What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the First-past-the-post voting system?

First past the post or FPTP, also known as Simple Majority Voting, Winner-takes-all voting or Plurality voting is the most basic form of voting system. In its simplest form, under FPTP, voting takes place in single-member constituencies. Voters put a cross in a box next to their favoured candidate, and the candidate who gathers the most votes in the constituency or other electoral area wins the election. All other votes count for nothing. FPTP is clear, simple and decisive in the majority of cases, but many would argue that it is anything but a representative voting system. FPTP can also be used in multi-member electoral areas where voters are asked to vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies. Examples include local council elections, elections of foundation trust governors and membership organisations.

In public elections, FPTP is the second most widely used voting system in the world, after Party-List PR. It is principally used in the electoral systems that are either are, or were once, British Colonies. FPTP is currently used to elect members of the House of Commons in the UK, both chambers of the US Congress and the lower houses in both Canada and India. The use of FPTP voting systems used to be more widespread, but many countries have now adopted other alternative voting systems.

The advantages and benefits of a FPTP voting system

It’s simple to understand.
It doesn’t cost much to administer.
It’s is fairly quick to count the votes and work out who has won; meaning results can be declared relatively quickly after the polls close.
In a political environment, FPTP enables voters to clearly express a view on which party they think should form the next government.
FPTP is ideally suited to a two-party system and generally produces single-party governments, although the 2010 UK General Election was an obvious exception
Single-party governments by and large don’t have to rely on support from other parties to pass legislation, though as the UK has found that is not always necessarily the case as the current Coalition Government demonstrates.
Some would argue that FPTP voting systems encourage broad-church centrist policies and discourage extremist points of view
The disadvantages and shortcomings of FPTP voting systems

Representatives can get elected with small amounts of public support, as the size of the winning margin is irrelevant: what matters is only that they get more votes than other candidates.
FPTP encourages tactical voting, as voters often vote not for the candidate they most prefer, but against the candidate they most dislike.
FPTP is regarded as wasteful, as votes cast in a constituency for losing candidates, or for the winning candidate above the level they need to win that seat, count for nothing.
FPTP can severely restrict voter choice. Parties are not homogenous and do not speak with one unified voice. Parties are more coalitions of many different viewpoints. If the preferred-party candidate in a constituency has views with which a voter doesn’t agree, he or she doesn’t have a means of expressing that at the ballot box.
Rather than allocating seats in line with actual support, FPTP rewards parties with what is often termed ‘lumpy’ support; that is, with just enough votes to win in each particular area. With smaller parties, this works in favour of those with centralised support.
With relatively small constituency sizes, the way boundaries are drawn can have important effects on the election result.
Having small constituencies often leads to a proliferation of safe seats, where the same party is all but guaranteed re-election at each election. This not only effectively disenfranchises a region’s voters, but it leads to these areas being ignored when it comes to framing policy.
If large areas of the country are effectively electoral deserts for any particular party, not only is the area ignored by that party, but also ambitious politicians from the area will have to move away from their locality if they aspire to have influence within their party.
Because FPTP restricts a constituency’s choice of candidates, the representation of minorities and women suffers, as the ‘safest’ looking candidate is the one most likely to be offered the chance to stand for election
Although encouraging two-party politics can be advantageous, in a multi-party culture, third parties with significant support can often be greatly disadvantaged.
For an independent assessment of your organisation’s electoral needs and impartial advice and guidance about the electoral system that best fits your requirements speak to UK-Engage.
http://www.uk-engage.org/2013/06/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-the-first-past-the-post-voting-system-2/

Read:
Electoral Reforms in Pakistan;http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2011/06/political-reforms-for-stable-democracy.html

Genesis of Terror & Road to Peace

..............

Interrogating democracy

BREXIT has triggered two arguments about democracy: (1) Voters are ignorant, and (2) representatives are selfish. In either case the implications for governance are grave. It is significant that the questions are being asked in the West. They have always been on the table in countries like Pakistan but dismissed as reflecting the limitations of people rather than of democracy.

