept of single member plurality, it contradicts our message of freedom being that it is unfair to the third party candidate. It is made nearly impossible for the third party candidate to win.
ReplyDeleteLike many of my classmates above, I think the United States should start to move in the direction of proportional representation. Because of the two-party system that we have now, voters tend to chose the candidate they feel is the lesser of two evils, or the candidate who they identify the most with, even if they are ideologically and politically different, due to the fact that they don’t want to waste their vote on a third party candidate who has barely any chance at a seat.
I think voter turnout would increase if we moved to a proportional representation system of voting. This concept of “my one vote won’t make a difference” or “my vote is a waste” will decrease because voters know they will be represented. The “winner takes all” mentality just encourages corruption in the government system, not every voice is heard, solely because of party affiliation or deficits in campaign funding. I find it highly contradictory and unfair that a candidate can win a seat without the popular or majority vote.
Although I find both voting methods to be extremely flawed, I believe that we should stay with our Single- member plurality system of voting because it gives all areas of the state an equal voice, not based on population but by district. Many of the lines have been drawn geographically and culturally ,allowing for minorities and areas of minor interest to have their say and greater local participation. It is said that minorities have a lesser chance of having involvement, but this system was created to keep all districts in the state to have equal representation, for example, coal country and rural areas. Although the majority of American populations reside in large cities, that doesn't mean that the small towns should be underrepresented and disregarded. This system was not to protect the majority, it was created to protect the minority. Although it makes it hard for third parties to become involved on a national scale, I believe that with the current rise in popularity of third parties (in time) will shift towards the top of the ticket due to the constant progress and gaining popularity. Political parties do not arise overnight, these things take time. Changing the system completely would make for chaos, if they were really thinking of changing to a proportional or IRV system, it would have to start out as semi-porportinal voting versus going all the way.
ReplyDeleteEven by experimenting in a proportional method of voting at the state scale would be a start, just to see how it would effect the small areas. If the small areas were given the same respect and they worked something out with the allocation of money and resources that the cities have access to, than a proportional system would be great. It is just scary to think of how underrepresented the underdog would be.
As I write this, I do not mean to disregard the importance of third party candidates. Third party candidates provide much truth to both sides, and are very bipartisan, fiscally conservative, and socially progressive. They do share the best of both worlds, with the main support being the young. We cant force a generation to give up their democrat/ republican ticket because the generation that came before us and so on is set in their ways and a lot harder to persuade than those who are growing up in this changing time. That is the perfect way that people these days describe conservatives, not wanting to change, stuck in their ways, stubborn, ignorant, incompassionate, and not wanting to become more informed, which is actually very wrong, because I vote that ticket. Its also not a sign of incompassion to keep this system either, because if the majority was constantly protected, what would happen to those who don't have as strong of a voice? it goes way deeper than what method we use to vote, by keeping small towns and cities on the same level of representation, it keeps the checks and balances in constant sync not underrepresenting the minor interest. With this uprising generation of "knuckleheads," as our FLOTUS describes us in one of her latest appearences on late night tv, We are the knuckleheads who will give a voice to third parties not by changing systems, but changing outlooks, opinions, and learning from the majority parties corruptions and mistakes.
Forgot to mention also that the proportional voting system has been shown to work in smaller forms of government in smaller countries. Look at the geographic, cultural, and ethnic diversity in America. It is impossible to cater to the needs of just the majority because of so many of the different circumstances. Although it would be awesome to completely change and give the smaller and less populated areas as strong of representation, it isn't fair to only award the majority. The circumstances of all of us in the United States are so widely ranged it would become disorganized and ignore minor interests.
DeleteI believe the United States should move away from single member plurality and switch to proportional representation. I like the idea that different parties will be able to have seats in the legislature. I feel like everyone would be represented fairly in the legislature with proportional representation. Also it might bring a bigger voter turnout in states, citizens would feel like their vote actually mattered and that they would be represented fairly. This is also good for third parties, with more people expected to vote I think that the media will start to focus on these third parties, which may also lead to more campaign money for them.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the proportional system would be the best model of representation. This model gives third parties a better chance and that would be great because maybe we could oust this "die-hard liberal, die-hard conservative mentality that has plagued the American government for many years. I think this would be best but I also believe that it is highly unlikely unless the third party candidate was very wealthy and could fund their own campaign because no one in their right mind is going to donate to a third party individual (unless they are famous). It always comes down to the dollars and cents and I think that as far as donors are concerned staying the way we are now makes the most sense economically.
