Friday, December 1, 2017

Election System Reform Proposals

As we've discussed in class, American elections use a winner-take-all, First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system that only allows for 2 parties to be successful. However, many Americans have expressed the desire for more choice in elections, both in terms of candidates and parties. While there are a number of third parties available for Americans to vote for, none of them ever seem to attain the success of the Republicans or Democrats. Some supporters of third parties have proposed that the American electoral system be reformed to give voters more choice and to allow more third parties to be successful.

Here is a playlist of CGP Grey videos (he's back!) that will explain some of the proposed electoral reforms:



ASSIGNMENT:
  1. View the videos on alternate voting methods posted below.
  2. Take notes on each of the different voting methods:
    1. Alternative Vote (AV)
    2. Mixed Member Proportional System (MMP)
    3. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
  3. Use the videos to write a well-constructed, supported, and unique response to the following question:
    1. WHICH SYSTEM OFFERS THE BEST WAY FOR MORE PARTIES TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS?
    2. When writing your response think about which system you like the best and which system you think could actually work in the U.S. (think about our consensual political culture!)

2 comments:

  1. Group of Matt, Melanie, Vincent, and Julia

    Although First Past the Post is the current method of elections in the United States, it is actually not common in much of the world for many reasons. An alternative voting process is one used in many other countries, especially in Europe: Mixed-Member Proportional System. This system allows for twice as many seats and each voter to receive 2 votes, rather than 1. A voter may utilize their first vote to vote for their chosen candidate, but they may often use their second for their favorite political party. The results are then seen, and adjusted so that the underrepresented receive more seats. Rather than the winners taking all of the seats, the positions are modified to make the "council" more proportional. A drawback of this is that before elections, parties can reward or punish a candidate by creating a list of their top nominees and adjusting candidate's placements' based on their behavior. However, besides this, the MMP system has many benefits, such as representing actual citizen preferences and representing the desires of the voters as whole. Voters feel that their vote is not wasted in any instance because even if, say, a third party does not win in the first past the post election, in the MMP system they would still be represented in the given proportion of seats as the proportion of votes they received. In theory, this system has a high rate of success and efficiency, but in reality, it may be met with some issues. For one, the system may be found confusing and complicated to many voters, as well as the fact that this method greatly differs from our current system. Voters may feel unfamiliar with it and without a feeling of understanding or trust in the system, this could potentially decrease voter turnout. Alternatively, a more practical proposal would include the Alternative Vote. As a much simpler system, it would still encompass many of the improvements being sought with an alternate method, while still remaining relatively familiar and simple for the average voter to comprehend and embrace. The AV functions by voters ranking their candidates on the ballot, starting with 1 being their top choice and so on from there. If their top choice receives the least amount of votes, with the idea of runoff voting, their vote would go to their second choice. This continually occurs until one candidate either has the majority of votes or is the only one left standing. Although this system does not promote political diversity (eventually returns to two party system with third parties having virtually no chance at victory) or have proportional representation (like the previously mentioned MMP), it does stop the spoiler effect. This signifies that voters do not have to strategically vote for the candidate who they dislike the least, but can vote for the nominee they feel best represents them as their top choice, but a major candidate, say, as their second choice. This greatly reduces the circumstances in which third parties with similar views as a major party attract their voters, reducing their chances of first past the post victory, and instead actually increase the chance of the candidate the voters supported the least having a better chance of winning the election. This AV system would provide America with a more efficient voting system over First Past the Post, while still remaining relatively easy to understand and adopt by the common voter.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Group Members- Melissa Z, Dylan S, Jill R, Sean


    The current method of the United States is First Past the Post in elections which works well for the country, however many other countries use alternative methods. An alternative method of voting other countries use is Mixed-Member Proportional System (MMP). While using this process, it gives each voter 2 votes and the system allows for double the number of seats. The two votes are split up by one vote is to vote for their candidate they choose to win the election and the second vote goes towards their political party one tends to favor and want. This allows for the unrepresented to receive more seats and be more represented. This election process creates less unfairness when it comes to claiming seats in council. Instead of winner taking all of the seats as in the First Past the Post method, it allows the seats in council to be modified, making it more proportional to all. This system has many benefits such as allowing political diversity, represents what citizens actually prefer, representing the citizens as a whole group, and it prevents gerrymandering and minority rule. People who are voting under this method can feel as if there vote is not going to waste and is not useless because no matter if who they vote for doesn’t win the election, they are still partially represented in the portion of seats given by the proportion of votes gotten. There are drawbacks in this method such as before the election takes place, parties can create a list that has their top nominees and adjusts candidates placements based on how they behave which can help or hurt a candidate during the election process. In addition, another drawback could be on the process itself. The system of Mixed-Member Proportional System may be confusing to voters and can be seen as unfamiliar to citizens this can lead to mistrust in the system and have people not want to vote at all in the election. However, the upside to this method of voting it has had high rates of successfulness and can lead to having high efficacy by allowing people's votes to count. This can increase voter turnout because people would want to vote to have their party count towards being represented in the council. This system has been used in countries and has high rates of effectiveness, which shows it is a method is useful and would work in the U.S. because we are a consensual political culture. This would work in this case because we citizens agree on what is being put into place and tend to disagree on how things should be put into place. So citizens would agree on this system but may disagree on how parties can change the list of nominees. Therefore, the MMP voting method would create a more successful and efficient voting system rather than the First Past the Post creating a wide opportunity for
    representation and political diversity.

    ReplyDelete