The answers in Pakistan are clear. The wisdom of voters is extolled in theory but undermined by contempt for their intelligence in practice. Citizens are never asked how the revenue they contribute ought to be allocated — they cannot be trusted to determine what is good for them or the nation. As for the representatives, voters are convinced of their dishonesty, their task limited to selecting the least crooked. The rulers themselves leave no doubt accusing each other of egregious malfeasance.

In the West the questions are more nuanced and therefore of greater intellectual interest. What is the limit to the knowledge of voters? They are considered independent and capable enough to choose local representatives based on their preferences but can they disentangle the pros and cons of multilayered questions of economic policy? Should they be expected to do so? If they are, does that leave them vulnerable to being misled by those with vested interests?

Vested interests are at the heart of the second question. Have financial considerations now so dominated social ones that rulers prioritise the interests of capital over those of people? And have the interests of ruling elites become so enmeshed with the protection of capital that they have reneged on their promise to advance the welfare of citizens?

---

The rules of governance must be re-examined.

---

After all the ink that has been spent on Brexit, the conclusions appear quite sobering: many voters acted seemingly against their economic interests to kick back at rulers whom they considered uncaring; both factions of the rulers lied, one just more effectively than the other. Incredibly, the winners admitted immediately after the surprise outcome that they had done so.

These conclusions are a sad commentary on the present state of democracy and a troubling sign of its future trajectory. As problems faced by nation-states become more complex in a globalised economy the stresses of the market will transfer to politics. Strains will increase and the side that lies more effectively will continue to gain ground till there is a break.

Some of the consequences are already obvious. Both in England and US, the plight of the population hurt by the workings of global capital is being blamed on migrants leading to a politics of fear, resentment, and racism. The rise of Trump leaves little doubt in this regard.

What then is to be done? The key is to realise that the system of democratic governance comprises rules some of which should be re-examined, fine-tuned, or changed, if necessary. To take an obvious example: is the system based on plebiscitary or representative democracy? If the latter, as is the case in Britain, was a yes-no referendum on staying in the EU not an act of irresponsibility taken only for self-interested political reasons? How can such reckless gambles be forestalled?

Consider a less obvious but equally consequential rule. Two Nobel laureates, Eric Maskin and Amartya Sen, have argued that Trump would not have emerged as the Republican presidential candidate if the primaries had followed a rule other than the first-past-the-post (FPTP), winner-take-all one. And David Runciman, a leading British academic, has claimed that “the primary cause of the referendum result is the first-past-the-post system, albeit through its secondary effects”. Refer­ring to the fact that the UK and US are among the few de­­ve­­­loped countries to follow the FPTP, he goes on to say that “it also isn’t a coincidence that the two places where truly destabilising populist politics have been let off the leash are Britain and the United States.”

This is a salutary reminder that electoral rules matter to the extent that they can break countries apart. The fact that South Asia has inherited the FPTP from Britain without any serious exploration of its appropriateness or implications does not bode well.

It is not that we have been immune to rule changes — recall those that barred more than two turns as prime minister or required a graduate degree to be elected to parliament. Both were accepted as part of politics without serious intellectual attention to the importance of rules to good governance. Unless we pay attention to these details we will continue to suffer from the vagaries of democracy till popular pressure builds up for the only binary alternative we can imagine — never mind that the cure has always been worse than the disease. Thinking on constitutional arrangements has to advance to avoid a fate that thrives on ignorance.

