Winner Take All vs. Proportional Representation

There are two basic families of voting systems. Winner-take-all systems elect the candidates who receive the most votes, thereby allowing 50.1% of voters to win 100% of representation. Proportional representation systems allow like-minded groupings of voters to elect representatives in proportion to their share of the vote.

The winner-take-all voting system holds as its central tenet that representation should be awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes. That principle may seem fair enough: everyone gets to vote, and the top vote-getters win. And certainly a candidate who wins likely will share many of the same ideas and values as the largest voting block in his or her constituency.

One clear downside to winner-take-all voting, however, is that losing candidates win nothing, even if they win substantial numbers of votes. In a two-candidate race, it is possible for 49.9% of voters to receive no representation. In a three-candidate race that number can climb to 66.6% - much more than half the electorate can actually oppose the candidate who has earned the right to "represent" it. Examples of such "plurality” victories are common. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton earned less than 45% of the vote in their initial presidential victories, and several American governors have been elected with less than 40% in the 1990's. In some nations such as Russia and Papua New Guinea, the number of candidacies have multiplied such that district elections regularly are won with less than 20% of votes.

By contrast, the proportional representation voting system allows like-minded groupings of voters to elect representatives to a government in direct proportion to their relative support within a multi-seat constituency. The first thing to be remembered about this system is that in fact it is a competition between parties, not individual candidates. Each party submits a list of candidates, ranked in order of preference. The Proportional system is designed to allocate 10% of the seals to a party or a slate of candidates that wins 10% of the vote, 25% of the seats to those taking 25% of the vote and a majority of the seats to those winning a majority of the vote. Contrast that last example with She winner-take-all system, in which a majority of the vote can win 100% of the representation, and one begins to understand the fundamental difference between the two systems. Advocates of proportional voting systems propose that the legislature should be more like a mirror of the population, with majority and minority viewpoints represented. They say that this system accurately translates the popular vote into representation, and thus is fairer to small parties giving them a chance of winning, white the first-past-the post system is undemocratic because it is unrepresentative

 

Out of All Proportion

The general theory of proportional representation is simple and appealing: each political party receives a number of seats in the legislature in proportion to the number of votes. cast in its favour. In that way, so the argument runs, Parliament would accurately reflect public opinion. That is the theory, but what about the practice?

Г Let us take the result of the 1987 General Election. The Conservatives took 42 per cent of the vote Labour 31 per cent and the now-defunct 'Alliance' 23 per cent. If seats had been distributed under a PR system, neither the Conservatives nor Labour would have been able to form a government on their own. Whoever did would be reliant on - and therefore beholden to - the votes of the 'Alliance'. So who then would be calling the tune in Parliament? Which party above all could be sure that its policies were the ones that would be put into action? Answer: the one with just 23 per cent of the popular vote. The alternative would be a creaking coalition, paralysed by fear of losing control. And it needn't be a percentage as high as 23. Look at Israel where tiny parties, with only one or two members in the Knesset, regularly threaten to bring down the government unless their policies - often extreme ones - are accepted^

People who support PR think that it would be fairer, but in practice it gives totally disproportionate power to minority groups - to the fascist right in France, and the communist left in Italy. Closer to home, take the Irish Republic, which under PR held elections in 1981, 1982 (twice), 1987 and 1989. Mr. Haughey's Fianna Fail party, with 77 seats failed to secure an overall majority. The result, after weeks of horse-trading, was a coalition with the Progressive Democrats, who held just six seats in the Dail, yet managed to extract two cabinet posts in return for their co-operation - a degree of influence out of all proportion to their popularity, especially considering they held 14 seats prior to the election.

But fairness' is only one aspect of the electoral system that those who advocate reform must consider- the link between a constituent and his or her representative is equally important One of the strongest, most enduring and attractive aspects of our democratic system is the relationship between MPs and their own constituency. MPs at weekends go back to their roots, to those people who gave them authority to be MPs. Under some versions of PR, MPs would not represent any area in particular. The nearest thing that PR could come to fulfilling this requirement would be by having huge multi-member constituencies - of a whole county or more. The link of mutual dependence and responsibility that currently exists between MPs and their constituents is central.

