Response #1

As you can see from “A Global Snapshot,” there are about as many electoral systems in existence as there are electors and a state need merely choose which interests or groups to exclude or minimize and which to focus on. It must be understood as stated in the article, the proper system for a group depends on the long history and culture they share, but this fact doesn’t answer the question of which is the best system in general? To me, the best system is the majority system, though it is a matter of utility rather than some notion of justice or fairness.
The majority system avoids the problem of the plurality system whereby the majority of people could have voted against the victorious candidate as we have seen in several US presidential elections, most recently being Bill Clinton in 1992 AND 1996, as well as the current president Bush in 2000. A majority system would seem to increase the effectiveness or properly said the legitimacy of an administration as in order to be in office you need to have a mandate from the people.
It is a relatively simple system, simplicity being crucial to me in the selection of a political system. If a state is going to encourage its populace to vote, and vote voluntarily (Australia are you nuts?) they need to make the system as simple and effective as possible. The majority system would seem to lead to a concentration of power in political parties, perhaps more than plurality as there is at least the viability of a third candidate, but fewer than you would see in preferential or proportional representation. This will create the necessity for internal stability within the party as well as the relative stability of the government as it is not founded on fragile and transient coalitions.
Proportional representation has its merits in that it tries to give more voice to smaller groups, but there is a lot more marginal argument that can undermine the legitimacy of a government. Depending on whether or not you round up or down can determine parliamentary majorities and leads to dissent among the losers. The majority system removes the fringe argument in that there are clearly defined requirements for victory and it can also resist the argument that it ignores the voice of the smaller parties because they are allowed to vote for or against a candidate, though he/she may not be the smaller groups’ ideal choice.
Preferential voting is getting into the realm of being very complicated for the voter. The simplicity of any of the previous systems begins to fall away with this system in that you are imposing artificial mathematical restrictions on voting. This is as opposed to very easily understood concepts like the most votes wins, the person with 50%+1 wins or 40% of the vote corresponds to roughly 40% of the seats. The main criticism I have is that Preferential voting quickly becomes arbitrary. Imagine again the lunacy of the Australian ballot or look at last year with the GUSA presidential elections when it was shown that the order of the candidates on the ballot influenced their proportion of the vote. There is a certain tolerance threshold people have for candidates. It ranges from 1 to an infinite number of people that the populace can actually know, or frankly care about. Asking them to vote on a multitude of candidates is asking too much.
Majority voting is by no means the ideal system, but it leads to an ultimately stable government.