2. 职称英语
  3. Which Voting System is Better? Voting is often portrayed

Which Voting System is Better? Voting is often portrayed

游客2025-02-17  12
问题                    Which Voting System is Better?
    Voting is often portrayed as a very simple activity—all that is required being a list of names, boxes and a pen with which to tick the preferred option—but it is actually an intricate process that can take many different forms on which everyone from mathematicians to political scholars, interest groups, politicians and voters often have divergent opinions. Two of the most popular of these voting systems are known as First-Past-the-Post (FPP) and Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP), and they have quite different features.
    FPP is one of the simplest voting systems. Voters select one person from a list of candidates in their electorate, and the candidate with the highest number of votes is elected to represent them. While this might sound simple and fair, it can have several undesirable effects. Firstly, because of the’ all or nothing’ result, FPP produces a large number of wasted votes—votes which do not affect the outcome of the election. This is the case in the majority of electorates, which are safe or relatively safe. Consequently, the party that gains the highest number of seats in Parliament may not actually gain the most votes—in the 2005 UK elections, for example, the Labor party governed alone with only 35 percent of the vote. Because of the pressure on voters not to ’ waste’ their vote, FPP tends to foster tactical voting for a rival but less popular candidate, thus sidelining minority voices and third party candidacies in favor of a race between two, often similar, contestants.
    MMP attempts to create a parliament that represents a national consensus, rather than combining the results from dozens of local ’ mini-elections’. Voters select their electorate candidate, as in FPP, but they also select a party, which will gain seats in Parliament proportionate to the party vote. This opens the door for representation amongst parties that may have broad support nationally, but not enough support in any single geographical area to win an electorate seat. While Parliament as a whole may be more representative, however, the ability to affect change within parliament can often accrue to a centrist, smaller party that has the ability to essentially choose the government, by selecting between the major parties as coalition partners. This phenomenon is known as the ’tail wagging the dog’. Finally, the party vote tends to bring in Members of Parliament (MPs) in an order that is chosen, not by the electorate, but by the party itself. This is one of MMP’s undemocratic moves that favors party establishment and hierarchy over the will of the public.
    New Zealand’s transition from FPP to MMP demonstrates the benefits and drawbacks of each system. In the 1970s, many New Zealanders grew disillusioned with the two-party system. FPP did not provide voters with another viable option; however, the leading third party received a considerable 16 percent of the vote in 1978 but gained only one of the 92 seats in parliament—three years later their vote share was up to 21 percent, but they gained only two seats. A Royal Commission subsequently recommended a shift to MMP, and in 1993 a state-wide referendum was held that passed in favor of the reform.
    The 1996 elections wore away much public enthusiasm for MMP, however. The result was indecisive, and with neither major party able to govern alone, the power to form a coalition rested upon a third party, New Zealand First. Instead of forming a coalition with Labor—a party that many voters considered to be its natural ally—the New Zealand First party sided with the National party. This was followed by a subsequent rise in party-hopping—Members of Parliament (MPs) leaving the parties from which they were elected. Eventually, the coalition disbanded with Prime Minister Jenny Shipley sacking New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters, from Cabinet.
    Nevertheless, after these initial teething problems, New Zealand voters and politicians have grown accustomed to MMP and learnt to focus on its possibilities rather than its hindrances. One of the most notable benefits is that Parliament has become far more representative of the diversity in modern New Zealand society. MMP introduced a number of MPs who had previously been marginalized from mainstream politics: women, people from diverse ethnic backgrounds, and community activists. Relationships between major and minor parties have also grown more stable, and in many ways minor parties now function as auditors keeping a check on the major parties. MMP is not without its flaws, but the transition has generally been a positive experience.
Questions 14-19
    Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 2? [br] MMP may give minor parties disproportionate influence.
选项 A、真
B、假
C、NOT GIVEN
答案 A
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3961244.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)