This system gives the people absolute power of decision in electing their representative, but it does not really give them the power of making laws. This resides with the representatives they voted which, in turn, vow to represent their electors. The problem is that sometimes they can not do that because a consensus can not be achieved within the representative body. All the members of a parliament are usually members of a party whose ideology they have embraced. Their opinions and views are diverse and without a clear majority to vote in favor or against, none of them will be put into effect.

The United Kingdom uses the First Past the Post system for general elections. This implies that every elector votes for a single candidate in his contingency and the one with the most votes becomes MP. This system usually gives a majority of seats in parliament to one party which would form a stable government; however, the 2010 election has resulted in a coalition between the Conservative party and the Liberal-Democrats because none of them had the majority of seats in Parliament. This situation is the result of equal electorates in each contingency. Some are bigger and some are smaller therefore the number of votes needed in order to win varies. For the 2010 election the contingency of Aberconwy had an electorate of 44.593 whereas East Ham had 90.675. In a two party system which used First Past the Post, in order to win, the same candidate would need in the first one 22.297 votes and in the second one two times more. This is why less popular parties promote their candidates in areas with a small electorate: because they are easier to manage in the electoral campaign and with lesser votes they can achieve the same goal. In 2005 out of the smallest 125 constituencies with an electorate under 62.600, Labour gained 96 seats and the Conservatives 11, but in the largest 125, with electorates over 75.400, the situation was opposite. That election was very controversial because Labour received 35% of the popular vote yet they received 55% of the seats in parliament (Borisyuk et all. 2010 pp.5).

In 2010 the Conservative Party retained 306 seats in parliament after 36.1% of the population voted for them. The Labour Party had 258 seats with 29% of the votes and the Liberal-Democrat Party with 23% of the votes received only 57 seats. The difference between the number of votes received by the last two parties is not that big, yet the difference between the number of seats is very high. On this account it is safe to assume that votes cast by citizens from different contingencies do not have an equal value and the make-up of the lower chamber of Parliament does not reflect the true wishes of the people.

Another argument against the democratic character of the First Past the Post system is given by the statistics of all the General Elections since 1945. No government has been truly representative even if 42% of the population voted for one party giving  the majority of the seats; the other 58% did not, but their views will not be taken into account because the party with the majority of votes rules in its electorate’s interest. This representativeness problem extends even to the number of women MPs in the British Parliament. 51% of the population is made up by women, but, until recently, no government has had more that 30 female representatives. It is true that these numbers increased, especially in 1992 when there were elected 60. The following election that number doubled and kept on climbing until it reached a peak in 2010 of 143 women MPs; but in contrasted with the composition of the British population, that total is still too low. There is no clear reason for this situation, since women are allowed to vote other women, but they chose men instead. And alongside them, the male population often votes for men to become MPs. This is another problem that the government faces.

An untrusting electorate is the reason why the House of Commons is not fully representative. Many annalists believe that changing this system will affect the outcomes of future elections perfecting the distribution of seats among the main parties and making Parliament a better political institution; but if the people have preconceptions about who to vote for, the effect could be limited only to a more accurate distribution of the seats. The problem with female representation could last for a longer period of time.

Bibliography

British Governments and Elections since 1945 (November 2010) [online], U.R.L: http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm [accessed: 11.24.2010]

Butler, D. (2004) ‘Electoral Reform’. Parliamentary Affairs 57 (4) pp. 734-743

Borisyuk, G. et all. (2010) ‘Parliamentary Constituency Boundary Reviews

and Electoral Bias: How Important Are Variations in Constituency Size?’ Parliamentary Affairs 63 (1) pp. 4-21

Great Britain, House of Commons Information Office (2010) Women in the House of Commons [Online] London (factsheet M4) U.R.L: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/m04.pdf [accessed: 11.24.2010]

Hix et all. (2010) ‘Electoral Reform: A vote for change?’ Political Insight, 1 (2), 61-63 Oxford: The Political Studies Association

Kimler, R. (October 2010) ‘UK General Election 2010’ Constituency Results [online] U.R.L: http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge10/final_res.htm [accessed: 11.24.2010]

Parvin, P. McHugh, D. (2005) ‘Defending Representative Democracy: Parties and the Future of Political Engagement in Britain’ Parliamentary Affairs 58 (3) pp.632-655

Image via Wikipedia

                    This obvious lack of listening ability has not gone unnoticed, and the repercussions at the ballot box come next election reflect our further frustration and impatience with the entire band of theives that currently make up the “August” lawmaking body.  We, as an electorate have an obligation to our children and grandchildren, to clean up the mess the Liberal criminals have brought upon us ( and US).  If the next election does not complete the excjange of personnel on that Hill ( Congress) , we will die regreting the inaction.  Not only does every vote count but , likewise counters those who would attempt to retain the “statu Quo”.  Should we fail to overturn the existing element which seems to hold the Law hostage, we will condemn our progeny to a life devoid of the freedoms even WE once had!

