The Problem Of Apportionment

The framers of the Constitution had a set image they wanted to put forth in America, and to get the document ratified they were forced to make compromises. Two of the most important compromises are the 3/5 clause and “Great Compromise”. During, the Constitutional Convention there was a deadlock about representation. Arguments from both sides seem valid, big states argue representation should be based on population while, small states argue it should be equal representation. In need for a solution, a few men proposed a bicameral legislature. Which, allows for both population based representation, and equal presentation by having a House of Representatives and a Senate. The Senate has equal representation that allows 2 senators from each state,

The first proposal, of changing the electoral system for the House of Representatives, would mean that each state is represented in proportion to its population. This entails that states with higher populations will receive more votes because they have more seats in the House. Less populous states may argue against this reform because they will have a disadvantage when it comes to voting on legislation. However, the reform also includes having each state serve as electoral districts. In this case, multi-member districts will be needed—proportional representation will require a larger district magnitude. Having these territorial subdivisions will help create an efficient legislative system because there would be less possibility of manipulating the votes—not as relevant to election results when seats are proportional. Having the votes distributed in this manner may help avoid a deadlock and therefore, allow for a faster process when passing legislation. In addition, minorities will have chance to be represented by possibly gaining a seat in a particular district—a highly populous

Proportionality is a key factor in assessing the fairness of a voting system, if a parties number of votes is not equal or close to their number of seats in parliament then the voters’ are being misrepresented. AMS is a PR system, which results in a party’s

In the case of a tie, the House of Representatives and Senate are conjoined to elect the President and Vice President. In this case, each is given one vote, making California’s whooping population of 39 billion equal to Wyoming’s measly 350,000. This overrules the matter of “equal representation” and gives the power to the House and Senate to dictate the outcome of the nation (Doc D).

The House of Representatives consists of 435 elected members that are divided among the fifty states in proportion to their population. There are also six

One can come to a conclusion that plurality systems have a major flaw and that is inequality. Adopting a MMP would be a huge step forward in Canadian democracy. With a MMP system in place, more women would be elected to the legislature because it creates fairness. With more women in the legislature, it can make a substantial difference in the types of laws that may be proposed and passed. Another advantage MMP brings to Canada is instead of electing one member of the legislature in each small district, Canada would use larger districts to elect several members. To add to this advantage, the candidates that win the seats in these multi-member districts are determined by the proportion of votes each party receives. With Canada’s current electoral system, one citizen’s vote counts for less than another citizen’s vote. By changing to a MMP system, Canada can give more equality and fairness back to the citizens.

The Canadian electoral system is criticized for using the single member plurality (SMP) system more commonly known as first past the post, we adopted system from the British because at the time there were only two political parties in Canada. The current problem now is that many people feel that the system is unfair given that a party is able to gain a majority government even if they received less than fifty percent of the vote. As long as they have the majority of the popular vote, that party wins. However, the first past the post system has been able to establish a clear line of accountability between the elected representative and the voters. Yet, the public still feels that a proportional representation system would be

During the course of the past few decades, the United States of America faced hundreds of issues that impact the nation’s view of leadership. Some people of the United States believe that the issues that face America involves those in office, while others believe that the issue is structural. In the case of America today, there is a momentous structural difficulty in our voting system. Furthermore, the most distinct problem that the United States handles today is gerrymandering. Throughout this essay, it will be made clear that gerrymandering is the leading problem facing America today because it harms the equality of citizens.

In 1787, one of the most debated issues was the size of the House of Representatives. During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates proposed that 40,000 citizens should be represented by one congressional district. However, George Washington intervened and argued that 40,000 was too high, and reasoned that 30,000 was more reasonable and allow people to be represented adequately Washington’s proposal was incorporated in Article One, Section Two of the Constitution which states “representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.” While the number of representatives did increase throughout the history of the United States, the number has been set at 435 members since 1929. Congress in 1929 passed the Permanent Apportionment Act that set the number of representatives at 435, which was set after a 1910 census. Currently each representative represents 700,000 citizens and congressional seats are redistricted around the nation based on population changes. But the currently number of representatives does not adequately represent the present population and a single district cannot represent a huge number of people. Therefore, the current number of representatives must be increased.

