Vocabulary:

1. Election to (Parliament), to elect sb.to.../ for a term of (5 years)

general, local, parliamentary, congressional, presidential, mid-term elections

primary election, primaries

run-off election, first/ second round

by-election

to call / hold an election

constituency, electoral district; one-member constituency

marginal constituency/ safe seat (constituency)

swing voter/ state

voting systems, simple majority/ first-past-the-post; proportional representation

2. electron campaign; to run, launch, organize a campaign; campaign trail

the run-up to an election

a bid for presidency/ a presidential bid

to stand for election/ to run for election (Am.E)

to put forward a candidate, to nominate a candidate (for presidency)

to win/ get the nomination; a presidential nominee

to run in a close race

party's platform, party's manifesto

canvassing

3. to win/ lose an election; to win by a narrow/ huge margin; landslide

to gain or win/ lose seats

to claim victory/ to concede or admit defeat

to get one's candidate elected; to return a candidate to Parliament

incumbent, to get re-elected/ to receive a fresh mandate

to oust/ throw out of office

to withdraw one's candidacy

4. to be entitled to vote, the right to vote, universal suffrage

to vote Labour, Conservative, etc.

educational, residential, property, age qualification

to abstain/ stay away from the polls

popular/ electoral vote; voters' electors, electoral college

voting is by secret ballot

5. polling day, to go to the polls, electorate

to cast a vote/ a ballot; to poll for the Labour candidate

to count the votes, to declare the poll, to declare the early returns

polling station/ booth; ballot-box; ballot paper, spoiled/ invalid ballot

returning officer, poll watcher

heavy/ light poll; voter turnout, heavy/ light or poor turnout

to vote by proxy/ proxy voting; postal/ absentee voting

exit poll

6. electoral fraud/ electoral irregularities; to fix/ rig an election

vote-rigging; gerrymandering

a close/ hotly contested election

smear campaign, mudslinging, digging for dirt

Winner Take All vs. Proportional Representation

There are two basic families of voting systems. Winner-take-all systems elect the candidates who receive the most votes, thereby allowing 50.1% of voters to win 100% of representation. Proportional representation systems allow like-minded groupings of voters to elect representatives in proportion to their share of the vote.

The winner-take-all voting system holds as its central tenet that representation should be awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes. That principle may seem fair enough: everyone gets to vote, and the top vote-getters win. And certainly a candidate who wins likely will share many of the same ideas and values as the largest voting block in his or her constituency.

One clear downside to winner-take-all voting, however, is that losing candidates win nothing, even if they win substantial numbers of votes. In a two-candidate race, it is possible for 49.9% of voters to receive no representation. In a three-candidate race that number can climb to 66.6% - much more than half the electorate can actually oppose the candidate who has earned the right to "represent" it. Examples of such "plurality” victories are common. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton earned less than 45% of the vote in their initial presidential victories, and several American governors have been elected with less than 40% in the 1990's. In some nations such as Russia and Papua New Guinea, the number of candidacies have multiplied such that district elections regularly are won with less than 20% of votes.

By contrast, the proportional representation voting system allows like-minded groupings of voters to elect representatives to a government in direct proportion to their relative support within a multi-seat constituency. The first thing to be remembered about this system is that in fact it is a competition between parties, not individual candidates. Each party submits a list of candidates, ranked in order of preference. The Proportional system is designed to allocate 10% of the seals to a party or a slate of candidates that wins 10% of the vote, 25% of the seats to those taking 25% of the vote and a majority of the seats to those winning a majority of the vote. Contrast that last example with She winner-take-all system, in which a majority of the vote can win 100% of the representation, and one begins to understand the fundamental difference between the two systems. Advocates of proportional voting systems propose that the legislature should be more like a mirror of the population, with majority and minority viewpoints represented. They say that this system accurately translates the popular vote into representation, and thus is fairer to small parties giving them a chance of winning, white the first-past-the post system is undemocratic because it is unrepresentative

Out of All Proportion

The general theory of proportional representation is simple and appealing: each political party receives a number of seats in the legislature in proportion to the number of votes. cast in its favour. In that way, so the argument runs, Parliament would accurately reflect public opinion. That is the theory, but what about the practice?

