OPPapers.com

Single Member Purality

Paper on Single Member Plurality or Proportional Representation
Different countries around the world use different voting systems. The one used in Canada is called Single Member Plurality. Many countries in Europe such as Germany, Italy, Spain and many more use the voting system call Proportional Representation. Although both systems have their advantages and disadvantages Proportional Representation is better. Canada should switch to Proportional Representation because this system is much more reasonable and provides equality between parties.
Voter apathy is when citizens of a country do not think their votes counts. There is a great number of voter apathy in Canada. In countries like Sweden and Denmark the voting system they use there is the Proportional Representation, which allows everyone’s vote and viewpoint to count, they listen to them. If Canada has Proportional Representation it would decrease the amount of voter apathy and everyone would think their vote and viewpoint would count and make a difference in the elections this is because Proportion Representation allows and makes the votes fell they do count and are not a nobody in the up-coming and previous elections.
Unfair distribution of seats is when a party does not get the right amount of seats they should get. This happens in countries like Canada. Fair distribution of seats is when a party gets the right amount of seats that they should get. For example Conservative gets 42% of the votes, Liberal gets 30%, NDP gets 18%, and the Green gets 10%.the same percent of votes they get is the same amount of seats they will get in the House of Commons. Proportional Presentation gives fair seats to each party. That why this voting system is good. Single Member Plurality does not show fair distribution of seats, but unfair distribution of seats, for example: the Conservatives get 40% of the votes, Liberals get 30% of the votes, NDP get 20% of the votes, and the Bloc Québécois get 10%. However because of...