Argumentative essay
Question one
There are several differences between a single member district and proportional representation. In a single member district, the electorate can only elect one person at any particular time in a race. In the United States of America, Congressional districts take this approach. The key issue is that in a specific race in the district in question, only one member can be elected. In the United States of America, each state elects two senators. Although this is the case, it is important to note that the two do not compete or run in the same elective post. In most cases, these two senators are elected from different categories, from which only a single person can be elected. In practice, single member districts use the plurality principle to elect their leaders. The candidate with the highest number of votes in a particular election takes all, he becomes the undisputed leader (O'Neil, 2007).
The above is not the case with the proportional representation system. In this approach, every district has more than one representative. A key difference is that in this system, all representatives are elected or voted for in a single election. Whereas in the single member district two leaders can be elected in different races, the proportional representation ensures that such leaders are elected in only one race. The question that might arise, then, is how this can be achieved, voting for more than one representative in a given race. For this to be the case, the individual parties in the area in question ought to cooperate. If the area has 5 representative posts, parties may be given two posts each. After this is done, the people will then be asked to vote for the parties, instead of the people. Representation is then divided according to the strength or the percentage of votes garnered by the parties.
There is no doubt that the proportional representative approach is more democratic of the two. In one way or the other, this system ensures that the voters are given a big role in determining their representation. To put this in perspective, an example is necessary. In a single member system, the candidate who garners most votes takes it all. If in an election there are three candidates, and candidate A gets 40 percent of the votes, candidate B gets 30 percent and candidate C gets 30 percent, then candidate A will win because he has the majority of the votes. However, if this is put into perspective, one will realize that only 40 percent of the electorate were for candidate A. This means that 60 percent of the electorate will not get their wishes represented. This is not the case with proportionate representation (O'Neil, 2007). In proportionate representation, the electorate has more control. Distributing the available posts based on the percentage of the votes garnered will mean that all parties and candidates will be considered.
Personally, I prefer the proportional representation approach over the single member representation. This is because proportional representation ensures that all voters get to be represented, and that their wishes are taken into account. The single member approach tends to favor the candidate with the most number of votes. It is a system that ensures that the winner takes it all, at the expense of the other competitor. This is wrong because it does not cater for other competitors. For this reason, I prefer the proportional representation.
Question 2
How we should address problems of social expenditures if our population grows older
One of the problems that America faces at the moment is that the population is continuously ageing. With each day passing, such an ageing population places a lot of pressure on welfare programs that are publicly funded. These programs might include education, health care and the governmental support for old people (O'Neil, 2007). In doing this, several methods are used, which may prove to be either positive or negative. Social expenditure has a direct impact on aspects such as taxes, benefits and immigration. In one way or the other, these are the sources of social expenditure. The solution, thereby, lies in adjusting these aspects.
The first way that such problems could be solved entails adjusting the taxes that people pay. Taxes form the main source of income for the government. Because of the increased pressure, it would be prudent to raise the taxes in order to fund the welfare programs of the social nature. One disadvantage with this is that it will lead to an imbalance. The government will get enough to spend on the social welfare programs, while the public will be hard-pressed. This will mean that the public will be left with less cash for spending. This will have a negative impact on the economy, as the disposable income of the public will be severely limited. Research shows that countries that have low taxes encourage their people to spend because they have more to spend. With this being the case, it seems that the option of adjusting the taxation regime in order to cater for the social welfare programs will be ill-advised. This is because the economy will be severely hurt.
Reducing benefits might seem as the best approach of addressing the issue (O'Neil, 2007). However, there is no doubt that this move will have more negative effects than the positive ones. Reducing benefits such as social security and national health would mean that workers will be forced to work harder in order to raise more to cater for the reduced services and benefits. There is no doubt that reducing the benefits that a worker is entitled to will have a negative impact on the perception they develop towards their work. In addition, they will be forced to dig deep into their pockets to ensure that they maintain the benefits that they were used to. This means that their disposable income will be significantly reduced, leaving them with little to spend. If this approach is to be used, then the government ought to be keen to ensure that it strikes the right balance.
This leaves controlling immigration as the only option. Like the above approaches, immigration has various aspects that need to be taken into account if it has to offer a viable solution to the problem in question. As a matter of fact, increasing immigration will mean that more taxes will be remitted to the government, hence a source of income. Over-doing it, however, will mean that the locals will be competing for jobs, hence creating a state of joblessness. This is a threat to the development of the country. A state that has a high number of unemployed people faces serious challenges.
The above analysis shows that all the possible ways of addressing the problem have their shortcomings. Although they can all be used to offer a solution, the important thing is that there should be a balance. It is only through this that a solution will be found.
References
O'Neil, P. H. (2007). Essentials of comparative politics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
