power mechanics

Because they have an impact on who gets elected to political roles in parliaments and other government posts like those of a president or prime minister, electoral systems serve as a barometer of a nation’s level of democracy. Each state’s voting system has democratic drawbacks and advantages and is tailored to different regions and levels of government. Understanding electoral systems and choosing the best one can be challenging. However, comparing the electoral systems of two states simultaneously offers a method for deciding which is superior. This research examines the contrasts between the voting systems of Australia, Britain, and the United States in order to assess the effectiveness of democracy. It concludes that for its value in safeguarding the rights of minorities’ representation in government, Australia’s proportional representation is the most suitable for enhancing democracy in countries.

Several justifications support the choice of the three countries that form part of this report’s analysis. First, Australia is the researcher’s country of residence and was one of the nations to be included in the assignment requirements. Second, Britain was Australia’s colonizer and has played a significant role in the formation and implementation of democratic principles in Australia. Third, the United States has exercised democratic principles for a long time. In fact, the current head of state is serving as the nation’s 45th president. Furthermore, the person who heads the nation acts as the leader of the country and the head of the largest military in the world (BBC 2016). It makes the United States a good choice for examining democracy

Australia’s vs Britain’s Electoral Systems

Australia takes the proportional representation approach to choosing leaders. According to Bennett and Lundie (2007), the proportional representation system gives comparative election results where political parties get parliamentary seats according to the size of their vote. For instance, 50 percent of the seats should go to 50 percent of the votes hence ensuring equity in representation. Variations of the proportional representation method exist within the country with the Single Transferable Vote being the most notable as it is used to elect Senate representatives (Bartl 2003: 18, Moon and Sharman: 52).

In the Senate elections, state and territories act as a multi-member voter in the Senate elections (Farell and McAllister, 2006: 43). Australians elect 12 senators from every state with the territories choosing two of them. At polling stations, electors receive ballot papers divided into two sections by a heavy horizontal line. According to Bennett and Lundie (2007), above the bold horizontal line is a line of boxes with the name of the political parties involved in the election. The position that a political party gets on the ballot paper is based on portions. Below the line, the political parties list their candidates. Independent candidates occupy an ungrouped candidates’ category on the ballot paper. Voters can mark above or below the line when voting. Choosing candidates or parties is easier for voters due to the ballot paper arrangement.

On its part, the British Electoral system is the first past the post electoral system. According to Wilkinson (2017), in the first past the post electoral system, the candidate with the highest number of votes in an election wins a political position. Unlike the Australian system whose primary concern is the fair representation of people in government, the UK electoral system is a “winner-take-all” system. Since the person with the most votes is the winner in the election, minority groups have a low chance of occupying political positions. Politicians take advantage of this situation to galvanize support through popular ideas or fears irrespective of their benefit to the country. A good example is the recent vote to exit the European Union that continues to cause economic uncertainty. Therefore, it suffers the problem of discriminating against smaller political parties and under-representing certain regions (Jones 2004: 291).

Differences in the Australian and British electoral systems also emerge in the voting process. When voting for Senate representatives in Australia, voters can mark above or below the bold horizontal line. If a voter marks the ballot paper above the horizontal line, he or she should place the mark on a single party. The decision on the winning candidate is based on an order of preferred candidates presented to the Electoral Commission by political parties before the voting day, and it is displayed in the polling stations. A mark above the line indicates that the electorate agrees with the arrangement. As a result, voters find it easier to choose their preferred aspirant. People who mark below the bold horizontal line give their votes to specific candidates. The layout of ballot papers also enhances democracy through fairness. In certain regions of Australia, for example Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, they use the Robson Rotation in their ballot paper. The Robson Rotation is a “method of printing multiple ballots for an electorate, with candidates listed in a different order on each to minimise any advantage a candidate listed first may receive (Smith, Vromen & Cook 2012: 126).