                       DO NOT BECOME COMPLACENT! THE FIGHT HAS JUST BEGUN~!      

In Britain, a general election is a matter of months away. If opinion polls are to be believed, Gordon Brown, a vastly experienced politician who has overseen the British economy over an unprecendented period of growth, is set for political annihilation. Brown is credited on the world stage for introducing policies which possibly stopped the world recession from becoming a full blown depression. Yet, in his own country, his political stock is at rock bottom. Why is this? Sadly, much of Mr. Brown’s problems stem from the fact that he is, to put it bluntly, terrible on television. Talk to people who know, & have met, him And they will describe a witty, charming, fiercely determined & intelligent man. But sadly, as soon as the camera is turned on, a dour, humorless politician who smiles at the wrong time & effects a strange jutting jaw appears. The British public seem to have decided that this is not what they want from their Prime Minister.

So, who does it look like the British electorate is going to turn to? Enter David Cameron, a former public schoolboy who inherited a fortune & seems never to have held a proper job outside politics. Cameron seems to be at a bit of a loss as to what his pitch is going to be. He is leader of the party on the  right wing of British politics but is always trying to present himself as a man of the people. Even experienced political watchers seem to be struggling to work out where he really stands. Does any of this matter to the British voters? It appears not – Cameron looks good on TV, has a pretty wife, cycles to work to show his “green” credentials, (even though his suit & papers are carried behind him in his official car!) & very rarely wears a tie! What more do we need from a leader?!

This media friendly image has earned Cameron a new nickname from his critics – “Blair Lite”. He is seen as another Tony Blair. This is where a strange paradox occurs. The British people fell spectacularly out of love with Blair following a series a damaging revelations. Blair saw this and, with his usual impeccable timing, got out fast. Brown took the reigns & had a short honeymoon with the British public. Then a series of events not entirely of his making, plunged the country into recession. All of a sudden he became “persona non grata”. His television appearances became a feeding ground for journalists & satire show writers. Some of the criticism bordered on the obscene. Most of this stemming from his appearance & television image.

So, what is going to happen next? It looks like the next British PM will be an inexperienced right wing politician who will be in charge of Britain’s finances at a crucial time. There is every chance he will make a complete mess of the job. But let’s look on the bright side. When he is trying to explain what has gone so wrong, he’ll look good on television!

However, the recent results to the Indian Parliament have proved several political pundits wrong.  In fact, all opinion polls have been proved wrong. 

The Indian National Congress has not only emerged much stronger than ever before, it has taught a lesson or two to the regional kings who thought that they could dictate terms to the former, by strengthening their own regional bases.  This has just not happened.  What has indeed happened is that the electorate has elected the Congress as the sole party at the National level, capable of delivering goods, through some meaningful policies. 

A Vote For Stability

The Indian voter has really come of age.  In the last election, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), of which the Congress is the major player, had to depend on the Communists for support.  The Communists had over 50 representatives in the Indian Parliament.  They started dictating terms, and even sought to bring down the Government over the Nuclear deal that the Indian Government signed with the United States.  The Communists have always believed that the USA is the worst enemy of India, and that it is unwise to depend on the US for economic growth. 

The confusion that arose in such circumstances, created instability.  Today, the Congress does not need the communists at all.  They can bring about growth by giving support to industrialization and investment in higher education.  The Congress will be relatively free to do what they want. 

This is exactly what is needed.  The vote for stability is very much evident.  The Communists have been defeated in the two vital States of Kerala in South India, and West Bengal in East India.  In these two States, the communists have always been in power, and have tried to nullify the influence of the Congress and the other major National Party — the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), through strategies that are famously called “strategies for inclusive growth”.  These strategies are simple — there is not much industrialization, reforms in agriculture are more common, and huge masses of people enjoy the subsidies provided through the Public Distribution System.  However, there is massive corruption at the execution points, and the poor do not always get what they are entitled to. 

The voter seems to have decided to go along with the Congress, that aims more at “trickle down theory” for delivering goods. 

A Vote Against Opportunism

There is this politician called Mayawathi, who is now the Chief Minister of India’s biggest State — Uttar Pradesh.  This lady would rank among the most corrupt, anywhere in the world.  Now, she is morally corrupt too.  After assuming power, she has been very busy erecting her own statues in various places. 

The voter has given Mayawathi quite a bit of drubbing.  She is no more the queen that she sought herself to be.  She is no more the kingmaker.  She had the audacity to project herself as the future Prime Minister, but did so, without any record of performance to show.  She is just a regional player.  The Congress fought elections in the UP on its own, and has won a good number of seats.

In Tamil Nadu, a South Indian State with a good record of meaningful growth and development, there is one political party called the Pattali Makkal Katchi(PMK), which is basically a caste-oriented party.  Till just a couple of months ago, the son of its founder, was a Minister at the Centre, and enjoyed power all through. 

