The the new system, including preserving the fragile

The former Soviet Republic of Livonia has recently achieved its independence from the Soviet Union. A new government has come to power and is determined to transform Livonia into a democratic republic and revitalizing the country’s economy. In order to achieve these goals, a constitution must be ratified explaining how the country’s new government shall be organized. The country is set to obtain a presidential system of government, however there are two different routes that can be taken. A careful decision must be made upon the analysis of each option, and the examination of how they individually help or hurt the task of furthering the goals of the newly established democracy.
The basis on which each system of government will be evaluated upon is dependent on a specific criteria. The criteria includes; voting method/electoral system for presidential candidates, conditions for candidacy, electoral system for parliament, and legislation. Furthermore, the criteria will not only be effectively evaluated against each of the two options, but also against the primary goals of the new system, including preserving the fragile new democracy and transforming the economy of Livonia. In addition, while conducting an examination of the two proposals, Livonia’s demographics, political, and economic situation has to be reflected in the reasons behind the choice of one of the two systems.
Before announcing which of the two governmental systems prove to be a better fit for Livonia, strengths and weaknesses of each system will be assessed. To begin with, the electoral system, or voting method, of each proposal will be contrasted. In Option 1 of the expert recommendations, the constitution will be based on a presidential system of government, and the president will be elected using a single-round plurality rule, indicating that the candidate with the most votes wins. Many of the arguable strengths of a single-round plurality rule, or FPTP, take into account the simplicity that the system lends itself to. It provides the voters with a clear choice between two main parties, considering polling shows which parties will gain the greatest support. Specifically to Livonia, these two main parties would be The KGC and one of the parties that fall under the democratic umbrella movement HAL. This type of electoral system also tends to give rise to single-party governments, which could prove to be useful as it does not suffer from restraints concerning bargaining with a smaller coalition party. On the other hand, this could be seen as a weakness as it could produce a government with a smaller range of perspectives, as well as it is more likely to lead to radical changes in policy as there are no other players to perform checks and balances. This could act as a possible route to instability for Livonia, as it is easier for such a government to become radicalized, and result in the abuse of power of that single party. Lastly, arguably one of the most praised strengths of a single-round plurality is that it is simple and voters understand how it works. It preserves the “one person, one vote” principle and counting is easy to conduct.
Further evaluating the weaknesses that a single-round plurality rule encounters, an important one is the exclusion of minorities from representation. Consequently, if this does happen, it can possibly destabilize the entire political system. For Livonia, paying attention to minorities and different ethic groups is vital considering the ethnic composition of the country, which not only includes different religions, but also different languages.
On the contrary, as presented in Option 2, a two-round majoritarian system elects a president through if a candidate receives majority vote in the first round, they win. However, if no candidate receives majority, the top two candidates will compete in a second round held at a later occasion. The majority of the two wins. This type of electoral system is strong as the winning candidate will have the support of an absolute majority of voters, hence creating a more true reflection of majoritarianism than single-round plurality, where candidates can win even if they do not obtain an absolute majority of votes. For a country like Livonia where a new democracy has recently been introduced, it is important to elect a new president using a method that highly promotes majoritarianism and the core principles of a democracy. Furthermore, this system prevents the spoiler effect, as well as allows voters to invest more of the effort into electing the candidate who may actually win, especially if they voted for a third candidate in the first round. A two-round system seems more suitable for a new democracy like Livonia, as it allows for voters to react according to the political climate that the first round of voting may create. On the other hand, this system struggles with weaknesses, just like single-round plurality. Firstly, this type of system places a grand pressure on the electoral administration to conduct a second election after the first, which is very costly compared to a single-round system. It requires more effort, more expenses, and may result in voter fatigue. However, it is arguable that the increased quality and majority of the candidate outweighs the cost to conduct two ballots.
Contrasting the two different proposals for how the president will be elected, one can assert that Option 2 presents a more effective and suitable election system for Livonia. It is a better representation for an absolute majority vote, which will produce a presidential candidate with a strong support from the public, taking the first step to assuring the stability of the currently fragile new democracy. A single-round plurality will produce a presidential candidate who may not represent the majority of the constituents, but rather a majority vote which can be much lower than 50%. Hence, it could be the case that only a small number of the population is in favor of the candidate, creating a political climate that is not entirely reflective of a democracy.
The second basis within the criteria that the two options should be evaluated upon is conditions for candidacy. In Option 1, the president serves a fixed term of 6 years and can run for re-election as many times as they would like. This is not a suitable condition for a new democracy like Livonia, due to the fact that it would be an easy way for a sitting president to abuse their powers. In Option 2, the president serves a fixed term of 4 years and cannot run for re-election. This is a more suitable option for Livonia as 4 years is not too long nor too short, and in the case of the president not serving in the best interest of the constituents, voters are able to prevent the sitting president of gaining office again through a new election. Hence, this criteria speaks to Option 2, again.