The writer manages The South Asian Idea, a learning resource for college students.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

 A Project of 
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Follow @Peace_Forum

Anti-Muslim hate crimes to get own category, bringing Islamophobia in line with anti-Semitism

Anti-Muslim hate crimes are to be recorded as a separate category for the first time by police in England and Wales, Prime Minister David Cameron has announced. The move brings Islamophobia in line with anti-Semitic attacks targeting Jews, which have been recorded separately for some time. It was announced as the Home Office prepared to unveil new statistics which are expected to show a rise in numbers of hate crimes over the past year, continuing the trend seen in 2013/14, when offences involving religious hatred soared by 45 per cent and race hate crime by 4 per cent in the wake of the murder of soldier Lee Rigby. Offences involving religious hatred soared by 45 per cent since the murder of Lee Rigby Mr Cameron also announced he will provide new funding to boost security at religious buildings, as he hosted the first meeting of a new Community Engagement Forum at Downing Street. The Forum brings together representatives of faiths including Islam from around the country, and is intended to provide the PM with an opportunity to hear directly from those challenging extremism in the community. Announcing its creation in a speech in Birmingham in July, Mr Cameron said it was part of a drive to isolate extremists and "actively encourage reforming and moderate voices" in Muslim communities. Downing Street said the Forum will discuss the objectives of the Government's upcoming counter-extremism strategy, which is due for publication later this month and will include plans for a national coalition to challenge and speak out against extremism. The meeting will also consider what more the authorities can do to help support young British Muslims. Speaking ahead of the meeting, the Prime Minister said: "We all have a role to play in confronting extremism. That's why I have invited important Muslim and non-Muslim figures to join the new Community Engagement Forum, so I can hear directly about their work in our communities, the challenges they face and so that they can be part of our One Nation strategy to defeat it. "I want to build a national coalition to challenge and speak out against extremists and the poison they peddle. I want British Muslims to know we will back them to stand against those who spread hate and to counter the narrative which says Muslims do not feel British. "And I want police to take more action against those who persecute others simply because of their religion." Official Home Office figures showed that police forces in England and Wales recorded 2,273 crimes perceived to be motivated by religious hostility in 2013/14, up 45 per cent from the 1,573 recoded in 2012/13. Over the same period, recorded race hate crimes increased by 4 per cent from 35,889 to 37,484. The increases were ascribed by an official report at the time in part to the fallout from Fusilier Rigby's murder by Islamist extremists in south-east London in May 2013. Home Secretary Theresa May said: "Hate crime has no place in Britain and I am determined to make further progress to ensure we can eradicate this deplorable act. "Working with police to provide a breakdown in religious-based hate crime data will help forces to build community trust, target their resources and enable the public to hold them to account. "Our Counter-Extremism Strategy will be published later this month and will introduce a wide range of measures to defeat all forms of extremism. These will empower communities to confront extremist ideologies, and build more cohesive communities where everyone feels able to succeed." Downing Street said no figure has yet been decided for the additional funding to protect places of worship, which will be fixed following discussion with members of the new Forum.

by Andrew Woodcock, independent.co.uk

I’m a Muslim woman, Mr Cameron: here’s what your radicalisation speech means to me

Dear Mr Cameron,

What did your speech on radicalisation this week actually mean to someone like me?

Despite being born in Manchester, growing up here and being a proud Mancunian (let’s overlook my support for Liverpool FC), for the first time in 37 years I feel as though I don’t belong. And yes, I am Muslim. Just a British Muslim.

I used to hear the term “Muslim community” and think of a peaceful hard-working community who settled in the UK to create a better future for generations to come. Now I hear that and it paints a picture of a misunderstood, frightened community under attack and feeling the need to continually apologise and defend its religious beliefs.

There have been many responses to your speech, and some well-researched analyses. But I need you to listen to someone like me. I need to have confidence that the person shaping my children’s future has an understanding of the impact of legislation imposed by you and your government.

Let’s start with the proposal regarding passports. You said this week that parents will have the power to confiscate their child’s passport if they fear they will travel to Syria or Iraq to fight for Isis. No parent wants their child to do that – and not just Muslim parents. Why anyone would join Isis is beyond my comprehension, so having the ability as a parent to stop my child ever coming to harm would be welcome. But just out of curiosity, if my child’s passport is confiscated, would they then be labelled a “non-violent extremist” and, if so, what would be the consequences for them?