ReplyDelete-Dustin Seabolt
So the question being asked is, should the US move away a from single member plurality style of legislative elections? If so, what type of system should be employed (consider proportional representation and the other systems discussed in the League of Women Voters paper)? One big issue that you'll want to consider is whether a system that encourages minor parties (like proportional representation) is a good thing or a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteTo start out, I would like to state that I completely agree with a fellow student’s analogy, comparing the election system of the United States to that of a hockey game.
“The day that I wrote this blog assignment the United States Women’s hockey team lost in overtime to Canada and thus losing out on the opportunity to win the gold medal. So how does a hockey game relate to the current blog assignment? The answer is that there was a winner and loser in the outcome of the game just like in elections. The winner of the election should be allowed to impose his or her agenda. Even though that I am feeling bad that the women’s hockey team lost out on the opportunity to win the gold medal , clearly the Canadian team won the game and carried momentum into the latter half of the third period into overtime.”
-Joseph Wakim
My answer, like my fellow student, is that the United States shouldn’t move away from single plurality system, due to the “winner take all mentality”. Now, with that being said, there could be some changes made to the current system that is in place.
The first review questions if states should allow same day voter registration, when he/she arrives at the polls. This would allow an an opportunity for more individuals the ability to voice his/her opinion in the elections and be turned away because they may not have had the time to go the courthouse and register to vote. Then Gerrymandering comes into question. The dictionary definition of Gerrymandering is “a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts”. Personally, I have no problem with Gerrymandering, I believe that if similar people are grouped into a district, then the elected official wouldn’t need to worry about trying to focus with the need of multiple different types of people, differing in race, class, and religion. This would allow for better representation of the group in the district. Then money comes into play in elections. This is a hotbed issue that has always been under debate; should individuals, corporations, and labor unions should be allowed to give unlimited amounts of money into the elections process? The Citizen’s United v. F.E.C. (Federal Election Commision) case ruling allowed unlimited amounts of money to be spent in an election and now also allows for the corporations and labor unions to spend freely on elections. I have no issue with this. This falls under free speech, who has the right to say that I can't spend my hard earned money on a Canidate that I want to be in office. This is hypothetically the same thing that the corporations and unions do, just on a much larger scale. Who's to say they can't? It's a matter of free speech, which is given to us in the First Ammendment. Another issue is that would proportional representation a good or bad thing? I am split on this. A good thing about prop. rep. is that it allows for a certain of seats in a legislative body for the party's that did not win the election, this allowing everyone to be equally represented, which is a good thing right? Maybe. In the US we tend to have the mentality of "It's my way or the highway" and I believe that if prop. rep. was so in the US, we would have mass gridlock for quite some time, until we learned to comprise and share. Now, is that necessarily a bad thing? I don't think so, just I believe that it would cause too much of an issue to deal with, not really being worth it.
-Bradley Chenault
I would like to think that single member plurality would be something we could move away from, and go toward a more proportional representation system of voting. Though it could increase voter participation and importance, I am not convinced that a proportional representation system would work in our government. While it would help more voters feel like their votes made a difference, I believe that everything would be too far spread out for our government and legislative system and that it could hinder the decision making process.
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world, we would be able to establish a much more proportional representation system that would reflect the diversity of our country's voters and their opinions. I believe a lot of the reasoning behind the small voter turn outs is because our people feel as though we're stuck in this democratic process that we've been in, and any other options are considered "impossible." If we changed the way it worked, I think voter turnout & passion would increase. However, I just don't believe our government would actually ever stray toward that type of representation in the future, and maybe that's part of the problem.
I believe that the U.S. should move away from the single member legislative elections. I believe this because there is not enough voter turnout and too many people are feeling miss represented. A prime example would be me in both of these past presidential and congressional elections. In Both elections the democrat party was going to win the election whether I casted my vote or not. The proportional system would assure that my vote would account for something and make me want to vote. It would also give more people a way to vote for new parties rather than the same old two parties that try to appeal to everyone. There is no way that one party can appeal to many people’s needs. If people got represented based on the number of votes and got representation based on those percentages, it would open up people’s eyes to new parties that can eventually grow into bigger more important parties.
