Recent Referendum for Electoral Reform in the UK - Essay Example

? The recent referendum for electoral reform in the United Kingdom Recent referendum for the electoral reforms Recently, in UK, a debate sprung up on whether to introduce a new electoral system, Alternative Vote (AV) or keep, First-Past-The-Post (FPTP). The pro-AV citizens claimed that the current voting system just wastes votes. This is because with the FTPT system, elections get decided by a wee number of voters in the handful seats with no single party having a large majority. On this other hand, the anti-AV claimed that the current system stabilizes the government and has previously reflected the citizens’ will. The differences get critically ionized out and explicated in this analysis. This research focuses on ideas and opinions of both the public and the political analysts. The research focuses on analyzing the ideas, opinions and facts that lead to the choosing of FPTP over AV. The research tries to expose the hassle between the anti-AV and the pro-AV. The anti-AV’s support the current referendum, First-Past-The-Post, a system that allows a small voters’ number to do the elections. They claim that the current referendum stabilizes the government and reflects the peoples will at all time. The anti-AV and the pro-AV seem to disagree on elections done by a small number of voters. The anti-AV also complains on the complexity of the Alternative Vote referendum. The origin of the problem is the peoples need to make the voting process more democratic by handing over the voting power to the whole citizens rather than to the small representative group. Their argument is that lots of votes get wasted under the current system. This system allows a small representative group of individuals to vote thus discouraging people from voting. The major weakness this first-past-the-post system, they say, is the fact that two out of three of the MPs get elected into the Westminster while having less than half of the voters’ votes and this challenges democracy and decreases the authenticity of MPs. They claim that this system forces citizens to work harder for their votes and access a larger electorate crosssection. Weaknesses of the approach Substantial information gets sought from the public. This is a weakness because the media receives an enormous power over information, which is likely to be distorted. Voters develop the notion that the candidate receiving the highest media attention is the ones likely to win the election. A candidate new to the politics game, lacking a track record, initially tends to got support from the majority voters, eventually ceases to be one of the two popular candidates; thus receiving fewer votes, portraying them as a lower poller for the future elections, perpetuating the situation. Strengths of the approach The approach exhausts all the possible information sources. This allows for quality analysis because the information acquired is from different sources enhancing reliability. It provides the public with reliable information because the information put forward after the research has been critically analyzed and evaluated. Importance of the research approach This research approach provides information to the public and other interested parties while it enlightens them on issues concerning the AV and FTPT. Analysis of the case study It can be argued that in FTPT it is impossible to determine why a certain vote got cast, compared to the AV system. This is because the system allows casting of votes for any person even those who have no chance of winning. In this case, the people feel votes casted for other insignificant runners have no justification and no explanation. Another argument over the FTPT is that it promotes the statement, “all votes, not for the primary candidate or the secondary favorite candidate, are votes for the primary candidate“. It simply implies that when a vote is cast for a candidate other than the two principal contenders, the vote promotes the primary candidate. Since the primary candidate, the one who is likely to win, has large numbers of votes, a vote against him and his primary competitor are for his benefit. This voting system wastes votes because people vote for candidates who stand no chance. In comparison to the AV system, it can be argued that the first-past-the-post system is better than other methods of electoral, because it encourages a tactful voting. The voters have the incentive to cast their votes for one either of the two candidates they foresee as winners, even when they prefer another candidate not in the picture, because they know that a vote that is not for either of the two is a wasted vote. This is simply because they know that the other candidates do not stand a chance. According to the AV system, this is wrong because the citizens forcefully vote for candidates they do not want to select. The AV system gives people the opportunity to vote for the candidate that has captured their hearts and the one that appeals the most to them. The AV system allows for people to select a number of candidates of their choice up for voting. The votes get cast, and the candidate with more than 50% of the total votes wins the elections. If the candidate with the highest vote happens to have votes lower than 50%, then the candidate with the least votes gets eliminated and voting is