Modern constitutional law provides the population with a choice of how to exercise their right to appoint authorities in the state. This action is called the electoral process, expressed in one of the types of systems: majority, proportional or mixed.
The majority system today is the most preferable model for the election of representatives of government bodies that exists in developed countries. On its basis, bodies of representative power are formed in Canada, the USA, Australia, Japan and many other countries. What is the attractiveness and effectiveness of this type?
Majority election system - essence and typology .
The majority of votes - this rule is the main one in the functioning of this electoral system. In fact, the majority electoral system provides that a certain number of votes should be cast for a particular candidate as provided for by the Constitution or legislation on elections, at which the majority will elect the candidate.
The mention of the number of votes is not accidental. Three types of this type of election are distinguished depending on it:
- an absolute majority - according to him, a candidate for a post is considered elected if and only if in which half of the population entitled to vote plus one person cast a vote in his favor;
- relative majority - election by this scheme implies a simple majority of votes than other candidates;
- qualified majority - the legislation of the country clearly fixes the threshold, the achievement of which becomes sufficient to win the election.
However, it is worth noting that there is no ideal embodiment of any option in the legislation of a large number of states. Typically, types enter into interaction at various stages of elections or at different levels. The majority system allows such actions, especially when it comes to higher authorities. A vivid example of the “alloy” of the first and second types is the election of the President of France. The first round is considered only necessary if the candidate gains the absolute number of votes. If this does not happen, then the second round will be held between the candidates who took first and second place, according to the system of relative majority.
The majority system is an action that is ambiguous in effectiveness. One of the advantages can be safely attributed to the establishment of a stable two or three party system in the state . But the biggest drawback can be ignoring the opinions of that part of the population that voted for outsiders of the elections.
Majority and proportional electoral systems are points of divergence .
What constitutes a majoritarian electoral system was discussed above. Regarding the proportional electoral system, it should be noted that, in contrast to the first, it is based on the choice of a party, not a specific candidate. Most jurists and political scientists are inclined to think that it is with a proportional election system that the state’s election card is most fully disclosed. A significant contradiction with the majority system is the scrupulous counting of votes and the determination of their number of shares in the government.
The majority system does not have the so-called. "Threshold of election." In contrast to it, proportional in most cases nevertheless determines it. But this is done in order to prevent parties and independent candidates, whose weight in political life is too low, from entering the elected bodies.
Despite the differences in their processes, the majority and proportional electoral systems often function simultaneously, forming a kind of subtype - a mixed electoral system. This symbiosis is becoming increasingly attractive in countries whose territory is rich in places of compact residence of certain peoples.
As a result, the majority system appears as a set of election methods in which one candidate is obliged to enlist the support of the majority of the electorate. Such a system is excellently suited for the election of solely represented government bodies (for example, the President in France, or senators in the USA), but has a number of significant shortcomings for the election of collective bodies (Parliament or local councils).