Other times, one party can sweep almost every seat, almost obliterating any opposition. Parties share power and work together to create policies which are supported by MLAs representing a genuine majority of voters.
A strategic vote is most often for one of the larger parties, masking diversity and the real support for the smaller parties in the election results. Even when an organized strategic voting campaign does succeed in shifting the vote in the desired direction, many voters are left with the feeling that the government or MLA they elected by strategic voting was not what they really wanted.
With proportional representation, you vote for what you truly believe in, and help elect an MLA who shares your values! Many voters feel their MLA is not responsive to their concerns and is little more than a salesperson for their party in the riding. When electoral reform appears to have a real chance, the opposition can become vehement, with parties channelling incredible energy and money into defeating proportional representation.
Many of the MLAs elected now have seats in regions where one party swept every seat in the region thanks to first-past-the-post. With proportional representation, when results reflect the popular vote and the true political diversity of the region, some of those MLAs will not be re-elected.
Ever wanted to vote for a particular party you support, but the candidate they were running in your riding was a loser? These parties can then field a diverse array of candidates for election. In Malaysia, for example, the Barisan Nasional government is made up of a broadly-based umbrella movement which fields Malay, Chinese, and Indian candidates in areas of various ethnic complexions.
It excludes extremist parties from representation in the legislature. By contrast, under a List PR system with a single national-level district and a large number of seats, a fraction of 1 per cent of the national vote can ensure representation in the legislature. It promotes a link between constituents and their representatives, as it produces a legislature made up of representatives of geographical areas.
Elected members represent defined areas of cities, towns, or regions rather than just party labels. It allows voters to choose between people rather than just between parties. Voters can assess the performance of individual candidates rather than just having to accept a list of candidates presented by a party, as can happen under some List PR electoral systems. It gives a chance for popular independent candidates to be elected. This may be particularly important in developing party systems, where politics still revolves more around extended ties of family, clan, or kinship and is not based on strong party political organizations.
Finally, FPTP systems are particularly praised for being simple to use and understand. A valid vote requires only one mark beside the name or symbol of one candidate.
Even if the number of candidates on the ballot paper is large, the count is easy for electoral officials to conduct. In the federal election in Canada, the Progressive Conservatives won 16 per cent of the votes but only 0.
This is a pattern which is repeated time and time again under FPTP. It excludes minorities from fair representation. FPTP is clear, simple and decisive in the majority of cases, but many would argue that it is anything but a representative voting system. FPTP can also be used in multi-member electoral areas where voters are asked to vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies. Examples include local council elections, elections of foundation trust governors and membership organisations.
It is principally used in the electoral systems that are either are, or were once, British Colonies. The use of FPTP voting systems used to be more widespread, but many countries have now adopted other alternative voting systems. Facebook Twitter. In a political environment, FPTP enables voters to clearly express a view on which party they think should form the next government.
0コメント