redone. Basing on Duvergers law, an idea in political science, it can be argued that the constituencies that use FTPT tend to become two party states, given a long enough, time compared to AV. The first-past-the-post election produces a small group of radical parties, probably two. Smaller parties get crushed and trampled in first-past-the-post elections. Many citizens feel that the first-past-the-post system is doing away with little political parties that represent their needs. This type of system leads to two party dominance over the others making smaller parties disappear. This system tends to reduce the viable political parties number to a larger extent making it more probable for a party to possess a substantial portion of legislative seats, when compared to AV system. The tendency of FTPT crushing other parties while making them fewer and fewer. These results into a one-party rule with the potential of producing a government that tends to ignore a wide range of concern and perspectives. With fewer choices available for the voters, they forfeit voting a candidate of their choice because they vote for a candidate they oppose at the expense of voting for a candidate they even oppose more. Its disadvantage over the AV system is that the elected candidates reflect fewer viewpoints of the voters who elected them. As an argument, the one-party rule has the tendency to lead to spontaneous changes in government policies that got favored by a plurality or complete majority of the voting body, whereas the multiparty systems normally require a larger consensus to make significant changes. Another reason as to why the current system is better than AV is because of its production of strong leaders and candidates and their conspicuousness from the rest, as opposed to AV system. AV is a system benefiting bland candidates that aim to impress everyone all time. This system does not allow electors to vote out candidates they dislike. AV allows for candidates that strived to attain popularity stay in seats despite the citizens dissatisfaction, as opposed to FTPT that allows their removal. It can be argued that another disadvantage of the AV is that it demands a reasonable extent of numeracy and literacy and get maximally compared to FTPT. The reason behind this is that it works in a division of single-members while producing disproportional results when compared to FTPT system. Also, the strength of AV for promoting the outcomes of the centrist is too dependent to the underlying demographic and social conditions. First-past-the-post is one of the simplest voting systems in the world. It implies certain advantages. There is a tendency of it being quicker and easier to manage. This may also imply that elections costs are lower during its running. It has an enormous effect on the voters due to its simplicity. Unlike FTPT, the AV alienates some of the voters who do not comprehend the way the system works and thus feel detached from straight effect of their votes. If not most of the times, then at least some of the time, voters favour a political party but are in resentment of the political leader. In this case, it can be argued that FTPT allows voters to re-elect the previous political party, and elect someone new if they get dissatisfied with the government leader. An example is Alberta premier, Donald Getty. His 1988 government got re-elected in 10889, but due to dissatisfaction with the way he led the government, Getty, failed to get re-elected by his voters in his electoral district. Often, claims spring up that an elected candidate is held accountable to his voters because they voted for him in their respective electoral districts. This helps to prevent fraudulent, incompetence and corruption among the elected candidates. The voters in the electoral have power since they can replace the candidate whenever they fail to deliver or engage in fraudulent activities. When there is the absence of recall legislation, the electors have to wait for the next elections. Conclusion The FTPT system won the election because of its simplicity, how it supports the government and the fact that it existed for many years. The citizens felt that there's no need to change it with a much more difficult and complex system. Reference Driver, S., & Martell, L. (2006). New labour. Cambridge [u.a.: Polity Press. Giannetti, D., & Grofman, B. (2011). A natural experiment on electoral law reform: Evaluating the Long Run Consequences of 1990s Electoral Reform in Italy and Japan. New York, NY: Springer. Great Britain, & Great Britain. (2010). Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill: Howe, P. (2005). Strengthening Canadian democracy. Montre?al, Que?bec: Inst. for Research on Public Policy (IRPP. King, J., & Harcourt, L. H. (1908). Electoral reform: An inquiry into our system of parliamentary representation / by Joseph King; with a preface by the Rt. Hon. L. Harcourt. London: T. F. Unwin. LeDuc, L. (2003). The politics of direct democracy: Referendums in global perspective. Leyenaar M.& Hazan Y.R.(2011). Understanding Electoral Reform, 34, 437-455, 3. Third report of session 2010-11: report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. London: Stationery Office. Segell, G. (2001). Electronic democracy and the UK 2001 elections. London: Glen Segell Williams, A. (1998). UK government & politics. Oxford: Heinemann. Read More