Mr Yusuf AHassan
Assess the benefits of proportional voting systems. (25)
Currently our country uses the voting system ‘First Past the Post’. This system has received a lot of criticism for not being very proportional with the distribution of seats in relation to votes. Other systems like AMS, STV and List systems are a lot more proportional. In this essay I will assess the benefits of these systems.
One main benefit to these proportional systems is that it ensures seats are proportional to votes. In the 2010 election the Conservative party gained around 50% of the seats while only getting 30% of the votes which caused lot disapproval to our system as it was seen as improper. Systems like AMS ensure this problem doesn’t occur as it uses additional top up seats to balance the proportion of seats to votes. However as top up seats vary one could argue that this system is open to corruption.
Another benefit is that they allow better representation. AMS ensures better representation by distributing the top up seats so each party is correctly represented. However there is a limit to how well they can ensure better representation because there isn’t an unlimited number of top up seats. STV also allows better representation by allowing more winners within a constituency. Nevertheless in order to better the representation within parties and constituencies these systems must have long complicated processes which may put people off voting and therefore cancelling the effect of better representation.
Another common benefit is that theses systems ensures most votes aren’t wasted. AMS consider every electorate’s vote as a percentage to determine where to distribute the top up seats. STV takes electorate’s 2nd, 3rd and sometimes 4th votes to ensure there vote doesn’t to waste. Conversely with AMS parties with a very small percentage of votes would most likely gain no seats which imply votes could be wasted. Moreover STV’s system is too complicated that by allowing no votes to be
Currently our country uses the voting system ‘First Past the Post’. This system has received a lot of criticism for not being very proportional with the distribution of seats in relation to votes. Other systems like AMS, STV and List systems are a lot more proportional. In this essay I will assess the benefits of these systems.
One main benefit to these proportional systems is that it ensures seats are proportional to votes. In the 2010 election the Conservative party gained around 50% of the seats while only getting 30% of the votes which caused lot disapproval to our system as it was seen as improper. Systems like AMS ensure this problem doesn’t occur as it uses additional top up seats to balance the proportion of seats to votes. However as top up seats vary one could argue that this system is open to corruption.
Another benefit is that they allow better representation. AMS ensures better representation by distributing the top up seats so each party is correctly represented. However there is a limit to how well they can ensure better representation because there isn’t an unlimited number of top up seats. STV also allows better representation by allowing more winners within a constituency. Nevertheless in order to better the representation within parties and constituencies these systems must have long complicated processes which may put people off voting and therefore cancelling the effect of better representation.
Another common benefit is that theses systems ensures most votes aren’t wasted. AMS consider every electorate’s vote as a percentage to determine where to distribute the top up seats. STV takes electorate’s 2nd, 3rd and sometimes 4th votes to ensure there vote doesn’t to waste. Conversely with AMS parties with a very small percentage of votes would most likely gain no seats which imply votes could be wasted. Moreover STV’s system is too complicated that by allowing no votes to be