What is the best way to elect representatives?

An effective electoral system should include social and proportional representation alongside secret, clear and simple voting with a good choice of candidates. Moreover, it is necessary to have a system that forms a strong opposition and a strong government that can effectively lead and control the country. All systems have elements of these requirements but it is debatable whether there is a system that covers all of them, or is that too much to ask?

Although The UK and the US both currently use the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system , it’s decline in popularity and the fact that few countries still use this possibly outdated system leave its relevance up for debate. There are many advantages to using a more proportional system like the Single Transferable Vote (STV) among others.

To use FPTP voters have a choice of candidate to represent their constituency, of which there are 650 in the UK. Voters mark their choice on a simple ballot paper. Candidates do not need a majority in this system – just a plurality to become the Member of Parliament (MP) for their constituency. In the UK a political party needs 326 constituency seats to form a majority government in the House of Commons. The reasons that both the UK and the US among others still use FPTP is because it is highly likely that a single party will win an overall majority leading to strong and successful governments – avoiding power sharing and secret deals. Furthermore, it establishes a clear MP constituency link, and it is easy to understand for the electorate. Despite all these positives, there are reasons why other countries choose not to adopt this system, the main one being its lack of proportionality as it favours concentrated party support. This means votes for smaller parties are effectively wasted, as they have no real chance of winning the election, leading to an increase in tactical voting. Similarly, MPs are also elected without winning most of the support – only a plurality, meaning that they are mainly representing constituents who didn’t vote for them.

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) can be seen as superior to FPTP as it covers some areas that FPTP lacks such as proportionality.

But at what cost? STV is used in the Northern Irish Assembly in which voters put numbers next to each candidate in order of preference. Each candidate needs to meet a quota of votes calculated by the Droop Formula to be elected. Once this quota is achieved, remaining votes are transferred to the next most popular candidate. The advantages as previously mentioned is that higher proportional outcomes are achieved with less wasted votes. Therefore, negative campaigning is decreased and there is more choice on the ballot paper. However, there are disadvantages that come alongside being more proportional, such as ballot papers being large and confusing which may be complicated for some voters. Moreover, voters may feel disconnected from their representative because of the high volume of choice that must be made. Another big problem that can arise is that coalitions are much more frequent, so the strength of the government is compromised, and the two most opposed parties do generally still dominate.

Another more proportional system that is used in the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies is the Additional Member System (AMS). Each voter has two votes –one for a constituency representative which is decided through FPTP and the second for a regional representative using a more proportional system. The d’Hondt formula is used to calculate who wins seats from the second vote based on the number of seats already won. The advantages of AMS are the increase in proportionality allowing for greater representation and more choice. However, the problems with this system mainly arise from the first vote using FPTP, therefore the issues with disproportionality are carried into the first vote of this system. Moreover, AMS is more likely to produce coalitions and is complex with multiple party chosen representatives.

A less used system is the Supplementary Vote (SV) which is used to elect London Mayors in England. Voters have two columns on their ballot paper and put an ‘X’ by their first and second choice. If a candidate gets more than 50% on the first-choice column, they win. If they have less than 50% then the top two candidates.

Knife crime has been a growing concern in London in recent years, with reports of stabbings becoming increasingly common in the news. The number of knife crimes committed in the city has risen sharply, prompting the London Metropolitan Police and local government officials to implement a number of initiatives aimed at reducing the number of attacks. However, despite these efforts, knife crime in London continues to be a major problem; leaving many wondering what is driving the trend and what can be done to combat it.

Sophia Hashemi L6

Oneof the key factors driving the rise in knife crime is economic inequality and poverty. London is one of the most economically divided cities in the world, with a significant portion of the population living in poverty. This is particularly true for young people, who are often faced with limited opportunities for education and employment. Many turn to gangs and criminal activity as a means of survival and knife crime is often a by-product of this environment.

Another major contributor to knife crime is the availability of knives and other weapons. Knives are readily available for purchase in shops and online, and a lack of regulation and enforcement makes it easy for young people to get their hands on them. Additionally, a culture of violence and aggression is often perpetrated by the media, making knives and other weapons seem like a viable means of protection or power, rather than the dangerous tools they are.

The London Metropolitan Police have implemented several initiatives in recent years to address the problem of knife crime, including increased patrols in high-crime areas, the use of stop-and-search powers, and the introduction of knife-detection technology in public places. Additionally, the police have worked with community organisations and other groups to address the root causes of knife crime, such as poverty and social inequality. These efforts have included youth outreach programs, job training and mentorship opportunities.

One example of a successful initiative is the “Knives Take Lives” campaign, which is run by the London Fire Brigade. The campaign focuses on educating young people about the dangers of carrying knives and the tragic consequences that can result. The program includes presentations in schools, youth centres and community centres, as well as public awareness campaigns and outreach to at-risk youth.

Another example of a communitybased initiative is the “Street Doctors” program. This particular program trains young people to provide first aid to knife crime victims and raises awareness about knife crime in their communities. The program has been successful in creating a sense of community and empowerment among young people, who are often the most affected by knife crime.

In 2019 and 2020, London saw an unprecedented rise in knife crime and recorded the highest number of fatal stabbings of young people in the city in a decade. This rise has been attributed to various factors, from social issues like poverty to a lack of educational and employment opportunities, a fragmented community and the impact of government cuts.

In response to this increase, in 2020, London Mayor Sadiq Khan launched a “Knife Crime Emergency Taskforce” to address the problem. The task force focused on targeted policing, youth engagement and support for communities affected by knife crime. They also introduced new powers for police officers under the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 to tackle knife crime across London. This includes powers to stop and search anyone who an officer believes is in possession of a corrosive substance, bladed article or offensive weapon.

Despite these efforts, knife crime in London continues to be a major problem. It is important that the approach taken to tackle knife crime is multifaceted, addressing the underlying issues such as poverty and social inequality, while also providing support to those affected by knife crime, including victims and their families. It is also crucial that the cultural perception of knives as a means of protection, or power, is changed.