Improving the Australian Electoral System to Become More Democratic - Essay Example

Australian Electoral System

Improving the Australian Electoral System to Become More Democratic

The Australian electoral system is due to the electoral dichotomy between the elected and electors. Modern democracy can be associated with the party democracy. Consequently, the modern representation is associated with the influence of the party doctrine and policy. Additionally, it is important to note that the Australian electoral system is interconnected; therefore, what affects parties is likely to interfere with whether the citizens get the type of government they want. Hence, the party-voter system has created a structure whereby the electoral democracy and fairness has been interfered by its own foundations. It is argued that even though the elected elect, the elected individuals believe in their capabilities and what they can realize. Therefore, it is not shocking that the electoral system has created some dreadful underpinnings and interfered with democracy. The aspect of contradiction is so evident in the Australian electoral system. Therefore, ensuring that the voting system is preferential means weakening the two-party preferred; as there is likelihood of more votes being inevitably exhaust. Eliminating the savings provisions without necessarily introducing the preferential voting system would contribute to more informality. Therefore, in order to create a democratic and fairer election system, the state of balance should be maintained in a manner that the voter fairness is maximalised (Bennett, S. (2002).

It is important to maintain the full preferential voting. This would ensure that the system is equal in all the districts. Another reason is to discourage the existence of a de factor after the polls. To achieve the mentioned, it would be advisable if the saving provision is eliminated.

In case the ticket voting is eliminated in the House of Assembly, then it is recommendable to use the preferential voting as the option and it should be based on the Fairness Clause. This is because the ticket voting that is presented in the House of Assembly is one of the methods of eliminating the informal voting without necessarily jeopardizing the existing preferential system of voting. Removing the ticket voting would mean that there would be no other options of eliminating the informal votes but for optional or partial preferential voting. Nonetheless, in order to prevent the plumping voting, the best option is the partial preferential system (Wright 2000, p. 67).

Furthermore, in order to realize fairness, it is important for the Electoral Commission to reconsider its political attitude. The mentioned would enable it to change the distribution so that voters of the Labor Party and Liberal Party can mingle freely with one another. It can be argued that it is hypocritical for section 83 of the Australian constitution to make reference to a system that is two-party preferred, and that it is used while making distributions. However, the commission fails to consider the positions of the mentioned parties during the distribution process. It is important for the Liberal Party to have a better opportunity of gaining more districts so that the government can be easily formed if it garners more popular vote (Thompson, 1996, p. 79).

In order to realize democracy, it is important to adjust the election of the senators in a manner that it has more representatives of people from the diverse demographics in the society. This is because the present system that is designed at Federation acts as insurance for the smaller states to guard the populous states from overriding their interests. It is important to note that the state simply divides Australians into multi-member electorates an aspect that leads to same candidates in the Lower House. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the interests of youths based in Queensland is aligned than those based in Western Australia compared to older persons in the same states. Therefore, the Senate should ensure that half of its representatives are women and the same should also apply to the age distribution. This would make the voters from the groups to vote for representatives from their own age and sex group. The mentioned would encourage democracy within the electoral system.

Comparison of Voting Systems in Different Nations

In the United Kingdom, the preferential voting is known as the Alternative Vote and in the U.S it is referred to as the Instant Run-Off Voting. This kind of voting system is mostly utilized in the lower house elections of the Australians. Some Australian elections use the optional Preferential Voting while other utilizes the full Preferential Voting. In regard to the mentioned, the countries that would be compared in this case would be U.S and U.K (Jupp, J. 2002, p. 53).

In the U.K, the electoral system that is being used is the first Past the Post. The election has separate contest in constituencies and local areas. The voters are then requested to select one candidate to be their representative in parliament. The candidates are required to be representative of political parties. The direct outcome of the U.K general election is when new MPs are elected to the House of Commons. The indirect benefits but the main objective of the election is the chosen party to establish the government before the selection of the prime minister. The outcome of the election depends on different factors but one of these is the used electoral system.

There are differences and similarities between the U/S and Australian federal legislatures. Both U.S and Australia have similar political parties. For example, both nations have federations with elected senate and House of Representatives. However, U.S is a republic while Australia is a monarchy. The political system of Australia is drawn from Britain while that of U.S has its influence from France. If the House of Representatives of the two thirds of the Senate convict the president then he/she can be impeached. The Queen appoints the Governor-General when advised by the Prime Minister. The appointment is for a period of three years with possibility of extension. The U.S voters elect the president for a four years term. This is not evident in the Australia system (Jupp, 2002, p. 78).

