With the elections in the US sneaking up around the corner, we will inevitably read about the electoral college and all that jazz. Made me wonder - which country has the most effective and representative form of electoral politics in place, meaning, one in which citizens are most effectively represented. There are different types, pros and cons to each. Canada’s is probably one of the lesser effective ones in terms of representation and direct elections because, we never actually get to vote for our Prime Minister directly. We elect the member of parliament who belongs to the party that we wish to see in power, but it is upto those MPs to elect their leader (and our future PM in theory). When we want a particular party in power, we have no choice but to vote for that Member of Parliament who belongs to that party; this is the case even when we personally don’t agree with the issues held by that particular MP. There are some movements being made to reform the Canadian political system to make it something more along the lines of that in Australia or in another country.
What about proportional representation? Is that more effective than first-past-the-post systems?
Yes, a very tuff question. I can tell you something of Indian election system. We have the same pattern as in Canada.
Now, suppose one Mr Pundit A is a candidate, popular and supposed to win. His opponent MR Khandit will find out another person, Mr Pundit B of the same cast as of Mr Pundit A. And this Mr Pundit B will also become a dummy candidate and that way at least three or four percent of (cast support) vote of Mr Pundit A will go to Mr Pundit B. And that way the chances for winnings of Mr Pundit A are minimized, and Mr Khandit wins.
In most of the cases this theory plays a base roll in States like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu etc., and changes the election mathematics.
Every system has its merits and demerits. The better of the lot would be where frequent refrendum (amongst the people) happens on major issues. I think some Scandinavian country has this system.
I say 'better of the lot' in terms of how close the 'voice of the people' gets carried towards governmental policies and practices. I am not necessarily saying that this is in the 'best interest of the people'.
It is probably an incomplete understanding of 'democracy' when we equate that to 'governance by the people'. More accurately, democracy is governance *according to laws * framed by people/ their representatives.
Take an extreme example. In many developing countries it is very common for a politician charged with corrruption, after winning the elections, to claim that he should be freed of accusations because 'the people have spoken'. You would agree that this is not right; he can be freed of charges only according to the laws of the land. Of course, elected representatives have the right to change those laws.
Imagine that people will have to vote on the national budget directly. In most places, you can almost predict that people will vote in benefits and vote out additional taxes. Now, how can you have one without the other? Take another example. In many south asian countries, if you ask the people whether use of helmets for two wheeler drivers should be made compulsory, they will say no. But a good democract will go against the 'voice of the people' to make them compulsory because that is in the better interests of the people.
Bottom line: Some element of shortcomings are good for a democracy. 2) Most people don't know what is good for them, simply because they don't have an understanding of issues in most areas - Finance, Foreign Affairs, Defence, Law - and don't have the ability or willingness to think long term.