4. Reforming the Electoral System: Permissive Reforms Flashcards
indirect elections
voting for representatives, who would then choose the final assembly members
wrong-winner election
outcome does not match with the popular votes.
this can happen with a majority system
weird outcomes can trigger contingent crisis / public opinion
permissive reform
changing the electoral system in such a way that a voter has more impact on who is elected
= changing FPTP to a more proportional system
restrictive reform
change of the electoral system where the voter has less impact on who gets elected.
colomer - risk avoidance
there are risks attached to changing the electoral system.
therefore not blindly seat maximization counts.
colomer - bounded rationality
politicians are rational, up to a certain point.
the electoral ‘calculators’ do not know all of the possible electoral system, they know only a few through experience. this leads to the options being more limited
this explains why proportional representation was implemented late, people did not know it existed
what leads to unpredictability
rise of new parties –> christian and socialist
outside pressure made the old system doomed
protests for universal suffrage led to a different electoral system
four elements of electoral systems
electoral formula
assembly by size
district magnitude
ballot structure
electoral formula
the way votes are translated into seats
assembly by size
the total number of seats in a parliament
district magnitude
the average number of politicians / seats that is distributed per electoral district
ballot structure
which individual gets to occupy a seat that a party has won
multi-member districts
multiple ballot (vote for different parties / candidates) OR bloc vote (you vote only for a party, not for candidates. If party wins, this party gets all of the seats).
descriptive trends
- indirect elections
- multi-member districts
- limited vote / single member district
- proportional representation
single member district
one candidate was elected per district), with either plurality (first-past-the-post) or majority rules (50% support)
limited ballot
voters had fewer votes than seats / candidates available
majoritarian outcomes
these systems often produce clear winners but can result in governments that don’t reflect the overall popular vote, leading to polarization and under-representation of smaller parties.
proportional outcomes
proportional representation systems tend to produce coalition governments, representing a broader spectrum of the electorate and often aligning more closely with the median voter’s preferences.
this makes them generally more stable and inclusive.
drivers of electoral system choices - colomer
political strategy and changing expectations
- some parties that initially supported proportional representation shifted to majoritarian systems when they gained enough power to potentially dominate elections
- parties that felt threatened by emerging competition or losing influence often advocated for proportional representation to secure their place in a changing political landscape
dealignment
process where traditional political alignments, such as strong loyalties to a particular party, weaken or decline.
dealignment is characterized by an increase in voters who do not identify strongly with any political party
personalization
the increasing prominence of individual politicians over parties and collective identities
different levels of personalization
first-order personalization
second-order personalization
first-order personalization
focus on party leaders gaining prominence
second-order personalization
emphasis on individual candidates who are not necessarily the party leaders
centralized vs. decentralized personalization
centralized refers to power shifting towards a single leader, while decentralized refers to power dispersing among various candidates
electoral systems classified into two main dimensions
inter-party dimension
intra-party dimension
inter-party dimension
concerns the distribution of power across different parties.
intra-party dimension
involves how power is distributed within parties, particularly in terms of candidate selection and voter influence over individual candidates.
within party
personalization and inter/intra party dimension
suggestion that as voters disengage from parties, they might prioritize having more influence over individual candidates, thereby increasing the relevance of intra-party dynamics in electoral systems
three mechanisms for personalization manifesting in electoral reform
mass imposition
elite-mass interaction
elite imposition
mass imposition
strong public pressure drives reforms, even against political elite preferences.
elite-mass interaction
politicians respond to public disaffection by proposing moderate reforms that enhance personalization while retaining control.
elite imposition
politicians maintain control but are constrained by public opinion in the kinds of reforms they enact.
three types of ballot structures
open list system
flexible list system
closed list system
open list system
it all depends on preference votes / most votes (only have to make sure you are on the list, can make your own campaign)
flexible list system
first a ranking on preference votes, but you only get the seat if you cross a certain threshold for preference votes.
you have the full quota (total votes / seats), the threshold is equal to the quota divided by four.
the seats after remaining after applying those who pass the threshold are filled in with the list ranking (dependent on party, but can also campaign independently).
closed list system
based on position on list. If you have 6 seats, the first 6 gets to occupy them.
makes politicians dependent on party leadership (on which position they put you).