Voting in the United Kingdom is a more complex issue. The country is divided into different voting areas at the national level and in the local governments (Jones and Norton 2014: 78), Moran 2015: 52). Nationally, constituencies are the voting areas while wards function at the level of the local authorities. During the voting process, voters place a mark mostly a cross (X) on the ballot paper next to their candidate of choice (UK Parliament 2017). Complications may occur due to the ballot paper’s design that is often a long list of candidates in the same order on all them. Significant risk of voters getting confused or voting without proper consideration of the candidates exists. Moreover, some candidates may have an advantage over others due to their position on the ballot paper. An impediment to the democratic right of some individuals arises in this situation.

Australia’s vs the United States’ Electoral Systems

Compared to the Australian electoral system, the United States’ differs significantly. Presidential elections in America are a two-stage event beginning with the primaries followed by the election itself. During the primaries, delegates representing different states choose the person they want to run for the presidency using their party’s ticket (BBC 2012). Representation of states among the delegates depends on the number of persons living there. Thus, large states have more members, for example, New York has 95 votes in the Republican GOP while Delaware holds 16 votes (GOP, 2016). If a candidate gets the majority votes in a state, the person takes all the votes in that state. The person with the most votes is chosen as the party’s presidential candidate. Such an approach to deciding a party’s candidate benefits the electorate by making sure those with the largest numbers have the greatest voice in elections. However, it discriminates against those with small numbers hence revealing a problem.

At the presidential elections, the Electoral College in the United States has the greatest influence. Voters in the US give powers to the Electoral College to choose the president unlike the United Kingdom and Australia where the leaders ascend to the positions via popular vote. State representatives in the Electoral College are individuals nominated by their parties to occupy those positions (Vincent 2016). The number of representatives in Congress decides the total number of persons in the Electoral College. Although there is no pressure on the electors to vote according to the arrangement that a state has chosen, the electors often follow the agreed voting pattern. America’s Electoral College helps to ease the voting, counting and verification of the votes. Due to the small number of votes cast for the president, the body responsible for the elections finds it easier to count votes. In cases of disputes, it is also easier to recount the votes and make decisions concerning the winner.

Ballot papers in the United States are also easier to understand. Little information concerning the layout of the ballot paper in America is available because only members of the Electoral College use it. However, the nation is always aware of the persons running for office since the United States is a two-party system with only Republicans and Democrats. Inferring from this evidence, one can conclude that the ballot paper is easy to mark. Furthermore, the presence of only two individuals on the ballot paper reduces the possibility that one person will have an advantage over the other person. As a result, the electoral process helps to reduce the potential of granting an advantage to one candidate over the others. Nonetheless, having only two people on a ballot paper removes other qualified people from competing for the presidency limiting their democratic right. Grcic and Grcic (2011) assert that the entitlement to full political participation has its basis on the Rawlsian reasons of equal value of political freedom and equality of opportunity. Justice secures political freedoms to all persons including running for political office regardless of background. By limiting the freedom to participate in presidential elections through limiting the number of candidates, the United States’ electoral system betrays these values.

Several differences emerge from the comparison of the Australian electoral system to that of the United States. First, the Australian electoral system, as discussed earlier, has no Electoral College or any other system of picking the leader of the government. All Australians of legal age participate in the elections by casting their votes for the person they want to become the Prime Minister. The method used in Australia is suited to enhancing democracy as it espouses the values of justice. Granting each voter an equal voice in the elections helps to guarantee the right of individuals to participate in politics. In addition, it ensures that voters pick the person they want, unlike the United States’ system where there stands the possibility of a member of the Electoral College betraying the wishes of voters in a state. Second, the two systems differ in the nature of the ballot paper. As mentioned, the ballot paper in Australia gives people the right to vote for a party or candidate. Depending on the part of the ballot paper that the electorate marks, below or above the bold horizontal line, they will choose a party or specific candidate. Without voters understanding the ballot paper, the risk of errors and invalidation of a vote is significant, an issue that has minimal likelihood of occurring in Australia. Ballot papers in the United States may also be easy to understand, but they limit people’s choice to two people.

