The simple plurality, first-past-the-post system is current in Malaysia.

Elaborate the characteristics of this type of electoral system and its advantages. Compare and contrast this electoral system and the proportional representation system.

An electoral system is a method by which voters make a choice between options, often in an election or on a policy referendum. One of the major challenges of electoral systems is to determine how legislative seats must be awarded to reflect votes cast by the electorate. Two main types of electoral systems exist are the simple plurality system as in Malaysia and the system of proportional representation as in many European countries. Simple plurality system is also known as first-past-the-post system. The main characteristic of this system is that constituencies are single-member constituencies and a candidate with the largest vote wins the electoral district. This system which adapted from the UK is built on a number of fundamentals. First, each registered voter is entitled to one vote. Second, constituencies are approximately equal in population size so that each vote carries approximately the same value. Third, all constituencies are single-member constituencies so that there are as many electoral districts as there are seats in the elected chamber. Fourth, only one ballot is held and the candidate obtaining the most votes in his constituency is declared elected. There is no requirement that the winner must obtain a majority of the votes polled. As long as he has the largest vote, he wins. The example of the application of this system, all the candidates appear on the ballot and the voters indicate their choice of one of them by marking an X. All the votes are then counted and the winner is the one with the most votes. Winners need not collect a majority of the votes but only need more votes than their opponents do. So if candidate A receives 40% of the vote, candidate B receives 35%, and candidate C gets 25%, candidate A wins the seat. The advantage of the simple plurality, first-past-the-post system is that it produces a clear winner. It provides a clear-cut choice for voters between two main parties. It allows voters to choose between people rather than just between parties. Voters can assess the performance of individual candidates rather than just having to accept a list of candidates presented by a party. Next, it provides political stability. It reduces the number of political parties represented in Parliament. From a utilitarian point of view this system is beneficial because it favors large groups and coalitions and eliminates small parties. It produces large majorities in Parliament,

enables stability in government and ensures easy passage of legislation through Parliament. It excludes extremist parties from representation in the legislature. Unless an extremist minority partys electoral support is geographically concentrated, it is unlikely to win any seats under first-past-the-post system. In addition, it promotes a link between constituents and their representatives, as it produces a legislature made up of representatives of geographical areas. Elected members represent defined areas of cities, towns, or regions rather than just party labels. Some analysts have argued that this geographic accountability is particularly important in agrarian societies and in developing countries. It gives a chance for popular independent candidates to be elected. This may be particularly important in developing party systems, where politics still revolves more around extended ties of family, clan, or kinship and is not based on strong party political organizations. Finally, first-past-the-post system is particularly praised for being simple to use and understand. A valid vote requires only one mark beside the name or symbol of one candidate. Even if the number of candidates on the ballot paper is large, the count is easy for electoral officials to conduct. Another type of electoral system is proportional representation which means an electoral system in which parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. To mitigate the defects and proportional disparities of the single plurality system, an alternative system of proportional representation has been given consideration in many countries. In this system, parliamentary seats are given to the parties in proportion to the number of votes obtained by them. There are two varieties of proportional representation, the Single Transferable Vote System which is also called the Preferential System and the List System. First is Single Transferable Vote System. The basic characteristics of this system are that the constituencies are large in area and they return several members, minimum three and maximum fifteen. Unlike the ordinary rule whereby a candidate securing the largest number of votes gets elected, under this system a candidate is elected only if he obtains a quota of the votes cast. The quota is determined by dividing the total number of votes cast by the number of seats to be filled. Next is List System. According to this system each party is allowed to put up a list of candidates equal to the number of seats to be filled. The voter gives his vote to the whole list en bloc. The total number of votes polled by each party is then divided by the quota.

The main advantage of the proportional representation system is that it secures a mathematically exact representation of the electorate in the legislature. The main disadvantages of this system, it leads to the growth of a large number of political parties. When each interest can secure separate representation, it is natural for every dissenting group to jump into the political arena with the hope of securing some representation. To compare and contrast both systems, it is clear that simple plurality is the simplest form of plurality system. The voter is presented with the names of the nominated candidates and votes by choosing one, and only one, of them. The winning candidate is simply the person who wins the most votes. While proportional representation faithfully translate votes cast into seats won, and thus avoid some of the more destabilizing and unfair results thrown up by plurality electoral systems. Proportional representation requires the use of electoral districts with more than one member. It is not possible to divide a single seat elected on a single occasion proportionally. Simple plurality system also encourage the development of political parties based on clan, ethnicity or region, which may base their campaigns and policy platforms on conceptions that are attractive to the majority of people in their district or region but exclude or are hostile to others. However proportional representation encourages parties to campaign beyond the districts in which they are strong or where the results are expected to be close. The incentive under proportional representation systems is to maximize the overall vote regardless of where those votes might come from. Every vote, even from areas where a party is electorally weak, goes towards gaining another seat. Simple plurality system leaves a large number of wasted votes which do not go towards the election of any candidate. This can be particularly dangerous if combined with regional fiefdoms, because minority party supporters in the region may begin to feel that they have no realistic hope of ever electing a candidate of their choice. Whereas proportional representatives system give rise to very few wasted votes. When thresholds are low, almost all votes cast in proportional representatives elections go towards electing a candidate of choice. This increases the voters perception that it is worth making the trip to the polling booth at election time, as they can be more confident that their vote will make a difference to the election outcome, however small. As a conclusion, both systems have its own advantages and disadvantages. Plurality system in simple and easy to understand while proportional representative system is more complicated.