Sample by My Essay Writer
Executive summary
This paper discusses the different electoral systems and the ways that they vary from each other. It mainly focuses on the conflicting aspects of plural voting systems. The paper further articulates the main aspects of first-past-the-post, the alternative vote, the single transferable vote, mixed, and party electoral systems, and shows how each differs from the other. The research uses examples to show the different electoral system and draws a conclusion from the discussion. Apparently, the plural system is the best democratic way of choosing leaders as it ensures that there is equity in the allocation of different positions. In the appendix, the paper uses data to indicate the equal distribution of votes and representation.
Major distinctions between plurality first-past-the-post, the alternative vote, the single transferable vote, combined/ mixed, and party list electoral systems
Different voting systems are used around the globe. The majority of countries use the plural voting system which is considered democratic as it allows many candidates to vie for seats. The system provides different choices for voters and allows them to make their preferred choices. However, various systems have been devised to ensure equity and promote proportionality in the voting. As such, there exist different systems within the plural voting system (Norris 4-5). The plural voting system helps in guiding voters and ensuring proper representation. The system also involves the alternative vote, the first-past-the-post (FPTP), the single transferable vote, and the mixed electoral system. [Need an essay writing service? Find help here.]
According to the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, the plural voting system allows multiple candidates to participate while the voters are allowed to vote for only one candidate. Plural voting usually requires that the winning candidate receives absolute majority votes. Thus they are a standard number of votes against the opponents that must be received for a given candidate to win. Such may be granted through laws requiring the winner to have over 50% of the votes or the votes to be 10% more than their opponents (“Electoral Systems”). The plural voting system provides different choices on how voters can choose their candidates. However, there are slight differences in the manner that voting is done, and this leads to the creation different voting system (“Electoral Systems”). Most countries use a mixture of various systems to ensure that the correct system is applied. Countries like the USA have, however, choose to create election districts that consist of an almost equal population and use these as voting districts. [“Write my essay for me?” Get help here.]
Summary of the core topic
FPTP voting system is a conventional voting system that requires voters to choose their preferred candidate via the ballot (“Electoral Systems”). The candidate who garners the most votes wins the election. The system is commonly used worldwide, especially among England colonies as seen in US elections. For instance, the 2016 US elections were a display of FPTP. Voters had the choice to choose between various candidates, with the major candidates being Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The FPTP voting system is divided into separate districts, constituents, and other divisions, consequently allowing voters to choose particular leaders.
The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network notes that the single transferable votes (STV) are ones that are created in such a way that representation is done in a proportional manner. The proportionality is achieved through voting in a rank system in given districts or constituents. The system allocates the initial vote to the preferred candidate, and as the votes are counted, certain candidates are eliminated while others get elected. This way, the votes are awarded to the winners to elect them or on the losers so as to eliminate them (Gagnon and Tanguay 218-224). The STV system is applied in Australian states of the National Capital Authority (NCA) and Tasmania. STV is also used in Ireland and Malta and has been seen as effective.
When a system uses more than one way of voting, then this is termed as mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) (“Electoral Systems”). MMP might combine the use of FPTP system and proportional representation. MMP is employed in Germany, Scotland, and Wales. The method is used majorly to ensure that there is proportional representation while still allowing the most popular candidate to be elected by the majority.
The party list proportional representation system (PR) allows the party to provide a list of potential candidates (“Electoral Systems”). Seats are then allocated to the different parties proportionally. The party then uses its list to allocate members to the seats. The seats can be acquired as a result of the total votes through votes on candidates or votes for the different parties.
The alternative vote (IV) allows voters to rank various candidates in order of preference. The system requires that the winner attains over 50% of the votes (“Electoral Systems”). Consequently, when this is not achieved, the last candidate is eliminated, and their votes redistributed to the remaining candidates. When this is not sufficient, the last candidate is again eliminated and votes redistributed. The process is done until the 50% is attained.
Review of the research literature
For contrasting political institutions, special issue of the International Political Science Reviewvol. 18, no.3 details the different electoral systems and helps in defining the plural voting systems. In the article, Norris provides the alternates to the plural electoral systems and why particular countries have preferences for certain specific voting systems. Norris further states why different countries might use different methods for different levels when they are voting.
The ACE Electoral Knowledge Network discusses the different electoral systems and processes. It provides the advantages and disadvantages of various systems and the ways to make them better. The source is very useful when requiring further research on electoral systems.
Gagnon and Tanguay, in their book Canadian Parties in Transition, argue about the change transition of electoral rules in the different districts towards single transferable vote (STV) as the major system of voting. The authors center on the advantages of STV and how the system is assisting various countries in electing leaders. The book facilitates research towards the impact of STV system.
Conclusions and implications
The plural voting system is popular because it allows the people to express their will. The FPTP allows people to choose the most popular candidate to represent them. FPTP can be supported further by other systems such as the single transferable system (STV) or alternative vote (AV), which would allow for the votes of each person to count. In such, wastage of votes can be reduced. Voters might not have the correct information, and in order to be guided, there is a need to include other voting mechanisms, which facilitates proportional representation and equal opportunities for the different candidates. Consequently, a voting system cannot be perfect but can always be improved in a way that it enhances democracy but also ensures that people are well represented.[Click Essay Writer to order your essay]
Appendix
First past the post
Choose one voting option
| Peter Dowry | |
| Victor Buggan | |
| Alex Clint | |
| Cynthia Blim |
Alternative Voting
Number of votes
| Mark Harper | 450 |
| Aaron Silen | 360 |
| Victor Drury | 200 |
| Nathan Cowen | 105 |
First distribution
| Mark Harper | 500 |
| Aaron Silen | 370 |
| Victor Drury | 240 |
Second distribution
| Mark Harper | 650 |
| Aaron Silen | 460 |
Mark Harper wins as he has garnered more than 50% votes.
Works Cited
“Electoral Systems.” ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, 2016
Gagnon, Alain, and A. Brian Tanguay. Canadian Parties in Transition. 4th ed., U of Toronto P, 2016.
Norris, Pippa. “Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems.” International Political Science Review, vol. 18, no. 3, 1997, pp. 297-312.
