Electoral Systems in Australia and New Zealand - Case Study Example

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND Name Name of Class Name of Professor Institution Affiliation City and State Date A Comparison of the Electoral Systems in Australia and New Zealand Introduction Political systems are one of the crucial factors that greatly affect the development of a given country because they determine aspects such as policies, development partnerships, peace and cultural enhancement as well as socio-economic development strategies. In democratic nations such as Australia and New Zealand, such systems are put in place by the citizens who are deemed mature to make independent decisions on the people who can govern them and drive change through the implementation of policies and manifestos positively (Vowles 1995, p. 95-115). For such reasons, the two countries have put in place systems through which the appointment of leaders by the citizens takes place. However, differences exist in the manner these systems function in the two countries as it will be established in this paper. This paper highlights the differences that occur in the in the electoral systems of Australia and New Zealand. It is established that the electoral system of New Zealand is better than that of Australia and should be embraced by various republics across the globe that encounter challenges in their electoral bodies (Nagel 2000, p. 113-27; Farrell 2006, p. 4). Discussion One of the basic functions of elections is to transform the number of votes of people directly through a transparent way into the type of individuals to govern the various institutions in the government of a given country. The two electoral bodies in the countries have been under various analyses, with various scholars concerned with their effectiveness and efficiency in their respective countries. For instance, there have been various calls for reforms in the Australian electoral body to enable it to meet the standards of other Commonwealth members; an aspect that has risen from the various challenges that the current system is facing concerning its functionality (Farrell 2006, p. 4). It should be noted that the electoral system of Australia serves to meet two main objectives, which include selecting the common leaders of the country and selecting the leaders of the upper house. The upper house is mandated to work differently from the government house (an equivalent of the common parliament); hence, the electoral body is entrusted with a great mandate of accomplishing the two vital objectives. Therefore, one is more concerned with establishing whether the current electoral system in Australia is efficient enough to meet its mandate as it is currently constituted. Hill (2002, p. 437-455) argues that the compulsory voting system adopted by Australia is not good for the democracy of the country. This voting system was first introduced in Queensland in 1915 before spreading to the other parts of the world (McAllister 1986, p. 90). Even though the electoral system in Australia has worked well over the past years regarding its mandate, the increasing level of criticism it has been receiving from various stakeholders implies there is a need for changes for it to attain perfection. One of the areas where such criticism emanates is in the election of the country's senate system. Kumar and Walia (2011, p. 1825-1830) explain that Australia has one of the most powerful senates in the world, which is mandated to make very critical decisions of the country. The e-voting system used by the country has also experienced a myriad of issues, characterized by inefficiencies and consequential failures. For this reason, most stakeholders opine that there is a need for a special electoral system that will handle the Senate's elections as the current system may not efficiently handle both the Senate and other parliamentary elections. Reilly (2002, p. 158) postulates that electoral systems such as that adopted by Australia employ a preventive rather than a proactive way of provision of a solution to democratic problems. Alternatively, the electoral constitution needs to be amended to provide a basis for which other parliamentary positions will also have powers matching those of the Senate so that all seats seem important and equal as a way of avoiding any manipulation attempts of the electoral body by leaders. On the other hand, the electoral system of New Zealand has developed over time to become one of the best systems in the world. For instance, in 1853, the country adopted an FPP electoral system that was later changed to a multi-member electorate as well as the removal of political affiliations in terms of parties (Vowles 1995, p. 95-115). Later in the 20th century, the country's electoral system embraced the democratic way of voting in which citizens have the right to choose their preferred leaders. The changes observed in the electoral system of New Zealand have been as a result of various aspects; for instance, the FPP voting system was replaced due to various reasons. For example, the system was criticized for eroding the trust of the voters as they felt they were not the givers of the final verdict on who should be their leader. Additionally, this system was abolished because of its provision that the third party overall must gain a representation that is above 10% as nominated leaders (Kelsey 2015, p. 3). Thirdly, people were more concerned about their overall representation in the leadership positions as the single party system only favoured a certain group of individuals while some communities