However, giving some flimsy reasons, this party walked out of the UPA, and went hammer and tongs against the ruling party in Tamil Nadu — the DMK.  The ruling party had some small successes to show, and the voter decided that enough was enough.  The electorate did the best thing — all the seven candidates of the PMK have been defeated, and in Pondicherry — an Union territory — its candidate has been defeated as well.

The voter is now crystal clear — development is the real issue.  In fact, in Tamil Nadu, all parties, notably the All India Anna DMK (AIADMK), sought to highlight the plight of the Tamil population in the neighbouring Sri Lanka.  The leader of the AIADMK is one of the most corrupted ladies in the history of India, and can equal Mayawathi in this respect.  She sought to pick holes in every scheme of development of the DMK Government.  The voter was more intelligent — he rejected Jayalalitha, the AIADMK leader, and this party has not much to show now.  The DMK and its allies have secured twenty eight of the forty seats of Tamil Nadu and Ponidcherry.

Likewise, Mr Lallu Prasad Yadav, and Mr. Ram Vilas Paswan, who sought to enter into a very unholy alliance and ditch the Congress in Bihar, have been rejected by the electorate.  Instead, its Chief Minister, whose party is an allay of the BJP, has very successfully infused hope in Bihar, a very backward State in North India, by improving its law and order position. 

The Major Alliances Will Prevail

The Indian Communists tried to allay with Mayawathi, and a few regional parties and sought to cobble up a third front of parties that were against both the National Parties — the Congress and the BJP.  However, this front is made up of useless politicians like Mayawathi, whose only ambition is to become the Prime Minister of India.  This front has never really been able to present a coherent and viable agenda that could have caught the imagination and hopes of the average Indian. 

The vote that the electorate has now given, is very clear.  There will be just two alliances — one lead by the Congress and another by the BJP.  Since the latter does not have leaders who can capture the collective consciousness of the Indian people, the Congress stands a greater chance of leading the country, though it cannot do so on its own.  Its alliance partners like the DMK will stand by it, through thick and thin. 

Economic Reforms Do Matter

India is now open to Foreign Direct Investment like never before.  This has changed the lives of millions of people.  For example, in the cellphone market, there has been huge foreign investments, and the market has simply zoomed.  Hundreds of thousands of small retail traders sell cell phones, the recharge cards of the various players, and the sim cards that allow one access to the cell phone facility.  The retail traders make a decent amount on the sales and the turnover, on very conservative estimates gets them atleast 500 US dollars every month, and this is pretty good money, in India, even today.  This is the sort of growth that has already happened in the service sector, and thousands of small hotels, the courier services, the grocery shops, the electricians, drivers, plumbers and construction workers have all seen their incomes climbing.

This growth has happened only because of economic reforms.  For example, in the insurance sector, where there is still a huge scope for growth, there are a number of private players, who have employed hundreds of thousands of educated Indians.  Their income leads to economic growth, and this growth is not restricted to the service sector alone.  Since these people who are gainfully employed pay their taxes very well, the Government is able to encourage manufacturing growth, and this leads to further development as well.

The message of the recent verdict in India is very clear — development is all that matters.  Other issues can wait.  This is indeed a good message that will do the country a great deal of good in the years to come.

First off, electoral votes are decided by a states population, which makes the popular vote very similar. In the case a candidate wins the popular vote of a state, they win those electoral votes. However, a candidate can win more states and still lose in the electoral vote due to the division of electoral votes. Even if a candidate won the entire Midwest with the current electoral division, the state of California would be able to match basically every vote, and that is just a single state. It is easy to see this is a flawed system, but also adds a strategic value to the presidential campaign.

However flawed this system may be I do not think it should be abolished. It is a required part of elections. That is why I believe some of the following reformations to the system would be well received. First off, the Electoral College should not be a winner-take-all format. As I have been looking through some reform options, I think that a proportional system would be a much better system. For example, let’s say our classroom held a vote for the class president. In our classroom, 10 votes for one candidate, 8 votes for the other, and 2 write in a candidate. Let’s also say that our classroom held 5 electoral votes out of the schools 538. By a proportional system, those electoral votes would be divided based on the votes, giving more power to each individual voter. This would also give a little more power to the small population states since they could prove to be more weighted if the votes are split in the larger states.

One of the key political impacts of the current electoral system is that a candidate will hit certain topics that they are strong in just to win a particular area. For example, we could use the death penalty as a topic. Considering Texas is fairly well known as a pro-death penalty state, a candidate could use this to his advantage, while not concerning himself as much with other topics that would more likely affect a state of less importance to his campaign. It’s a biased style of strategy, but a necessary one to win with the current system. With changes a candidate would be more freely able to express their goals without the worry of harming their chances of victory drastically. I think this would also decrease the outlook many people have on government, that it is a corrupt place filled with greedy people and liars.

There are many ways that this system could be strengthened. Sadly, the system will not likely be changed. Like people say, “why fix something that isn’t broken?” The system isn’t broken, but with the correct improvements it could be made to survive a much longer time without the need for revision.