The third basis within the criteria that the two options should be evaluated upon is the electoral system for parliament. In Option 1, the parliament will be chosen on the basis of proportional representation, whereas in Option 2 the parliament will be elected from single-member districts. The two different electoral systems will lead to completely different political party formations, which ultimately affects the political climate of the country. As previously established, Livonia is currently in a fragile state, indicating that stability is a crucial factor to take into account when deciding which option is more suitable. Option 2 is likely to create a two-party system, which can be considered to produce a more stable government, with few large parties, eliminating the existence of extremist parties with little representation. Furthermore, in Option 2, parliament is elected every four years, like the president, which creates a balance between the two elections, beginning with a fresh perspective in both presidential and parliamentary elections every four years. On the basis of these arguments, one can assert that the foundations of Option 2’s electoral system for parliament suits Livonia.
The fourth basis within the criteria that the two options should be evaluated upon is legislation. In Option 1, a majority of the parliament must pass a law and the president must sign it in order to pass legislation. If the president does not sign, then another vote will be held, and if there is a two-third turnout the second time, the law is passed. However, it is clear that this type of legislation would not suit Livonia, as it gives more power to the president alone, which could be argued as a uncertain and unstable way of beginning a new democracy. Even if a majority of parliament votes to pass a bill a second time, the president can still refuse. This does not seem to be an effective solution for preserving a fragile democracy. On the other hand, in Option 2, a majority of the parliament must pass a law and the president must sign it in order to pass legislation. If the president does not sign, another vote will be held, and if a majority of the parliament chooses to pass a second time, then it becomes law. This gives slightly more power to the parliament rather than the one president as seen in the first option, which could prove to be more stable and reflective of the entire population’s concerns and demands. Therefore, one could argue that yet again Option 2 appears to be a more suitable proposal for Livonia.
Having chosen to support Option 2 as a proposal for structuring Livonia’s presidential system, although it is the best fit for the country’s current state and future goals, no system is perfect. In an opportunity to suggest one change for improving the proposal overall, one may want to consider the election method for parliament. Using single member districts to elect members to parliament is very important as it gives voters a strong constituency representation as it is easy to identify the single district representative, as well as it allows for geographic representation. However, in this case, the option outlines that the members will be elected from districts of roughly the same size in terms of population, but cannot cross oblast boundaries. In Livonia, the oblasts vary widely in size and population. For example, the capital city of Mrachny has twenty times as many citizens as the smallest oblast Chukchi. This would cause a problem if members had to be picked from districts of the same size in terms of population, and are not allowed to cross oblast boundaries, considering the drastic differences in territorial units. Therefore, suggesting one change for improving Option 2, the single member districts do not necessarily have to be of the same population size, as long as there is an even representation of all oblasts in the parliament, ensuring geographic representation. 
A two-round majoritarian system is designed for single-seat constituencies. Thus, if the method is also used to elect a legislature, it will not produce proportional representation, but will more likely lead to the existence of a smaller number of large parties (two party system), rather than a representation of a larger number of small parties. This is because smaller parties are trampled during the elections, leaving two major parties in the spotlight at the end of the voting cycle, being over-represented. Furthermore, single-member districts also tend to encourage two-party systems, as held by Duverger’s law. This could be seen as beneficial as the government is often thought to be more stable in two-party systems, keeping out minorities that could disrupt the legislative balance and minimizing the influence of extremists, which could potentially be the ALN in Livonia.
As argued for in this essay, Option 2 contains the best possible proposal for Livonia to achieve its goals of preserving their fragile new democracy as well as transforming and revitalizing their economy, while keeping in mind the country’s demographics, political, and economic conditions. Option 2 will arguable help Livonia in this task for a series of reasons. Option 2 offers a more effective and suitable electoral system for Livonia. It is a better representation of the absolute majority vote, which will produce a presidential candidate with a strong support from the public, taking the first step to assuring the stability of the currently fragile new democracy. Furthermore, four years is not too long nor too short for a presidential term, and in the case of the president not serving in the best interest of the constituents, voters are able to prevent the sitting president of gaining office again through a new election, considering there is no re-election. In addition, Option 2 is likely to establish a two-party system, which can be considered to produce a more stable government, with few large parties, eliminating the existence of extremist parties with little representation, speaking to establishing a strong democratic force in Livonia, while weeding out the more inconsistent and unreliable political forces such as the ALN. Moreover, single-member districts give voters a strong constituency representation and is a crucial part to the success of the new government, and if the suggested  change for improvement of single member districts not necessarily having to be representative of the same population size, as long as there is an even representation of all oblasts in the parliament, ensuring geographic representation, then this option is certainly the best fit for Livonia.