Conclusion

Examining the various electoral systems in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States reveals immense differences in the way the three countries approach the election of persons into political office. The United Kingdom’s electoral process rewards the persons with the greatest number or supporters discriminating against those who lack such support. It has implications on the ability of minorities to assume political office. In most cases, people vote for a person based on something that they share in common. Aspirants come from the same race, religion, society or hold the same values as their voters. In such a situation, individuals who share opinions, beliefs or values with a small number of people find it difficult to get into political positions although their ideas have the potential for greater transformation of a country and its people. As a result, the electoral system in the United Kingdom limits the democratic rights of individuals by taking a ”winner-take-all” approach to electioneering.

The United States’ electoral process is no different. In addition to taking over the decision of individual voters by giving powers to decide who assumes the presidential office to a few individuals in the Electoral College, the system also limits the democratic space of smaller groups. As states, the election process in the United States gives victory to the person with the largest support in the voting process. People who lack the numbers to influence voting in such elections have minimal alternatives to make their voices heard. As a result, the system has a fundamental democratic impediment. Within the principles of democracy is the right to representation. People who cannot get a majority that shares their perspectives on various issues into the system lack adequate representation. It reveals a significant weakness in the electoral system of the United States of America.

Finally, the Australian electoral system upholds the values of justice and ensures full participation of all individuals. Through the proportional representation system, all people have a way to get their voices in the nation’s politics. Allocating parliamentary seats to political parties according to the size of their vote guarantees the right of smaller groups. Minorities can vote for a person that they want to represent them since they have the assurance of a position. For this to work in the United States or the United Kingdom, the people in these categories would have to unite to form a bigger group. Such a move would be complicated as there is no promise of remaining faithful to the agreement that founded the union. The Australian system also gives voters direct control over voting since voters appear at a polling station in person to cast their votes. For this reasons, the Australian electoral process is the most appropriate in enhancing democracy. Australia should continue using the same process when voters are electing their leaders.

References

Bartl, A. (2003). Electoral systems in Australia and Germany: A comparative study. GRIN Verlag: Munich, Germany.

BBC (2012). How do the US presidential elections work? Available at [Accessed on September 7, 2017]

BBC (2016). US election 2016: All you need to know. Available at [Accessed September 6, 2017]

Bennett, S. and Lundie, R. (2007). Australian electoral systems: Research paper no. 5 2007-08. Accessed at [Accessed September 6, 2017]

Farell, D. M and McAllister, I. (2006). The Australian Electoral System: Origins, Variations, and Consequences. New South Publishing: Kensington, New South Wales.

GOP (2016). Memo: Delegate Allocation and selection rules. Available at < https://gop.com/memo-delegate-allocation-and-selection-rules/> [Accessed on September 7, 2017]

Grcic, J. and Grcic, J. (2011). Free and equal: Rawls’ theory of justice and political reform. Algora Publishing, New York, NY.

Jones, B. (2004). The politics today dictionary of British Politics. Manchester University Press, Altrincham St, Manchester.

Jones, B. and Norton, P. (2014). Politics UK. Routledge: New York, NY.

Moon, J. and Sharman, C. (2003). Australian politics and government: The Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Moran, M. (2015). Politics and governance in the UK. Palgrave MacMillan: New York, NY.

Smith, R., Vromen, A. and Cook, I. (2012). Contemporary politics in Australia: Theories, practices and issues. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

UK Parliament (2017). Voting systems in the UK. Available at < http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/voting-systems/> [Accessed on September 7, 2017]

Vincent, M. (2016). US election: The electoral college system explained. Available at < http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-27/us-electoral-college-explainer/7787472> [Accessed at September 9, 2017]

Wilkinson, M. (2017). What is the ‘first past the post’ voting system? Available at [Accessed September 6, 2007]