 

Task S. Give a free translation of the story:

Реформы Палаты лордоз: за и против

Палата лордов - самая консервативная часть британского парламента. Британское правительство подтвердило свое желание реформировать Палату лордов, часть членов которой будет назначаться, а другая - избираться. Однако у новых планов появилось уже немало критиков. Противники предлагаемых реформ говорят, что проект, согласно которому 60% членов платы будут назначаться, говорит о желании правительства контролировать верхнюю палату британского парламента.

В соответствии с предложениями правительства, количество назначаемых членов Палаты лордов должно соответствовать проценту голосов, полученных различными политическими партиями на последних всеобщих выборах.

Только 20% будут избираться в Палату лордов напрямую, несмотря на то, что более ста депутатов-лейбористов выступили в Палате общин с предложением увеличить это число. Правительственный проект предлагает выбирать оставшиеся 20% членов Палаты лордов из кандидатов, не связанных ни с какими партиями, причем выбор будут осуществлять специально назначенные члены независимой комиссии. Выступая в среду, лидер большинства в Палате общин Робин Кук подтвердил, что последние 92 наследственных лорда, оставшихся после частичных реформ, проведенных два года тому назад, утратят свои места, а 20% членов Палаты лордов будут избираться гражданами страны. Новые члены палаты не будут получать гигуя пэра, как это было ранее. Таким образом, больше не будет существовать связи между местом в парламенте и получением титула.

Планируется ввести обязательную квоту для женщин-членов Палаты лордов, а также представить в ней различные регионы Великобритании и этнические меньшинства Предложено также сокращение мест в Палате лордов с нынешних 704 до 600, причем в это число будут входить 120 депутатов, не связанных ни с какими партиями. По словам лидера парламентского большинства Робина Кука, реформы будут означать усиление роли Палаты общин, а у верхней палаты останется только право отпожмть принятие законов, а не накладывать на них вето. Критики предложений, среди которых есть и представители правящей лейбористской партии, говорят, что реформы не вполне соответствуют требованиям демократии. В частности, лорд Ирвин предлагал уменьшить число депутатов, избираемых прямым голосованием, однако некоторые члены правительства, в том числе и Робин Кук, полагают, что в этом случае существует риск утраты принципов демократии. Бывший член правительства лейбористов Тони Бенн заявил, что предложения отбрасывают Палату лордов в XIV-й век. Он назвал проект "в корне недемократичным". Тем временем представители оппозиционной консервативной партии заявили, что время, выбранное для внесения предложений, демонстрирует непонимание лейбористами приоритетов британского населения. Выборы в Палату лордов будут проводиться на тех же принципах, что и выборы в Европейский парламент - они будут проходить на региональной основе, по партийным спискам и в соответствии с принципом пропорционального представительства. Если принять во внимание тот факт, что 20% членов Палаты лордов будут назначаться, это может привести к тому, что около 80% депутатов будут иметь партийную принадлежность. Правительство говорит, что на переход к новой системе может уйти до 10 лет. Пока еще не ясно, на какой срок будут избираться и назначаться члены реформированной Палаты лордов. Лидер консерваторов в Палате лордов лорд Стратклайд назвал проект жалким и не отвечающим требованиям современности. Представитель либерал-демократов Пол Тайлер заявил, что в партии лейбористов продолжается борьба относительно характера реформ Палаты лордов. Проект реформ подвергся критике и со стороны лоббистской группы Cbarter88, представители которой заявили, что правительство проявило неуважение к избирателям. Представители Charter88 полагают, что правительство считает институт выборов "излишним беспокойством".

 

US Electoral System

On November 7, 2000, millions of American citizens went to polling places all over the country to select the next president of the United States.

The date for the election of the president, always the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November every fourth year, was fixed by the U.S. Congress in 1845. Although elections are held every year — for governors, for national lawmakers, and for state, county, and local officials — choosing a chief executive is by far one of the most important processes in representative government in the United States.

Election of a new president climaxes a grueling campaign, one of the longest and most arduous in the democratic world, for the position of chief of state. Hopefuls seeking nomination by the Republican and Democratic parties, the two major political parties in the United States, often launch their drives as much as two years before voting day arrives. They start their efforts by creating organizations throughout the country in as many states as they can. These organizations, staffed by a few paid professionals but mostly by volunteers, go to work with him to publicize their candidate's name and views and to raise as much money as possible. Campaigns are expensive-Television and radio time must be purchased at ever-rising rates, literature printed and mailed, premises rented, travel costs paid, and banners, buttons, bunting and other items ordered.