Г Let us take the result of the 1987 General Election. The Conservatives took 42 per cent of the vote Labour 31 per cent and the now-defunct 'Alliance' 23 per cent. If seats had been distributed under a PR system, neither the Conservatives nor Labour would have been able to form a government on their own. Whoever did would be reliant on - and therefore beholden to - the votes of the 'Alliance'. So who then would be calling the tune in Parliament? Which party above all could be sure that its policies were the ones that would be put into action? Answer: the one with just 23 per cent of the popular vote. The alternative would be a creaking coalition, paralysed by fear of losing control. And it needn't be a percentage as high as 23. Look at Israel where tiny parties, with only one or two members in the Knesset, regularly threaten to bring down the government unless their policies - often extreme ones - are accepted^

People who support PR think that it would be fairer, but in practice it gives totally disproportionate power to minority groups - to the fascist right in France, and the communist left in Italy. Closer to home, take the Irish Republic, which under PR held elections in 1981, 1982 (twice), 1987 and 1989. Mr. Haughey's Fianna Fail party, with 77 seats failed to secure an overall majority. The result, after weeks of horse-trading, was a coalition with the Progressive Democrats, who held just six seats in the Dail, yet managed to extract two cabinet posts in return for their co-operation - a degree of influence out of all proportion to their popularity, especially considering they held 14 seats prior to the election.

But fairness' is only one aspect of the electoral system that those who advocate reform must consider- the link between a constituent and his or her representative is equally important One of the strongest, most enduring and attractive aspects of our democratic system is the relationship between MPs and their own constituency. MPs at weekends go back to their roots, to those people who gave them authority to be MPs. Under some versions of PR, MPs would not represent any area in particular. The nearest thing that PR could come to fulfilling this requirement would be by having huge multi-member constituencies - of a whole county or more. The link of mutual dependence and responsibility that currently exists between MPs and their constituents is central.

Task S. Give a free translation of the story:

Реформы Палаты лордоз: за и против

Палата лордов - самая консервативная часть британского парламента. Британское правительство подтвердило свое желание реформировать Палату лордов, часть членов которой будет назначаться, а другая - избираться. Однако у новых планов появилось уже немало критиков. Противники предлагаемых реформ говорят, что проект, согласно которому 60% членов платы будут назначаться, говорит о желании правительства контролировать верхнюю палату британского парламента.

В соответствии с предложениями правительства, количество назначаемых членов Палаты лордов должно соответствовать проценту голосов, полученных различными политическими партиями на последних всеобщих выборах.

Только 20% будут избираться в Палату лордов напрямую, несмотря на то, что более ста депутатов-лейбористов выступили в Палате общин с предложением увеличить это число. Правительственный проект предлагает выбирать оставшиеся 20% членов Палаты лордов из кандидатов, не связанных ни с какими партиями, причем выбор будут осуществлять специально назначенные члены независимой комиссии. Выступая в среду, лидер большинства в Палате общин Робин Кук подтвердил, что последние 92 наследственных лорда, оставшихся после частичных реформ, проведенных два года тому назад, утратят свои места, а 20% членов Палаты лордов будут избираться гражданами страны. Новые члены палаты не будут получать гигуя пэра, как это было ранее. Таким образом, больше не будет существовать связи между местом в парламенте и получением титула.

Планируется ввести обязательную квоту для женщин-членов Палаты лордов, а также представить в ней различные регионы Великобритании и этнические меньшинства Предложено также сокращение мест в Палате лордов с нынешних 704 до 600, причем в это число будут входить 120 депутатов, не связанных ни с какими партиями. По словам лидера парламентского большинства Робина Кука, реформы будут означать усиление роли Палаты общин, а у верхней палаты останется только право отпожмть принятие законов, а не накладывать на них вето. Критики предложений, среди которых есть и представители правящей лейбористской партии, говорят, что реформы не вполне соответствуют требованиям демократии. В частности, лорд Ирвин предлагал уменьшить число депутатов, избираемых прямым голосованием, однако некоторые члены правительства, в том числе и Робин Кук, полагают, что в этом случае существует риск утраты принципов демократии. Бывший член правительства лейбористов Тони Бенн заявил, что предложения отбрасывают Палату лордов в XIV-й век. Он назвал проект "в корне недемократичным". Тем временем представители оппозиционной консервативной партии заявили, что время, выбранное для внесения предложений, демонстрирует непонимание лейбористами приоритетов британского населения. Выборы в Палату лордов будут проводиться на тех же принципах, что и выборы в Европейский парламент - они будут проходить на региональной основе, по партийным спискам и в соответствии с принципом пропорционального представительства. Если принять во внимание тот факт, что 20% членов Палаты лордов будут назначаться, это может привести к тому, что около 80% депутатов будут иметь партийную принадлежность. Правительство говорит, что на переход к новой системе может уйти до 10 лет. Пока еще не ясно, на какой срок будут избираться и назначаться члены реформированной Палаты лордов. Лидер консерваторов в Палате лордов лорд Стратклайд назвал проект жалким и не отвечающим требованиям современности. Представитель либерал-демократов Пол Тайлер заявил, что в партии лейбористов продолжается борьба относительно характера реформ Палаты лордов. Проект реформ подвергся критике и со стороны лоббистской группы Cbarter88, представители которой заявили, что правительство проявило неуважение к избирателям. Представители Charter88 полагают, что правительство считает институт выборов "излишним беспокойством".