ReplyDeleteYes I believe that the U.S should move away from it. A reason is that a sole individual doesn't fully represent a state because it focuses mainly on fixing its problems rather than helping to promote the other parties interest. Also it doesn't promote the minority party because the two main parties are well known and have the best interests but the smaller have no influence on impacting on the country because of fewer resources.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it might be viewed as overly lenient on the minority, the semi-proportional voting system is the best in terms of minority getting full representation. An example is that a minority can get accumulate less votes but still have a chance of ending up with a majority in another.
Semi-proportional is a good thing because it encourages more competition amongst parties. Also they are not susceptible to gerrymandering. An evidence is increased voter turnout because it shows a greater sense of unity in the minority party because they better represent their interest rather than "cutting it close" to their ideals or interest in the two-party system.
After reading the League of Women’s Voting Paper, as well as the comments above, I have come to the conclusion that there are many pros and cons to both the Single member system and Proportional representation. Both have been proven to work in different circumstances which makes it hard to say which is really the “best.”
ReplyDeleteSingle member has a “winner take all” approach that does not ensure fair representation and can alienate third party systems from having a chance of success. Whereas proportional representation gives more people the chance to participate allowing for a broader range of representation throughout the country.
Proportional representation would ensure voters that their vote matters and encourage them to make educated votes. For this reason, I think that proportional representation would be a better system to operate under. Such a large percent of American voters are uneducated, while the others do not even register to vote. I think because this system encourages people to not only vote, but to make educated votes is one of its most valuable attribute.
______________________
The following article takes a full look at the advantages and disadvantages of the single member districts and concludes that they can foster “strong and stable governments” which is proven true in America today:
http://aceproject.org/main/english/bd/bda02a01.htm
The U.S. government should be in favor of the proportional representation and rid of single member plurality. The proportional representation system is to legislates everyone, and not by a specific district. Focusing on the majority of American rather than their specific district and their needs. With proportional representation, party majorities do not exist and results in having bonds with other outside candidates in order to govern.
ReplyDeleteSingly Member plurality has a winner-take-all structure, which makes it very hard on third party/minor candidates. Only allowing, for the most part, room for only two major parties (Democratic, and Republican) Also a certain percentage of the candidates vote is wasted. “For example, if a losing candidate receives 47 percent of the vote, those votes are considered wasted. Likewise for a winner with 65 percent of the vote, almost 15 percent of those votes are considered wasted.)Voters in majority-plurality systems, especially probable to feel that their votes are wasted.” The Proportional system decreases the amount of wasted votes and would balance out those represented by no one. Allows the voters to decide who they want, let’s say a third party candidate, rather than the any major party deciding. Like one of my classmates, Rachel Duryea, had stated, this would decrease the amount of scenarios where voters will not vote for a third party (that they seem fit to legislate) because of the two major parties. Which is what the single member plurality system encourages, hindering our abilities to truly voice what we want.
Lastly, the proportional system would allow the candidates to become more diverse working to progress as a majority with other candidates not in their party. Giving the legislation more feedback/ different opinions
-TAYLOR MALANIK
I believe that the United States should move away from the Single Member Plurality Legislative elections. Third parties get little recognition because people do not believe they are worth the time. By adding the third party there may be some controversy and disagreements between the other parties, I think that having representation from all aspects of life would encourage more voters to come out and would convince people that they are not wasting their vote by not voting for the republican or democrat candidate. when we think about why this would be useful, for one, the independent voters would be more inclined to come out and vote, because they will have a candidate that could possibly be supporting all their views. I am personally independent, I believe in certain views from teh democrat party and I believe certain views from the republican party, so having the possibility of a candidate viewing all the same views as me makes me want to pay more attention to the election process and I will be more likely to vote in that upcoming election. Another thing I agreed with in the paper is that all states should allow same-day registration. I was older enough to vote in this past election but I did not register in time, which stopped me from having a say in the election. If there was same-day registration in the state of Maryland I would have 100% gone and voted for the candidate that I felt was best suited to represent this country.
