class 5 - electoral systems Flashcards
why are electoral systems important (to know about)?
- waves of democratization -> new democracies = many attention/advise around electoral systems
- attempts to reform electoral systems
- they have important implications for how democracies operate; types of practices, parties, role/chance of populists etc.
aims of electoral systems
always a trade-off between these, they are all desirable but you can’t have all
- proportionality = composition of parties in parliament should mirror composition/division in society
- effectiveness = in producing political leadership / stable gov.
- simplicity = voters need to be able to understand it
- responsiveness = how well the system links voters to members of parliament
majoritarian vs PR electoral systems
majoritarian = effectiveness
- elections in single member districts, each district delivers 1 MP (so M=1)
- winner takes all
*FPTP (e.g. UK)
PR = proportionality
- multi-member districts: districts deliver multiple MP (M=1+)
- seats allocated in a proportion to the votes received
*this distinction is not enough: within systems still distinctions + systems can be combined
Plurality systems
vote for individual candidates, winner has more votes than other candidates have = simplicity + responsiveness
- e.g. UK, US, Canada, India, Botswana
*is a majoritarian system, FPTP (first past the post)
Majority systems
vote for individual candidates, winner req. >50% votes
there are multiple rounds when no candidate reaches 50% i in the first round
advantage = more proportional as you need at least 50% of the votes
*coalition building during elections: losers round 1 say what their voters should vote for in round 2
- e.g. France, Australia
Proportional Representation
differences
degree of choice of candidates
- close lists = voters can only vote for party, no say over which candidate
- (semi)open lists = you can vote for party and candidate (-> e.g. famous people on lists to gain popularity -> Czech republic 1990 got actors in parliament etc.
- votes for candidates = single transferable vote (e.g. Ireland) = most complicated system
level of treshold = % vote nationwide necessary to get into parliament
- usually 5% (e.g. Czech republic)
- Israel and NL have the most proportional systems (low treshold)
district magnitude = the more and smaller the districts are the more disproportional outcomes are
(formula for seat allocation)
*he mentioned there was something in the book about this
but he didn’t explain this and said he might take it out of the slides
single transferable vote (STV)
Proportional Representation system that can be found in Ireland
voters get to vote on multiple candidates: they can give their first preference, their second etc.
if a candidate has reached enough votes, the remainder of the votes for that candidate get redistributed to other candidates (according to the second preference etc.)
!this is the most complicated system
what’s gonna be on the exam for sure?
- district magnitude: more districts + the smaller they are -> more disproportional outcomes (in both PR and majoritarian systems)
- Gallagher index: an electoral system’s relative disproportionality between votes received and seats in a legislature
Mixed systems
vote for party lists and for individual candidates (apart from each other)
- parliament seats are divided into seats destined for parties and seats for the individual candidates (e.g. votes for parties for 50 party seats, votes for candidates for 50 candidate seats)
e.g. Hungary, Japan, Thailand
= mixed member majority
New Zealand and Germany really mixed systems?
no (whilst ballots do look like it)
- total seats nr. that parties get is determined fully by the party lists
- those who win single-member … get placed in the parliament seats made available in the party list (e.g. party gets 50 seats, seats get filled with the winners of the individual lists)
= mixed member proportional systems
- are more proportional then mixed: single-member constituencies only to fill the seats made available by party lists
!when there’s more seats for the party than candidates on the individual lists, the places get filled with the party lists
!when candidates get votes, but their parties don’t get enough, the parliament is expanded until the next elections so that the candidate can be placed
systems in the world
in terms of population plurality systems the biggest
-> the larger the country, the bigger the chance of a plurality system
smaller countries have PR systems
consequences of electoral systems
are big
mainly: representation/proportionality, party systems & minority representation
general wisdom (not a law, doesn’t always hold) =
- Majoritarian = not proportional + stable parties + little minority representation
- PR systems = more proportional + fragmented parties, unstable gov. + high minority representation
!there are exceptions:
- Majoritarian systems of UK and India, e.g. UK ‘hunk parliament’ where there was no clear majority, so a coalition had to be formed
- PR Sweden: long had one major party (after WW2 (he also mentioned it in the big picture, but i didn’t hear it well))
Proportionality - consequence of electoral systems
smaller parties suffer in majoritarian systems = disproportional
list PR is better for smaller parties, BUT can be almost as disproportionate when they have a high treshold and small districts (e.g. Greece)
- e.g. 1992 Inverness, Nairn & Lochaber (Scotland): Johnston got elected while other candidates had nearly equal % votes (all around 20) -> disproportional
- e.g. 2015 Canada: 40% votes to LPC, got 55% of the seats
Gallagher Index
= measures an electoral system’s relative disproportionality between votes received and seats in a legislature
*in polsci we don’t say system A is disproportionate, system B is proportionate, we say to what extent a system is more or less proportional
consequences of electoral systems - party systems
(Duverger law)
correlation between:
- majoritarian - two-party systems
- PR - multi-party
Duverger law = electoral systems are associated with different party systems through 2 mechanisms:
- mechanical effects = majoritarian systems tend to eliminate smaller parties
- psychological effects = after repeated elections voters understand the mechanisms of systems and vote accordingly -> in majoritarian systems they start to vote for bigger parties, as a vote for smaller parties doesn’t ‘‘count’’ as they don’t make it in parliament
!Duverger law is not really a law: there are exceptions
-e.g. Malta has a 2-party PR system, FPTP can be multiparty when there are large ethnic divisions
