Fair and Effective Representation

Fair and Effective Representation

Question one

According to the constitution in united states, the president is to be elected via popular votes where electors shall meet in their respective states to vote for the president and the vice president. When people do for popular votes, they select the electors and telling them the person they think should be the president.  The electors are the ones who will vote for the president.  The president must get majority of electors votes, 50% plus one, and in case there is no candidate with that majority.  The house of representatives determines the presidency.

The electoral college works by having electors form each state that is equal to the number of senates usually two plus the number of its US house of representatives which will vary from one decade to another depending on the changes with the population. Each political party will appoint its own electors for each state, that matches the electoral votes that the state has been allotted to the state.  If a party wins most of the states in a particular it electors all the electors form the state whi9ch is referred to a winner takes it all. The only exception to this rule is Maine and Nebraska that allocate their electors by congressional district plus at large electors who are given to the candidate who wins the popular vote.   They later vote for the president who must get 50% plus one of all the electoral votes for that position.

In the united states, the president of the united states is determined not by the popular votes cast by the votes of the electoral college. In that case, if no person gets the majority of the electoral votes, the house of representatives is given the mandate of determining the pre

Question tow

When poplar votes are cast to elect electors, they go to vote for the president.  In case no candidate automatically gets the majority of the votes of electors, house of representatives goes into an election session.  Each of the 50 states is given one vote irrespective of the number of representatives that are there.  This favours the small states that have fewer representatives in the house of representatives.   That means a person who may win just because of vote form a state will have a very small population.

The winner takes it all can raise an argument that may favour states with a more significant population. This is because the electors are equal to the number of members from the house of representatives and the number of senators. States with a more significant population will have a bigger influence on the person who becomes the president, thus not favouring states with a small population.

The bias that favour states with large population seem to have influenced the outcome of the election of 2016. Even though Hilary Clinton won the popular votes, she never became the president. Even though in states such as Michigan with large population Donald trump won a slight margin of 0.23% he still gets the support of the electors. This means that such a state had a significant influence on determining a who became the president.

Question three

England

In 2010, there was no overall majority for three main political parties in the UK.  This resulted in the first hug government being formed which resulted in a series of negotiations for the formation of a coalition government. The labour party was defeated and lost its overall majority, and David Cameron won the largest number of seats in parliament.   However, he did not the numbers need to secure an overall majority.

In 2019, the prime minister Theresa may have resigned a led to the appoint of Boris johns as the leader of the conservative party.  Due to Brexit deadlock, he called for an election in which the conservatives recounted a landslide victory of 80 seats. In England, the conservatives won 345 seats out of 533 which was a remarkable victory.  The win by conservatives resulted in Boris Johnson getting the mandate of forming the government.

Netherlands  

In the Netherlands, 150 seats are to be contested using the party-list proportional representation.  During the 2012 election, the peoples’ party for freedom and democracy (VVD) was able to get the plural votes by getting 41 swats, while the labour party (PvdA) was second by getting 38 seats.  The part for freedom (PVV) got 15 Seat while the GreenLink (GL) got four seats. During this period, the house of representative changes the appointment of the prime minister who was being appointed by the queen. The part won the majority of seta was responsible for appointing an informateur who interviews the party leader to provide a recommendation to the house of representatives who becomes the prime minters.  The informateur also recommends the parties show; be involved in the negotiation. In 2012, the VVD and PvdA were involved in the negotiation to form the government. They decide to form a two-party movement instead of a coalition with Mark Rutte being the prime minister.

In 2017, the VVD won 33 seats, the party of freedom win 20 seats, Christian democratic appeal (CDA) won 19 while democrats 66 won 19 seats. This, therefore, needed these for parties to be involved in negotiation so that they could form a coalition with a majority of 76 seats. However, the talks between these parties failed na there was a need to look for another combination to form the government. The cabinet was later formed by VVD, D66, CDA and CU after 255 days of negotiation after the election was conducted with mark Rutte being the prime minister.

Question four

The parliamentary system is better than the electoral college because it creates an opportunity for people who are ethnically, racially and ideological diversity to work together. This is because there is more distribution of power as parties make a coalition so that they have majority to pass the rules.  Furthermore, the parliamentary system tends to vote the need to vote for the party an opposed to voting for an individual which is vital for the USA because of the diverse races.   This system also allows for election at any time. Furthermore, there is an argument that the parliamentary system is likely to result in authorizing collapse, unlike in electoral college.

Parliamentary system is also better than other methods that rely purely on popular votes because there is such discord and can propel dictators to power.  Since it allows the party to be voted for to assume leadership, it removes the emphasis that is laid on an individual in systems that purely rely on popular votes.  Furthermore, it addresses the issue of the winner takes it all since it creates a chance for coalition sine it is hard that a single will meet the minimum seat threshold required to form the government.

Question five

The ranked method that is being proposed by the article has some pros and cons.  Some of the prose of the method is that the voting will continue until there is a candidate who gets majority support.   It also helps in stemming out negative campaigning since they may lose the second-choice vote.  It gives the voters the ability to choose a candidate they feel is the right one without considering the spoiler effects. It minimizes strategic voting and allows for an honest opinion of the voter on the candidate they feel is the best. It is cheaper as opposed to running primaries.

However, this method has its cons in that it is new, and some people may not be likely to implement it. People will need to be educated on how this system works. The counting of the ballots may be expressive, and this may necessitate a computer system to eliminate the need for considerable manpower.  The vetting process I less clear as compared to the primaries where there is a lot of publicity such that by the time people vote hey know the candidates.

Question six

From the recommendations given by Kurlowski, the best method that may seem to work is the national bonuses delegate. The proportional allocation seems ineffective in dealing with the problem of electoral college b because biases still emerge.  Therefore, the bonus option is better in that it retains the system but also prohibits the candidate who lost form winning the election.   Each state is given two bonuses votes with an additional; two votes form the district of Colombia.  These bonuses are awarded to the winner of the popular vote.  This guarantees the winner of the popular vote becomes the president automatically since he will win in the electoral college. Furthermore, by suggesting the elimination of electors, it will eliminate the problem of faithless that has marred the current system.  It will as enhance diversity as opposed to voting as a block as proposed in the national popular vote interstate compact.