How do Americans choose the final nominees for the two major parties from the list of candidates who declare their intentions?

In earlier years, the parties' members in the Senate and House of Representatives, the country's legislative bodies that compose the Congress, met behind closed doors and made the selections. But because that system smacked of elitism, the method of nominating by national conventions was created.

The first such nationwide conclave by a political party was held in 1831, and within a few years it was followed by others. Conventions — noisy, colorful, quadrennial meetings — are now a fixed U.S. institution. Delegates from across the nation converge on the convention city to decide on their standard-bearer.

Until the early 1900s, powerful political leaders were mainly responsible for the choice of a candidate by the conventions. The decisions were made in the notorious "smoke-filled rooms" chambers in which cigar- and pipe-smoking party bosses were the key factors in the ultimate decision. The delegates to the conventions, who were chosen by the party heads themselves, simply voted as they were instructed.

Political reform movements early in the century diluted considerably the power or the party bosses, thus making the process of selecting a candidate more democratic. In 1906, Wisconsin became the first state to enact legislation requiring that delegates to the national conventions be chosen by popular vote in a special kind of election called a "primary." Other states quickly passed similar laws. And so today, the road to the nomination leads through a lengthy string of these primary elections that begin in the snow and sleet of February and do not end until close to convention time in the heat of midsummer.

Some states hold "party caucuses" instead of primaries. Those ate neighborhood meetings all across the state at which enrolled party members vote their preferences. The principle, however, in both primaries and caucuses is the same — democratic choice, by the people, of the persons who will head their party's ticket. Candidates are out on the caucus and primary trail early in election year, spending significant sums and exerting considerable effort to win as many delegates into their camps as possible. It is a rugged task: They crisscross the nation day after day and week after week, often visiting three or more cities in a single day. They stand at factory gates at dawn in all kinds of weather greeting workers. They go to shopping malts, railroad stations, meeting halls, school auditoriums — everywhere their advisers think they can convince voters. They are at the job 16 or more hours a day, eating on the run, sleeping when they can.

The system of picking delegates to the conventions is confusing because states do not follow a uniform procedure. Some hold open primaries in which registered voters of any political party can cast ballots for any candidate, or even for delegates who do not back a particular aspirant. Other states have closed primaries, elections in which only voters who have previously registered their affiliations with a party are entitled to have their say. Moreover, some primaries use proportional systems, while others are "winner-take-all." In the former, delegates are selected according to the portion of the vote each candidate wins, while in the latter all of the state's delegates go to the candidate capturing a majority vote.

As these pre-election elections and caucuses go on, candidates and their supporters closely watch two key dates, each of which can foretell what lies ahead. One caucus is early in February, it is significant because it is the country's first test of a candidate's strength in any state. The second major signpost is the first state primary eight days later, always in New Hampshire, a north-eastern state of some 1.1 million that borders Canada,

Candidates who do poorly here have second thoughts about continuing their quests, and many drop out. In 1968, for example, Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota bested President Lyndon Johnson in the Democratic primary by unexpectedly polling a large percentage of the New Hampshire votes. By the end of that March, Johnson announced he would not seek re-election. His weak showing in the snows of New Hampshire, analysts pointed out, was a major contributing factor in his decision. The hard months of primary and caucus campaigning culminate in the political conventions, in 2000, the Republicans held theirs from July, 29 to August, 2 in Philadelphia; the Democrats met in Los Angeles from August 14 to 17.

These assemblages are surely among the most colorful, not to mention noisy and brassy, events staged in America. The halls and arenas where they are held are awash in red, white, and blue bunting. American flags, balloons, and banners. Delegates wear armbands and hats proclaiming their affiliations. The major television networks provide on-the-spot coverage, which is beamed all over the world News services and magazine sent their best journalists to report extensively on the proceedings. Thus all Americans have an opportunity to watch their democracy choose its own leaders.

Conventions always open with a keynote address, generally delivered by the party's most crowd-rousing orator. Nomination of the presidential and vice presidential candidates always comes on the third day of the convention. At the conclusion of the balloting, when the nominee has been named, thousands of balloons cascade from the ceiling and bedlam reigns. Only incessant gavel-pounding by the chairperson quiets the delegates enough to hear true acceptance speech. With the nominee, his or her running mate, and their spouses waving and smiling from the rostrum, the convention finally comes to a close.

