Question 1
The most important difference between the SMD and PR rests on the basis of electing leaders. In the first instance, SMD occurs mostly in larger countries such as the U.S, U.K, and Canada. In this case, the country is often divided into respective districts or constituencies. Residents of these geographically divided areas get the opportunity to elect their leaders to the legislature or parliament (O’Neal). In this case, the contestant who obtains the majority of the vote is declared the winner. This system is also referred to as a winner-takes-all approach or the first-past-the-post method. In general, voters will not vote for smaller parties in a SMD system because they are highly unlikely to win and the vote will essentially have been wasted (O’Neil).
On the other hand according to the PR system, the running party in an election is elected to office as opposed to an individual. The votes are tallied on the basis of the percentage of the votes cast by constituents of identified regions. As opposed to the SMD system where individuals are voted in power, in this case, the party that gets the highest percentage of the votes is amassed with greater power than compared to that which receives considerably lower votes (O’Neal). However, the overarching difference is that the party that receives lesser votes still gets in the legislature/parliament.
A democracy is defined as “political power exercised either directly or indirectly through participation, competition and liberty” (O’Neil). In this instance, the most democratic system is that of Proportional System. This is because the contesting parties, irrespective of whether they have the majority of seats still participate in the decision-making process. This is opposed to the SMD system where an individual with the majority of votes wins while those of the rest of the candidates are lost, as they do not meet the threshold. For this reason, I prefer the Proportional System as people are in a better position to elect their leaders to public office.
Question 2
The issue of social expenditure has been one of the contentious issues discussed in the society. As a result of the growing aging population, the associated healthcare costs are increasing by the day, evoking an unsustainable model based on the current trend analysis. This situation is as a result of the coming of age of the baby boomer population that has increased the accompanying expenditure costs dedicated to this segment. Three main approaches have been proposed to solve the expenditure issue, reducing benefits, increasing immigration, or increasing taxes.
Benefits reduction poses more harm than good. In this instance, the most likely victim of such cuts is education. Currently, this represents the least funded program yet holds the greatest importance owing to the earning potential it provides individuals. In this regard, educated individuals are in a better position to negotiate and with requisite skills, are able to reach their full potential. Another likely aspect is that of healthcare. In this case, the reduction in health care benefits makes individuals prone to illnesses. As such, this situation is likely to affect their productivity, and consequently their time off work as they recuperate owing to the lack of satisfactory healthcare. This approach would end up being detrimental to the economy in the long-run.
In terms of tax increase, this approach is still unsatisfactory. In this case, although the government may receive increased tax revenues, the public would be negatively impacted. As a mitigation measure, the public might reduce spending which ultimately affects the economy in the long-run.
The contentious issue of increasing immigration is the best option available. In this case, an increase in the American population would mean increased tax collection as more people are paying their taxes. Even though there are surmountable challenges existing in terms of differences in culture and customs, the increased tax collections can be used to fund other government programs such as Medicare.
Conclusion
All in all, upholding democracy should be at the forefront of every voting system. In addition, in order to address the issue of increased social expenditures, increasing immigration is the best approach to resolve the situation.
References
O'neil, P. H. (2015). Essentials of comparative politics. New York: W.W Norton & Company Inc.
