Proportional vs majoritarian: which type of electoral system do you prefer ?
Source: Composite by G_marius based on FutUndBeidl
The electoral system shapes how a democracy works. Here you have the opportunity to vote on how we should all vote.
The electoral system define how people vote, how these votes are counted and how the outcome of the election is established. The electoral systems have an important impact on how representative democracy works. The rules of voting affect voters’ behaviour and also the composition of the representative institutions. There are different electoral systems in different countries.
Proportional vs Majoritarian
Broadly speaking, electoral systems tend to be "proportional" or "majoritarian". In proportional systems the number of seats that each party receives in the parliaments or assemblies is proportional to the votes received. The basic principle is representation; the composition of the parliaments or assemblies should mirror the views of society. In majoritarian systems the representation is not proportional to the votes obtained. Majoritarian or plurality systems usually have single-member or small size districts. Parties that receive more votes obtain a percentage of seats that is higher than the percentage of votes they receive. Conversely, small parties usually receive a smaller share of seats than that of votes. Majoritarian systems. They are supposed to create stable single-party governments that can govern without needing the support of other parties.
For an explanation of how electoral systems work watch this video:
There are important trade-offs between the two broad type of electoral systems. According to what you consider to be the most important features of democracy you may choose one over the other. Should 16-year olds be allowed to vote?
If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.
New to netivist?
Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
You are viewing a filtered list of comments. Click the button above to view all comments.
721 xp
89 posts
I like this way of thinking, hopefully, we may see a model some day. In many countries, corruption has become a major issue so institutions are very weak. They have to solve this barrier before being able to trust an "independent office" that serves as a sort of controller...
1257 xp
247 posts
Candidates should be forced to publish a detailed program of what there are up to when elected. Then, there should be an independant office following if they are actually doing what they said. If a significant amount of promisses were broken, then the politician in charge should be forced to call new elections. Let me give an example from Spanish politics. Two years ago, the People's Party (PP) reached power claiming they will cut taxes. When they arrived, the first thing they did was to increase taxes. By that time, they claimed the previous Government lied about the situation and they had no choice but to change their strategy. For the sake of the argument, I will suppose they didn't know about the real situation. In the model I wish we had, they would be forced to call new elections and say: "we were elected to cut taxes, but the situation we found was not what was told to us, so now we will have to increase taxes, please vote for us". And maybe the people would trust them, or maybe they will vote for another party...
Join the debate
In order to join the debate you must be logged in.
Already have an account on netivist? Just login. New to netivist? Create your account for free.