Independent and third-party candidates may also make a run for the White House. Such candidates must have strong local organizations of volunteers who gather the necessary number of petition signatures for the candidate to gain access to the ballot in each state. The required number of signatures varies from state to state, from 100,000 signatures in a

large state like California to 1,000 in smaller states like Vermont.

After the close of the Republican and Democratic national conventions, the campaign for

election begins in earnest. Once again the candidates travel throughout the nation,

explaining their stands on key issues. They are careful to concentrate on states that their

strategists believe might go either way, spending less precious time and money in those

they believe they cannot win and the ones they definitely expect to carry.

America's mass media are a potent though not necessarily determining factor in the

outcome of a presidential election. The power of television in the election process was

recognized for the first time in 1960, when the young, handsome John F. Kennedy

defeated Richard M. Nixon in a close race. "Television loved Kennedy," wrote David

Halberstam, a noted American journalist. "He and the camera were made for each other;

he was its first great political superstar." Halberstam stated flatly: "In no way could he

(Kennedy) have been elected president without television."

In 1984, Walter Mondale, the Democratic candidate, admitted he lost to Republican

Ronald Reagan because "I never warmed up to television, and television never warmed

up to me." On the other hand, Reagan was a masterful performer on the home screen,

communicating well and making good use of "sound bites" — short, pithy phrases and

quips.

The 1992 election has seen public opinion pollsters more active than ever in efforts to forecast the election results. Polls are hardly new. Back in 1828. a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, newspaper took a sampling of readers in the neighboring state of Delaware and correctly predicted that Andrew Jackson would defeat John Quincy Adams. Subsequently, some polls were accurate while others failed dismally to forecast outcomes.

But predicting the result of an election has limited value. "It is largely з matter of satisfying curiosity," according to professor Nelson W. Polsby of the University of California at Berkeley. "The bare prediction of the outcome," he writes in his book Presidential Elections, "even if reasonably correct, tells us little about how the result came to occur." In other words, polls forecasting winners can tell us what will or might happen, but not why. Of more practical use to candidates are the polls taken while campaigns are under way. Through these, party leaders can learn if the ticket is doing well or poorly with older or younger voters, with men or women, with members of all economic groups, or with other segments of the population. The information helps strategists fine-tune their campaigns to strengthen weak areas.

For years, a number of national organizations have urged radio and television networks to end the practice of exit polling (asking citizens how they voted as they leave the voting site) On the basis of key samplings on the East Coast, winners can be projected before the voting ends in the western United States, three hours later. Voters who might change the outcome may be discouraged from casting ballots because they feel the game is already over.

In 1980, the National Broadcasting Company announced the election of Ronald Reagan less than 15 minutes after the polls closed in the East; West Coast voters still had plenty of time left to cast ballots, while it was just midafternoon in Hawaii. Is it fair, critics ask, to predict a winner before every citizen has a chance to vote?

With the closing of the polls, the election process is ended — but only temporarily. There is yet another official step. U.S. presidents are not elected directly by popular vote but by an indirect method centering on the Electoral College. This is not an institution of higher learning but a group of men and women who actually cast the determining ballots. This indirect method of selecting a leader was provided for in Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. Despite changes that have evolved as the country itself grew and changed, the principle is essentially faithful to that enunciated by the country's founders. Each state names a number of electors equal to its total number of senators and representatives in Congress. The candidate receiving the greatest number of votes in a state wins all of its electors; the loser gets none. The candidate receiving the greatest number of electoral votes wins the presidency.

On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, a date set by law, the ejectors meet in their state capitals to vote. Ballots are sealed and sent to the president of the United States Senate (who is also the vice president of the United States) and the head of the General Services Administration. On January 6 of the following year, the ballots are opened before a joint session of Congress, and the new president and vice president are announced.

By then, of course, the world has known who they are for weeks; the balloting and the ceremony are merely formalities. Moreover, the electors do not have any discretion in voting Chosen by their political parties, they are once again pledged to vote for their party's choice. The Electoral College, however, makes the results official. The long road has been traveled, the prize won, and the democratic process has worked.

 

Дуэль президентов США