ReplyDeleteI think that we as a whole should move away from the single member party. We need to do this because it is not working out the way people want it too, and seems to be unfair at a lot of the time. Single member parties can lose a majority vote, but still win in a specific district. Even the two party systems can have some problems because voters just vote on who they want for whatever reason they believe is necessary. Which leads me to think that we should move out voting system into a proportional representation. That way everything is set up to be a bit more equal and people can't just vote based upon just who they want to win. A voter turnout would definitely increase if we used this system because of how it is represented. It wouldn't just be one vs the other. Every candidate would have a shot and get a chance to explain themselves in a better matter than the one system party or the two. All parties will be able to have seats and it would be set up much more fairly then the way its ran now.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we should move away from the single member plurality system and move towards proportional representation. The disadvantage for the single member plurality system show that a majority of votes are often wasted because if you vote for a candidate who loses, voters won’t have their issues/concerns represented in the legislature. Voter turnout tends to be lower than other systems because voters feel that their votes are wasted. Also, this system often neglects representing racial and ethnic minorities unless districts are drawn to make them the majority in particular legislative districts. When there are comfortable majorities for one party, it can make elections non-competitive leading to lower voter-turnout. Also in close races, there is usually only two candidates which often creates negative campaigning to drive voters away from their opponent. Although it is the most commonly used voting system in the U.S., there are disadvantages that show some people’s votes don’t even matter. In proportional representation, the number of seats a party wins in a legislature should be proportionate to the amount of its supporting voters. People want their issues/concerns to be brought up in legislature so having several members per district allows proportionality giving voters an advantage. Proportional representation also encourages third parties to have a chance to gain representation in the legislature. This option allows donors to support the candidate they must affiliate with. This also moves away from the poor representation of racial and ethnic minorities. Legislators in a proportional representation represent everyone, not just voters within a particular district.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Kidwell
I think that the U.S should replace single member plurality with proportional representation. I don't think either method is the best way to go, but I think that single member plurality robs our citizens of being able to vote for what/who they believe in not on a basis of strict political parties. Some people may identify as a Democrat but vote conservative on certain issues. Switching to proportional representation would increase voter turnout because people will feel their vote counts toward something. Our current single member plurality excludes minorities and discourages voters from voicing their opinions. America is built off the notions of being a free and fair country, so we should have a system that reflects those morals by allowing third parties to stand a chance in winning elections.
ReplyDelete-MaryKate Farnan
I find all the voting systems extremely flawed in many ways, but I would say the US would be better off staying away from the single member plurality system. This would give third parties and more candidates more involvement in the government. In our democratic government we show the lowest voting turn out because democrats living in a predominantly republican area don't feel a need to vote because they see their vote as just as "wasted vote". They know that no matter the out come, the republican issues will win. Back at home I live in a traditionally republican area, and not many people will vote for a democrat in fear that their vote will just be wasted. This system of voting is unfair and just causes fewer political parties which is helping less and less. For example, the racial and ethnic minorities are not getting a fair share in this and their votes are meaning nothing. The issues they are dealing with will never get a resolution as long as we keep up with this voting system.
ReplyDelete- Morgan Reeder
I believe that the U.S. should move away from single-member plurality if only to eliminate the two party system. If we were to move to a proportional representation system we likely would no longer have grid lock in congress. What is considered third party now would have people elected and have the possibility of doing some good. More interests would be represented and lobbies would have to work far harder to have the same effect as the money and influence would need to go to more places. One of the parties could not mess with one another’s primaries. It was mentioned in class that the republicans arranged votes so the democratic primary leader was a member or the Nazi party. In 2012 West Virginia 4 out of 10 votes in the Democratic presidential primary were for an inmate in Texas named Keith Judd as intent to create a buzz.
ReplyDeleteOn the downside we ultimately wouldn’t know who the person we’re voting and that makes it even easier for a party to scapegoat when it fails to do what it promised. The party your vote for has far more power as your vote is directly for that factions power. If congress or the state legislator stayed the same there would be wasted votes, a vote for a third party is a vote towered an unlikely win.
I feel that the U.S should move away from the single-member plurality system and move to the proportional system. I feel that the third party candidates should get more of a chance when they are running for election but only if they are capable of affording it and have the right. Also third parties will show more diverse problems at hand rather than just looking from a democrat or republican standpoint. By switching to a proportional system it would allow these third party candidates to have higher ranks of people voting for them. I agree with Matthew that by moving to a proportional system it would help third party candidates have more of a chance when they are running. This system would also help the candidates to not feel discouraged because they wouldn’t have to worry about the voters choosing a republican stand point or a democrat stand point. Also it would help voters feel like they have more of a voice in their choice.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though the cons out weigh the pros in single member plurality, some of the cons that I believe should be changed are:
ReplyDelete1. The number of wasted votes is too high. Republicans who live in Democratic areas and Democrats living in Republican areas have wasted votes because they won’t count for anything if most of their district disagrees with their choices. Just because they don’t agree doesn’t mean they aren’t the best choices for the district. Also, people who want to vote for the third party candidate perceive their vote as wasted, so they vote for the major party candidate whose views are closest to their own, which means they’re voting for the lesser of two evils. This doesn’t make sense. Voters should be voting for someone they agree with so that a representative with similar views to theirs can represent them in government, which is why we have a democracy. They shouldn’t vote for someone just because they don’t want the other candidate in office.
