MAJORITARIAN SYSTEMS VS. PROPORTIONAL

Majoritarian Systems vs. Proportional

Majoritarian Systems vs. Proportional

Introduction

The report is based on the different electorial system, mainly focuses on the Majoritarian Systems vs. Proportional system of the two countries that are UK and Netherland. This research critique on the consensual systems which highlights a minority of citizens to veto policies they dislike and that they make the tasks of forming governments and passing legislation excessively difficult. (Lijphart:1999:41)

First the report starts with the definitions of the systems on which the report is based on. Then report focus on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Majoritarian Systems vs. Proportional system. After that report summarizing the compare and contrast between the majoritarian and consensus (or proportional) models of democracy in the Netherland and UK,

Discussion

Supporters contend that consensual arrangements produce comparatively wider public support for government policies and even help to increase the legitimacy and perceived value of democracy itself. (Powell:2000:32)Here again, it appears that a country's basic political institutions need to be tailored to its particular conditions and historical experience. The strongly majoritarian system of Britain would probably be inappropriate in Switzerland, whereas the consensual arrangements of Switzerland or The Netherlands might be less satisfactory in Britain. Political scientists and others disagree about which of the two types of system, majoritarian or consensual, is more desirable.

Proportional representation (PR) voting systems are used by most of the world's major democracies. Under PR, representatives are elected from multi-seat districts in proportion to the number of votes received. PR assures that political parties or candidates will have the percent of legislative seats that reflects their public support. A party or candidate need not come in first to win seats. (Budge: McDonald:2005:120) In contrast, in the United States we use “winner-take-all” single seat districts, where votes going to a losing candidate are wasted, even if that candidate garners 49.9% of the vote. This leaves significant blocs of voters unrepresented. Voters sense this, and so often we do not vote for a candidate we like, but rather the one who realistically stands the best chance of winning—the “lesser of two evils.” Or, all too often, we don't bother to vote at all.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Majoritarian Systems vs. Proportional

Electoral systems are not mere matters of technical detail; rather, as David Butler wrote, they 'lie at the heart of a nation's arrangements'.. (Bartolini:2000:12)Many arguments for different electoral systems rely upon their supposed fairness, however, the prize-winning economist Kenneth Arrow stated in 1950 that there is no such thing as the 'fairest system'. (Lijphart, 1999, 41)

Electoral systems may be categorized in several ways. The most useful is probably a three-way division into plurality, majoritarian, and proportional systems. The plurality, and majoritarian systems are sometimes just labelled together as majoritarian systems but it is important to note that majoritarian systems need not be plurality systems.

Advantages

It produces clear-cut decisive results with an obvious winner.

The system is very simple and easy to understand.

Mandate and manifesto effect i.e. a government can be easily judged if it is putting its electoral promises into ...