The majority system is the victory of the majority

Modern constitutional law provides the population with a choice of how to exercise their right to appoint government bodies in the state. This action was called the electoral process, expressed in one of the types of systems: majority, proportional or mixed.

The majority system today is the most preferable model of elections of representatives of authorities, existing in developed countries. On its basis representative bodies are formed in Canada, the United States, Australia, Japan and many other countries. What is the attractiveness and effectiveness of this type?

The majority system of elections is the essence and typology .

The majority of votes - this rule is the main rule in the functioning of this electoral system. In fact, the majority system of elections provides that for a certain candidate, the number of votes envisaged by the Constitution or the election law should be given, in which the candidate will be accepted by the majority of electors.

Mention of the number of votes is not accidental. Depending on him, three types of this type of election are distinguished:

• Of the absolute majority - according to him, a candidate for office is considered elected if and only if half the population who has the right to choose, plus one person, will vote in his favor;
• Relative majority - election under this scheme implies a simple majority of votes than other candidates;
• A qualified majority - the country's legislation clearly fixes the threshold, the achievement of which becomes sufficient to win elections.

However, it should be noted that there is no ideal embodiment of any option in the legislation of a large number of states. Typically, types enter into interaction at different stages of elections or at their various levels. The majority system allows such actions, in particular, when it comes to higher authorities. A vivid example of the "alloy" of the first and second types is the election of the president of France. The first round is considered the only necessary only if the candidate receives an absolute number of votes. If this does not happen, then the second round is held between the candidates who took the first and second place, according to the relative majority system.

The majority system is an action that is ambiguous in its effectiveness. One of the advantages is the establishment of a stable two or three party system in the state . But the strongest drawback is the ignoring of the opinion of that part of the population that voted for the outsiders of the elections.

The majority and proportional electoral systems are points of divergence .

What is the majority electoral system is discussed above. Concerning the proportional electoral system, it should be noted that, in contrast to the first, it is based on the choice of not a specific candidate, but a party. Most legal experts and political analysts are inclined to think that it is with the proportional election system that the electoral map of the state is most fully disclosed. A significant contradiction with the majority system is the scrupulous counting of votes and the determination of their number in the share of representation in government bodies.

The majority system does not have the so-called. "Threshold of election". Unlike it, the proportional in most cases still determines it. But this is done in order to prevent the passage to the elected bodies of parties and independent candidates, whose weight in political life is too low.

Despite differences in their processes, the majority and proportional electoral systems often function simultaneously, forming a kind of subtype - a mixed electoral system. This symbiosis is becoming more attractive in countries whose territory is rich in places of compact residence of certain peoples.

As a result, the majority system appears as a set of election methods in which one candidate is required to enlist the support of the majority of the electorate. Such a system excellently suits the election of solely represented bodies of state power (for example, the President in France, or senators in the US), but has a number of significant shortcomings in electing collective bodies (Parliament or local councils).