2. The legislative lines seem to be causing more harm than good. First of all, they are controversial and there has been nothing done to prevent gerrymandering (to my knowledge). Since it encourages a two party system, each party will try to get as many votes as possible from the ideological spectrum. Meaning parties don't take strong stands, which could give the wrong idea to voters. Then once they’re in office they will voice their stands the people they influenced will regret their decision.
3. Single member plurality doesn’t do a good job of representing racial and ethnic minorities.
Because of these reasons I think the US should move towards proportional representation. Which is a system that allows the number of seats a political party or like-minded group wins in a legislature to be proportional to the amount of its support among voters. PR elects several members per district, allowing proportionality. This system helps with wasted votes because if a party gets 15 percent of the votes, then they get 15 percent of the seats. This means that third party voters will have a voice, and so will Republicans living in Democratic areas and Democrats living in Republican areas, as well as racial and ethnic minorities. This is a good thing since they are still part of the US and deserve a voice. Just because someone views politics a different way than the two-party system or even the people in their district doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be able to get a seat in the legislator. There is also little geographical representation in PR so gerrymandering and the candidate trying to change their ideological views will not be an issue. Instead of trying to appeal to ones geography they will be able to attract voters with their ideas.
The single member plurality system is clearly outdated as is evident by low voter turnout. The automatic biases and mundane candidates it creates has become too repetitive a process for many Americans to even be bothered with anymore. This is a problem because as a society we must be informed about our leaders, and elect those who we feel best represent us. This can be hard for some as many people feel the candidates within the current party system do not represent them. The third parties that they may identify with more often do not receive any media coverage, and votes in the long run. I feel that taking comfort in knowing who is in charge is small potatoes and a shallow way of thinking compared to making sure the best candidate is in charge. Being 1 of 4 countries out of all 21 developed democracies suggests that may our version of democracy may not be as pure and without distortion as we think. Third parties that actually have a chance and represent the people would go a long ways in making this country feel more like a true democracy. As a country our voter turnout is embarrassing and needs drastic improvement. Proportional representation has been proven to increase voter turnout in many countries. Restrictions and limitations such as registration make things more complicated than they need to be and often turn people away from the voting process altogether.
ReplyDeleteThe “Winner takes all” mentality is fine as a kid on the playground when your dominating the courts, but when it comes to running one of the most powerful countries in the world, I think a less childish, more mature mentality is needed. Pointless competition between those on the same side will always eventually result in implosion. Political parties, like teammates, should look to compliment each other, rather than out do each other. Proportional representation gives this a better chance of being a reality than does our current two-party system. Even as a kid in winner takes all situations the loser can always wait until the next game and play again. In politics, third parties generally only get one shot and they are already handicapped to begin with. Not giving the underdog a chance is about as un-American as it gets.
I believe the United States should consider proportional voting over the implemented signal plurality system of voting. This form of voting enables a two party system to happen with a lack of minority party affect. This is a growing issue with how diverse our country is. With a proportional voting system, it allows representation through percentage, giving a minority say. With this system it can take away from geographical representation. But the happy medium MMP adds districting that eliminates this problem. Although it creates a less sincere voting concept, our system now does not have a huge sincerity involved with voting. This is not a huge disadvantage to take into consideration. I also find IRV to be a good process, but the racial bias cannot be brought into play with standing issues in our country. In conclusion, the United States should try to implement the MMP system to include more of the minor communities to create a more wholistic representation of our country. The two party system is becoming more and more complex with growing issues.
ReplyDeleteThe United States should move away from single member plurality and switch to proportional representation. Different parties would have the chance to represent themselves in the legislator. This would be done by using multi-member districts and dividing up the seats in these multi-member districts according to the proportion of votes received by the various parties or groups running candidates If more people felt like their views were being appealed to, even if it might be a minority viewpoint compared to those of a bigger party, citizens might feel as if their vote will count and be more involved. This will also give the bigger parties less control of politics and the things that prevent smaller parties from being involved in single member plurality.