The Three- Fifths Compromise, mentioned in document 5, established the way in which slaves would be counted toward representation in the House of Representatives. Every five slaves would be counted as three people “including those bound to service for a term of years…three fifths of all persons”. The Great Compromise, showed in document 6, was the final agreement for a way to govern the United States. This Compromise agreed with the Virginia Plan and made the legislative branch bicameral “Created a Congress that is made up of two branches”. The two branches are the Senate and The House of Representatives. According to Document 5 the representation in the House of Representatives is composed of members chosen by the people of the several states for two years, the representation in the Senate is determined by two senators from each state. The chosen people for the Senate have a six year term. (Doc 5 & 6). Furthermore, based on the graph from document 4, it shows that the states Delaware and Rhode Island will support the new Congress due based on equal representation because of the population, they are able to evenly distribute the power. The states Massachusetts and Virginia would seem to support new Congress based on population because of the massive population it contains. Instead of everyone, it would be a group of

In Article 1, Sections 2, House of Representatives it reads, “Representatives...shall be apportioned...according to…(population)...” (Doc. D). This lets the bigger states voice their needs and concerns more than the little states, because they would have more voting power. In addition, in Article 1, Section 3, Senate it says, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state” (Doc. D). Now, the all of the state's representation in the Senate is equal, so that not one state has more voting power, which means that all the needs are met for all states, and that nobody has more power than anybody else. These help keep the powers among the states equal, and helps to guard against tyranny as

This worked out to satisfaction of the smaller states and for the larger states they were given a House of Representatives that would consist of a larger body of representatives for each state in proportion to the amount of the people in that state.

Proportional representation is an electoral system where parties will earn congressional seats in proportion to how many votes people cast for them. This would be an extreme opposite to the result of gerrymandering. People would then feel the need to vote because they know that their vote will actually go towards something. If 25% of the voters supported a certain party, that party would then get about 25% of congressional seats. Proportional representation is a way that could help fix the unfairness of the plurality system. The plurality system allows for larger parties to get an unfair amount of congressional seats whereas smaller parties do not have this advantage and also have a huge difficulty in winning any representation at all, also known as Duverger’s law. This would be a great way to prevent gerrymandering which helps with the redistricting issue majorly. Proportional representation could be brought in without a constitutional amendment in some cases, but the system born from this would not work well unless the powers of the Governor General were made clear. What would require a constitutional amendment would be a change to the powers of the Governor General. If it were simple enough to not require a constitutional amendment, I feel as if this would be an excellent idea and help solve many problems and unhappy people with our current

The delegates compromised, deciding that seats in the House of Representatives would be distributed according to population and that seats in the Senate would be distributed equally among the states. The small states could rely on the Senate to defend their interests if the House passed legislation that threatened their rights. The framers of the Constitution specified that House members would be elected by popular vote every two years, so members of the House would be constantly in touch with the citizens that they represent. In contrast, the framers decided to shield the Senate from popular pressures by giving senators six-year terms.

For decades, Canadians have been defending their right to have a fair and open electoral system. Since its creation in 1867, Canada has been proud to call itself a true democratic country, but today there would be many people who disagree with this statement. The Canadian electoral system, which uses First Past The Post (FPTP), has come under scrutiny for not being as fair as it claims to be. Over the past couple of decades, many countries have switched their system to Proportional Representation (PR) or some form of it. Based on successful results in other nations, Canada’s current FPTP system should change to Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), which is a form of Proportional Representation, as it will allow for more fair elections. The intent of this paper is to outline how an electoral reform from First Past the Post to Proportional Representation or Mixed-Member Proportional, will lead to more confidence in the government, more accurate seat-vote percentage, and better overall representation of the population.