Political Science

In a single-member voting system, a predetermined constituency elects a single person to a particular office (Curtis, 1994133). This is in contrast with proportional representation, known as full representation, where the aim is to secure a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates obtain in elections and the percentage of seats received. In a single-member voting system, each district elects a single person to a single office, which is carried to the national assembly. In proportional representation, if one party garnered 60 of the electoral votes, then 60 of the seats in the national assembly are allocated to such party.

Single-member voting system has the following advantages 1) constituency link is maintained, that is, the votes of small constituencies directly affect the distribution of seats in the national legislature 2) the elected candidate is held accountable for hisher actions, in short, the voters can easily replace himher 3) this system does not give excessive power over politicians and voters and 4) polarization effect (promotion of a two-party system) gives way for stability in government (Curtis, 1994150). In general, this voting system promotes public accountability and stability in governance.

Proportional representation has some advantages. First, winners of the election reflect the distribution of votes. If the party garnered 30 of the votes, then 30 of the seats in the national assembly is reserved for the party. Second, no votes are wasted in the electoral process. All votes are carried to the national level. Third, party and group interests are directly reflected in the votes. In short, interest aggregation is a smooth process. Lastly, this system prevents gerrymandering  redistricting to distort election results by enclosing party voters in one electoral district. In general, this voting system promotes full representation and smooth interest aggregation in policy-making (Curtis, 1994159).

In order to choose the better electoral system, we need some criteria for evaluation. The criteria for evaluation are as follows 1) degree of representation, 2) level of interest aggregation, 3) stability, and 4) vote distribution.

Based on the degree of group representation, it is clear that PR is superior to the single-voting system. In PR, the national legislature is often composed of more than three electoral parties. Each party has a set of public policies which can be enacted into law. In a single-voting system, polarization effect ensures that only two parties are fully represented in the national assembly. The system itself influences the voters to choose between two dominant political parties. The smaller parties are squeezed out of the electoral process.

Based on the level of interest aggregation, PR is again superior to the single-voting system. As each party is represented in parliament, interest aggregation becomes a prima facie rule for forming coalitions (Curtis, 1994172). To form a majority, coalition governments are necessary. In the process, the interests of each party are incorporated in the platform of the coalition  hence, in policy-making. In a single-voting system, this is almost impossible since the interests of the majority party dominate policy-making.

Based on political stability, the single-voting system is superior to PR. Coalition governments are fragile  hence susceptible to political disunity. In a single-voting system, this is almost impossible. Because the majority party has more than 50 of the parliamentary seats, it can enact policy with or without the cooperation of the other party. In short, governments formed under the single-voting system are more stable than coalition governments (formed under PR).

Based on vote distribution, PR is superior to the single-voting system. Note that, under PR, there is a close match between the number of votes received and the number of seats acquired. In a single-voting system, it is possible for a party to receive 51 of the electoral seats while only garnering 34 of the electoral votes.

Based on the above-mentioned criteria, the PR is superior to the single-voting system. Note that representation and vote distribution carry more weight than stability. This is so since in liberal democracies, voter preference is assumed to be above political stability, as far as representation is concerned (Curtis, 1994186).