ReplyDeleteSomething certainly needs to be done to change the system we have now, but what it should be changed to is the dilemma. What we have now isn't working out the way it should be based on the fact that voter turnout rates are very low so what can be done? Changing the system from a single member plurality to one that encourages minor parties, like proportional representation, could solve a lot of problems. At the same time, there are things that are wrong with that system as well. The League of Women's Voting gives many suggestions that sound like they could work, like choice voting, for example. In choice voting, a person would rank their favorite candidate based on a number system. I like this system because even if your number one choice doesn't advance, you still have the possibility of your second choice moving on. There are drawbacks, like what if none of your top choices continue? But then there are going to be drawbacks to any system because no system can be completely flawless. I really think we need to try the proportional representation system, though, because the minor parties need a better shot at their candidates winning. There are many people who belong to other groups other than Republican or Democrat so for those people to have no representation at all isn't fair.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the U.S. should move away from single-member plurality system. It seems unconstitutional and limiting our freedoms that a candidate can win without the popular vote.A good reason the U.S. should move away this system is because of the fact that the single-member plurality system greatly diminishes the opportunity for third parties, not giving them a a real chance. While there are advantages in this system the disadvantages outweigh them significantly. In America every citizens should feel their voice should is heard, and this system limits that right. I am in favor of changing the voting system to a proportional system. This would allow third party candidates to have more of a chance of taking office and representing people who support other parties. It would allow voting outcomes to increase for third party candidates. In this system people would have more of an opportunity to be heard. The proportional representation system is a better system and gives more freedoms to the people.The system gives more representation because of the number of votes cast.
ReplyDeleteI think that the United States should move away from single-member plurality and favor proportional representation.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons I think this would be a good idea is because voter turnout in America has always been a problem, and part of that is partly because of the free-rider problem associated with having two main political parties. With proportional representation there are more parties represented, more reasons to vote, and less wasted votes. It’s also easier to use, and a lot of problems people face when voting is not having the knowledge to understand why their vote matters. With plurality-majority, the winner is the one with the most votes.
Choice voting, in proportional representation would also be better at representing a greater variation of groups. You rank your candidates highest to lowest on the ballot instead of picking one over another. It minimizes wasted votes, and if a voters first candidate gets dropped, they’re second choice or runner up will get their vote, instead of it not counting at all. I think this would increase voter turnout and peoples interest in elections because no matter who gets elected, the votes you place will go somewhere.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHaving grown up within the D.C. area, I have been exposed to a LOT of politics as well as been engrossed with what goes on during elections. That being said, I believe that the system has a way of being corrupt. For example, not only do parties try to persuade people to vote for a specific candidate, mostly depending on how much funding they receive from supporters, but there are a lot of politicians who also vouch for candidates and persuade political members to support specific candidates, regardless if these people actually want to vote for the person. The behind the scene work of politics can be messy and its definitely based upon what political or social power is behind a candidate.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should favor the proportional representation over the single member plurality because the person chosen should be favorable by the entire public, not by legislation votes or who has the most support from the most popular or richest party. Our system of government is made for the people to decide issues and who should lead our society. By adding in the excess persuasion, our system has a chance to become corrupt. As some would say, “that’s politics, it’s a messy game”. I firmly believe this statement to be true.
By bringing in my point in the opening paragraph, gerrymandering, basically manipulation, should be solved within the voting process. It is unfair that a specific candidate is chosen because their party persuades people to vote for them based on excess money or simply just power, which is a stem of why they are so popular. Politics is as as ever changing as our society and our candidates should be bringing in new and fresh ideas to better lead the American people. Reducing power in the state governments can help reduce this problem within the system. This will be done if a higher power watches the process and makes sure that people are not being swayed by the image of a candidate. The League of Women Voters are a bit biased in their views as they have strong visions of what the future can hold but they do have a great vision in that they would want to change ho people vote and make it more of a person’s political view as to why they are voting for a candidate.
I conclusion, politics is messy as higher powers will typically always beat out the little man. If parties were granted to raise a certain amount of money per election process this could help. Also, dwindling down the amount of money to spend on a campaign could help as well. Another idea is each state governments giving one candidate from every party a specific amount of money to spend. This could lessen the more powerful candidate from trumping on the little guy. I think that everyone has different views that are right or wrong but all are great points. Everyone should have a chance to be heard and to represent our people. It should always be a person’s choice of whom they wish to vote for and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, power put aside.
