Election System
Majoritarian Electoral Systems vs. Proportional Representation
Through evaluations and comparisons of Proportional Representation and Majoritarian Electoral systems, it will be established that both can prove to be effective depending on the type of society in which either system is implemented but that, in the case of providing stability through social representation in new democracies, proportional representation is a better suited system.
A majoritarian system works on the basis that there is always a clear winner after an election and thus the ruling party enjoys the great majority of parliamentary seats in order to ensure that they have a large degree of autonomous power (Norris, 2001: 301). The party with the majority seats can create a “manufactured majority” in plurality elections by exaggerating the number of seats which they were awarded (Norris, 2001: 301). The number of seats awarded in this regard as compared to the number of votes cast is significantly skewed. This system enables the ruling party to govern as an effective single party unit without having to contend much with other parties over decision-making. The emphasis of such a system is to provide a stable governing unit that functions effectively and decisively (Farrell, 2001). In proportional representative systems, the main idea is to provide for greater social representation by considering the demands and interests of all groups within a given society (Farrell, 2001). The number of seats awarded in parliament reflects more accurately the number of votes cast as the system attempts to establish a more equal society in terms of minority opinion and social representation (Norris, 2001: 303). The emphasis of this system is to ensure a stable political climate by catering for the demands of every sect of society. There are various advantages and disadvantages for each system.
A governing body in a majoritarian system has a larger degree of autonomy than one in a proportional system, which
Through evaluations and comparisons of Proportional Representation and Majoritarian Electoral systems, it will be established that both can prove to be effective depending on the type of society in which either system is implemented but that, in the case of providing stability through social representation in new democracies, proportional representation is a better suited system.
A majoritarian system works on the basis that there is always a clear winner after an election and thus the ruling party enjoys the great majority of parliamentary seats in order to ensure that they have a large degree of autonomous power (Norris, 2001: 301). The party with the majority seats can create a “manufactured majority” in plurality elections by exaggerating the number of seats which they were awarded (Norris, 2001: 301). The number of seats awarded in this regard as compared to the number of votes cast is significantly skewed. This system enables the ruling party to govern as an effective single party unit without having to contend much with other parties over decision-making. The emphasis of such a system is to provide a stable governing unit that functions effectively and decisively (Farrell, 2001). In proportional representative systems, the main idea is to provide for greater social representation by considering the demands and interests of all groups within a given society (Farrell, 2001). The number of seats awarded in parliament reflects more accurately the number of votes cast as the system attempts to establish a more equal society in terms of minority opinion and social representation (Norris, 2001: 303). The emphasis of this system is to ensure a stable political climate by catering for the demands of every sect of society. There are various advantages and disadvantages for each system.
A governing body in a majoritarian system has a larger degree of autonomy than one in a proportional system, which