were marginalized. As a result, various government services were not effectively distributed among the marginalized communities. This system was later changed in 1994 to a multiparty electoral body through a referendum with a 54% win. Since then, the electoral system of New Zealand has been under various changes that have made the country stand out in the OECD block as the only nation whose electoral body is independent and does not relate to any institution. Consequently, this has had a tremendous positive impact on the performance of elections in the country because a system which does not depend on government institutions is not prone to manipulation of any form by the leaders in power. The proportional voting system that is currently in use in the country ensures all the areas are effectively represented in the parliament as there is a provision of mandatory nominations of representatives from certain areas (Denemark38 2001, p. 70). As a result, there is an efficient distribution of resources and representation of people's opinions. The mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting system that is currently practiced in New Zealand allows for members to vie for political positions either through an independent party or a coalition of many parties (Denemark38 2001, p. 70). The term of office is usually three years, with 120 members representing various parliamentary areas within the country. In addition to the 120 representatives, there are two seats filled by nominated members, and the process depends on the results of the electoral process. In this case, every citizen who is above 18 years is eligible to vote with the exemption of those who have not been in the country for a very long period, detained or in a hospital due to a long-term illness. New Zealand has made various positive steps in regards to its electoral system. For instance, the country was the first nation in the world to consider women’s rights in the election process in 1893 (Webb, Farrell and Holliday 2002, p. 5). Additionally, the electoral system considers some of the marginalized areas and provides for their representation. For example, in addition to giving a voting voice to women, marginalized areas such as Maori have special considerations in that only the residents of this area are allowed to select their leadership, which is secluded from the national leadership framework. Such aspects have come in handy in ensuring areas which were initially deprived of development due to national grid politics are developed through a devolved system of leadership and allocation of resources (Denemark38 2001, p. 70). Unlike Australia, the current electoral system in New Zealand was constituted through government involvement of the public in 2013, in which the country’s citizens were consulted on a number of aspects, including the number of representatives that the system should have. Such democratic ways of putting in place vital systems such as electoral bodies play a vital role in making the members of the public feel as an integral part of the leadership process (Nagel 2000, p. 113-27). In 2010, the government of New Zealand passed a bill through which all prisoners were allowed to vote, unlike in Australia, where people who are sentenced in prison are not allowed to vote. The reason for allowing prisoners to vote is to ensure their democratic voice is heard and are actively involved in the nation’s agendas. Conclusion Generally, the electoral system of New Zealand functions more effectively than that of Australia; hence, it is more ideal. For instance, aspects such as adherence to the democratic rights of special and marginalized groups such as women, prisoners and the Maori group are put into consideration by the electoral system in New Zealand. On the other hand, the Australian system has a number of challenges that hinder it from performing effectively as a body, leading to the call by many stakeholders for the system to be changed. For instance, the Australian system has a significant dependability on the government, which makes it susceptible to manipulations. For this and other reasons discussed in this paper, the New Zealand system of elections is better than that of Australia. References List Denemark38, D., 2001. 4 Choosing MMP in New Zealand: Explaining the 1993 Electoral Reform. OTHER TITLES IN THIS SERIES, p.70. Farrell, D.M., and McAllister, I., 2006. The Australian electoral system: origins, variations, and consequences. UNSW Press. Hill, L., 2002. Compulsory voting: Residual problems and potential solutions. Australian Journal of Political Science, 37(3), pp.437-455. Kelsey, J., 2015. The New Zealand experiment: A world model for structural adjustment?. Bridget Williams Books. Kumar, S. and Walia, E., 2011. Analysis of electronic voting system in various countries. International Journal of Computer Science and Engineering, 3(5), pp.1825-1830. McAllister, I., 1986. Compulsory voting, turnout and party advantage in Australia∗. Politics, 21(1), pp.89-93. Nagel, J.H., 2000. Expanding the spectrum of democracies: reflections on proportional representation in New Zealand. Democracy and Institutions: The Life Work of Arend Lijphart, pp.113-27. Reilly, B., 2002. Electoral systems for divided societies. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), pp.156-170. Vowles, J., 1995. The politics of electoral reform in New Zealand. International Political Science Review, 16(1), pp.95-115. Webb, P., Farrell, D. and Holliday, I., 2002. Political parties in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford University Press. Read More