I think the United States should move away from single-member plurality and I agree with olivia above me. Everyone's vote should count because that gives each and every candidate (even third party members) a chance. Voter turnout is a big problem in the United States and when there are more parties on the ballot then there are more people that will be willing to vote. Everyone deserves a chance to make a difference and with the single-member plurality, they don't all get that chance.
ReplyDeleteII agree with the point that the U.S should move away from the single-member plurality voting. In the article given, according to the league of women, The Single member District Plurality system is where candidates run to be elected to a single seat in a specific geographic area and then the voter with the most received votes wins the seat. I feel like that isn't fair and doesn't make sense, because all of the other votes go to waste. The people who are running are misrepresented. In the US the power is held by the citizens and this isnt a good system for the U.S. Minority Parties are underrepresented in this system also.
ReplyDeleteIt is better for the US to move to Proportional Representation because different parties will be able to have seats in the legislature and everyone would be represented fairly with Proportional Representation. There will also be a bigger voter turnout because in the Single Member Plurality, people votes didnt really matter
I believe that we should move away from a single-member plurality voting because the system doesn't accurately represent the majority. Single-member plurality voting allows the voter with the most votes to win a seat, yet most running for the seat aren't getting as much attention as they deserve. Our government is ran by the people and one person can't effectively represent that region. I believe a proportional representation more accurately reflects our system and will benefit it also. With this type of system everyone is represented fairly and more parties and ideas will be able to be heard through this.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States should begin to move away from single member plurality legislative elections, and move more in the favor of something like proportional representation.
ReplyDeleteThe single member plurality system does not allow for the majority of Americans to express their feelings when it comes to voting because it is essentially only the represented officials whose votes count. It does not make sense to me that someone can win a position of office without winning the popular vote. America has the design of a democracy, so I feel like the voting process should be handled that way as well.
Single member plurality also takes away from third parties greatly because people believe they are just wasting a vote. It would be so rare for a third party representative to receive more votes than a Republican or Democrat, and that is why people do not tend to vote for them and the third parties are diminishing.
I think that the best system would be the proportional system, mainly due to it being a much more democratic model. This would allow for the candidates to be acknowledged based on the percentage of people who did cast a vote for them, not just if they were the leader or not. This model would also allow for the emergence of third parties again because all the candidates will not just be designated to their party lines.
Another system worth considering would be the closed election. I think this because a system like this ensures that no party could really influence the votes of other parties, therefore taking some of the power away from the parties and residing it within the people. This may also push voters away because if they do not agree with the candidate representing their party they may not even consider voting.
Overall, I believe the proportional representation model would be the best choice because it represents the majority of Americans as oppose to candidates who represent the most popular parties, not always the most popular candidate.
Whatever it is they decide to do in the future, I believe that it is definitely necessary that the United States gets rid of single member plurality and adopts a new model.
I think the best solution for the United States would be to move away from the single-member plurality to the proportional representation. The fact that a candidate only focuses on a single region and not the greater good does not make any sense to me. Why would one waste time on projects that benefits a small few when they could reach a much larger population by enacting projects that benefit the bigger picture? I also find it difficult to grasp that a candidate cannot win a majority vote, and yet still hold their seat in office in which they only benefit a select few. If there was a system of proportional representation, a third party may not hold many seats at one time, but they would still hold seats and be able to let a small number of the populations voice be heard that may not have been heard otherwise. If representatives of third parties could hold seats in future elections, it would most likely increase the number of votes third parties would be receiving. The more of a name a candidate has, the more money and media attention they will receive. Proportional representation would allow more of the populations voice be heard, and strengthening “Government by the people, for the people.” I agree with Mr. Moseley’s thought “I find the single member plurality system is a little contradictory to the whole idea of democracy.” It does seem unfair that in a government in which everyone’s voices should be heard that there is a winner take all voting system. This only discourages third parties from being elected and voices get lost to the dominant parties. This ties in with the Free Rider Problem. If one knows that their candidate is most likely not going to win voter turn out in the state will either decrease or the voters will vote for the candidate they think is the lesser of two evils. This seems unfair that one must choose their second choice to perhaps take part in voting.
ReplyDelete