I state in another blog that Canada is only major country in the world to just use FPTP for election of all its legislators. As well, Jamaica and other Anglo-Caribbean countries only use FPTP to elect its legislators.
There's a well-written bit on the internet about elections in the Caribbean:
It says electoral systems try to accomplish four things:
- competition
- effective government
- fair representation
- free and fair voting.
And the important thing is that the electoral system must come close to achieving these things but also must be seen to be achieving these things. In human relations it is important to only do good but also to be seen to do good. That is the shortcoming of voting systems that use intricate or hidden behind-the-scenes math and calculation.
First Past The Post -- winner-take-all single-member plurality elections -- produce really bad and unfair results but at least the calculation is straightforward. A direct comparison of vote tallies reveals the (single) winner.
While under approval-type (STAR) systems, the sentiments expressed by votes are given different weights and the result is said to be democratic and based widely on the mass votes sentiment. Such may be the case in Approval-type systems. The method by which the successful candidates are selected is unclear, especially as voters do not place votes but instead rate candidates by feeling. It seems complicated and it is difficult or impossible for voters to check the math when they do not know how the ratings are converted to votes. I want to say though that perhaps the system is simple, but if so I have not seen any explanation of it. But however it is, it seems to be a much more obtuse methodology that simple comparison of vote tallies, as happens poorly under FPTP, and as happens fairly under STV. Under STV, the final vote tallies take more time and entail some simple addition and even a bit of multiplication, but in the end the process is derived through simple comparison of vote tallies.
Canada's electoral system seems merely to look at competition and effective government, with much less emphasis on fair representation and free and fair voting.
Voting is free although there is much pressure (self-applied) to vote in certain way so as not to have the vote wasted under FPTP.
Representation is hardly fair when a minority of votes can produce a majority government, which has happened in the case of all but two majority governments since Confederation, and where the percentage of seats elected has little relationship to the percentage of votes received, which we have seen in every election since Confederation.
The website describes Jamaica's politics.
Jamaica, like Canada, uses First Past The Post.
The website says:
"The main criticism of First Past The Post is that it produces disproportional representation usually awarding the winning party with a share of seats much greater than its share of votes and under-representing the opposition by awarding it with a share of seats much less than its share of votes.
In the 1997 elections for example, the People’s National Party in Jamaica won 55% of the votes but obtained 83% of the seats. The Jamaica Labour Party received 40% of the votes but only 16.6% of the seats. This is typical of what obtains throughout the Anglo-Caribbean."
In Canada by comparison, any party that receives 40 percent of the vote became government, usually with a majority of the seats. Even 32 percent of the vote is enough to produce government on occasion, such as the present government.
With Canada having five major parties, each with representation in the House of Commons, getting 25 percent or more of the vote is a signal achievement, putting any party in the big leagues.
By contrast, Jamaica seems to be still trapped in a two-party system. where 40 percent of the vote is second-best and, due to FPTP's inequities, is not very good at all.
Thanks for reading.
============================================
Comentários