There is a lot of talk at the moment of “ideology”. To be clear, “ideology” doesn’t make me feel isolated. “Ideology” doesn’t drive radicalisation. Islamophobia, foreign policy and double standards make me feel isolated and scared and, I suspect, are the real driving force behind radicalisation.

Like others before you, including Tony Blair, you say your objection isn’t to Muslims and Islam but towards violent jihadism. It’s difficult for me to believe in your sincerity though, when you’ve created a society where just talking about certain aspects of Islam is now considered extremist.

Muslims and Islam have been vilified and demonised by society and the media. Islamophobic attacks are on the rise. And no, I haven’t been the target of an Islamophobic attack yet, but I’m also not naive enough to think it won’t happen to me just because I don’t wear a headscarf or because my clothing is more westernised. I dread opening my news app in case there’s another unfair, biased headline for which I will then have to apologise, whether it’s about child grooming or a violent killing.

I was pleased to hear you mention Islamophobia, but what have you done to counter it? Did I miss that in your speech, David? Prior to the general election, Theresa May proposed Islamophobia being recorded as a separate crime, but is this actually going to happen?

The media’s prejudiced use of the term “terrorism” has created the link between the word Muslim and terrorism, embedding it in people’s minds and propagating hate towards the Muslim community. Anders Behring Breivik was labelled a terrorist until he was found not to be Muslim; then many chose to brand him a “mass murderer” instead. Dylann Roof was described by many people simply as a “shooter”, despite having a manifesto of hate. Had they been Muslim, both would surely have been straightforwardly deemed “terrorists”. Why should I have to stop my children from watching the news or reading the papers? The media is using the actions of a few – who quite clearly do not understand the meaning of Islam – to tarnish 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide and demonise a peaceful religion. The media needs to take some responsibility for the way in which Muslims are being treated in the UK and for the rise in Islamophobia.

David, you need to ensure the media is fair in its reporting. This double standard, inadequately monitored by the regulator Ipso – the supposedly independent body created after the Leveson inquiry – contributes towards people’s lack of a “sense of belonging” and to radicalisation.

You completely failed to mention foreign policy. Do you really believe we didn’t notice the huge elephant in the room? I am not going to go into the politics of the numerous bombings that have been embarked upon, but how do I explain to my children that 519 Palestinian children were killed last year and the UK did nothing, while approximately half a million people were killed in Iraq on the basis of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist? Can you come and explain that to my two boys?

I wonder what the future holds for them. Will they be able to practise their faith or will they have to do it discreetly for fear of a teacher reporting them under the current Prevent legislation? Will any signs of increased religious practise be seen as a sign of “radicalisation” under this legislation? This same legislation was called a failure in an open letter to a major national newspaper this month by British academics, not just Muslims. Any human being, regardless of whether they are a teacher or doctor, would stop harm happening to others. As a GP I don’t need legislation to tell me to report someone I feel will harm others: I find that insulting. Do you think I have spent the past 12 years of my career allowing harm to occur?

Related: By scapegoating Muslims, Cameron fuels radicalisation | Seumas Milne

What will the job opportunities be like for my children? You expressed disgust at those who believed “Muslims were taking over the government” when all they would like to do is engage with the system – and surely this fits in with “British values”. But how will you ensure this happens fairly? You failed to mention how you will tackle the discrimination currently faced by Muslims in the workplace. Where is the policy intervention to address this issue so Muslims feel like they “belong”?

You say you want to “empower” moderate voices among British Muslims. I welcome that wholeheartedly. So when will you be replacing the Quilliam foundation with people who represent me and have some credibility and respect among British Muslims? There are “moderate” practising Muslims and organisations who are willing to work with you to tackle the threat of radicalisation and who are representative of the 2.7 million British Muslims living in the UK.

The thoughts and worries are endless. This is the reality of being a Muslim in Britain at the moment. If you are genuine about tackling “extremism” talk to the people who matter and address the issues that really count.

I await your reply.

I’m a Muslim woman, Mr Cameron: here’s what your radicalisation speech means to me?
theguardian.com