I have a research project for school and I was required to gather opinions about what would be the best type of electoral system that would bring stability to a heavely fragmented society. why would you think your choice is best and not the oposite?
2007-11-16 00:32:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
a electoral system that awards votes for what the candidate got instead of winner takes all
2007-11-16 00:40:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The best electoral system is no electoral system at all. The purposes of the electoral college are obsolete now with the information highway allowing ppl way in the boonies to be as informed as someone living in the middle of a city.
Majority popular vote should win.
2007-11-20 03:13:06 · answer #2 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a 'fragmented' country there is a danger that the largest minority will dominate. Or unstable coalitions by extremist parties will govern. Or different parts of the nation will elect different parties.
So, many groups will feel right in rebelling against the central government. A nationwide proportional party voting system (like STV) intead of single-member constituencies might be a solution. But it would remove representation of local interests too much. Maybe have a dual system, of strong local government and limited powers for the national government (an exaggeration of the US system)?
2007-11-16 08:46:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did your teacher suggest the US is a fragmented society? The Electoral College is still the best system. It gives the smaller states a larger impact on Presidential elections. if we just went with the popular vote that would be "Mob" rule. And our founders warned against that.
2007-11-16 08:43:58 · answer #4 · answered by jay f 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First second and third choices on the ballot. 2 second choice votes count as 1 first choice vote and 3 third count votes count as a second choice vote first choice vote counts as just that.
Hence confusing the lobbyist to a point that they won't know whom to endorse lol.
Then a true representative of the people could be elected.
Prlegus has a great idea....take the origional U.S. Constitution giving individual states more power and the federal side of government having limited power over the states yet enough power foe congruity under one flag.
You could apply both our ideas together but his is actually best.
2007-11-16 08:44:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The one we have (assuming you're in the USA). Otherwise, you end up with messes like Italy (change governments every six months or so) or Venezuela (change the constitution at will on the whim of the President). Ours is a good, fair (regardless of how many liberals whine about it), and non-discriminatory system.
2007-11-16 08:42:32 · answer #6 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
None.
The only way youre going to get the people united is by giving them a common enemy. Nothing does this better than a tyrannical monarchy!
2007-11-16 09:17:57 · answer #7 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