Both systems have the executive that consists of the ministers who meet as the cabinet. The minister is an elected senator or MP. The head of the executive is the president who gets assistance and advice from the cabinet department secretaries. The prime minister has the responsibility of selecting ministers; however, they are commissioned by the Governor-General. Nonetheless, in circumstances whereby the General-Governor withdraws their commission after obtaining advice from the prime minister, the ministers are likely to lose their appointment. The president has the role of not only selecting but also removing department secretaries. The British and the Australian political system both have the bicameral Houses of Parliament. In the mentioned system, the lower house has the most powers. The upper house in both nations focuses on the constitutional aspects and act as the senior court of law in some circumstances. There is division of power between the upper and the lower houses of parliament, and the mentioned is similar in both Britain and Australia (Jupp 2002, p. 38).

Furthermore, in both British and Australian political system, the prime minister is the head of the government. In Australia, the Governor General has the responsibility of naming the prime minister while in Britain it is the role of the monarch. In Australia the role of the Governor-General and prime minister overlap and the mentioned results into political friction (Thompson, 1996, p. 79).

In the UK parliament, the commonly used electoral system is the First Past the Post. Under the mentioned, the voting occurs in the constituencies whereby they elect one MP each. Voters are then required to put a ballot paper across their favorite candidate and the candidate who garners highest votes is declared the winner. All other casted votes go into waste. In regard to this, this type of system is the worst one in selecting a representative government. Furthermore, the MPs are selected with different support levels. Hence, it is possible for the party that garners the highest number of seats, and not the one with the highest number of votes. Another disadvantage of the mentioned form of system is proliferation of safe seats. This is whereby the same party is guaranteed re-election at every election. This disenfranchises the voters within the region, in addition to the areas being ignored in terms of framing policy. Furthermore, because the system restricts the choice of candidates in the constituency, representation particularly of women and minorities suffer from the syndrome known as the acceptable candidate syndrome. This is whereby the candidate who looks safe is given the opportunity to vie for the post (Thompson, 1996, p. 79).

The U.S Electoral System

When the U.S vote for the vice president and the president, it is said that they are voting for the presidential electors, which is also called the Electoral College. It is the electors that the people choose who have the responsibility of electing the chief executive. The constitution assigns every state different electors equal to the total number in house of representatives and senate of the state. Presently, the number of electors per state is between 54 to about 538. Apart from the Congress members and any individual holding the offices of profit or trust under the U.S constitution can act as an elector (West & Murphy, 2010, p. 67).

In the year of the presidential election, the political parties or other groupings that exist in the state nominate a group of candidates for the elector position. The mentioned is usually done at the party state committee or the state party convention. It is important to note that it is the elector candidates and not the vice presidential and presidential nominees that individuals vote for during the November election that is held either in the first Monday or Tuesday in November. In most of U.S states, voters are not allowed to cast one vote particularly in the electors' slate pledged to the party vice presidential or presidential candidate. It is important to note that the slate that is winning the most popular vote is usually elected, and the mentioned is known as the general ticket or the winner take it all system. The electors are required to settle in their U.S state on Monday; however, this is only after the second Wednesday of December. They are expected and pledged but not required to the candidates that they represent. Furthermore, there are separate ballot that are cast for the vice president and the president and after the Electoral College no longer exists for another four years. It is the role of a certified joint session of Congress that is held in the following after the election to count the electoral vote outcomes. The majority of the electoral votes presently between 270 of the 538 should win the election. In the cases whereby there is no president that obtains the majority votes, then the president and the vice president are elected by the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively. The mentioned process is referred to as the contingent election.

In the U.S, the voters have the responsibility of choosing the presidential electors. However, in the early republic, more than 50% of the state has the role of choosing the legislatures, hence removing direct involvement by ensuring that there is public voting in the election. Nonetheless, there was a change in the mentioned practice after the 19th century; the right to vote was extended to the rest of the population. The electorate expanded and this was reflected on the number of people eligible to vote for presidential electors. Hence, the feature that voters have the right of choosing the presidential electors became a permanent characteristic in the Electoral College system. Even though it should be noted that the state should have all the rights to choose other methods of voting, it is unlikely to occur. The existence of the presidential electors as well as the Electoral College duties is less important in the contemporary society. As a result, most Americans believe that they are voting directly for the vice president and the president. However, in some cases it is possible for the candidates for elector to be people well known to the state legislators, governor, as well as local and state officials fail to get public recognition as the country's electors. In most of the U.S states, individuals’ names do not show on the ballot, instead of those for the vice president and the president (Farrell and McAllister, 2006, p. 69).

In conclusion, the Australia should maintain its current voting system for the purpose of democracy and fairness. However, the authorities should find a way of eliminating the disadvantages associated with it. One of these is the disproportionate advantage it has over Australian key parties because of the size of the vote required to challenge the seat. The bodies should consider finding right measures to correct the mentioned and establish fairness and democracy within the Australian electorate system. However, the advantage of the preferential voting system in Australia is that only the candidate that enjoys the electorate majority can win the elections. The mentioned ensures that the possibility of having minority winners is eliminated. The system further ensures that voters can support the independent and minor parties with knowledge that their preference can be utilized in deciding the winner. Hence, the votes for the independents and the winner parties are not wasted.