Electoral systems

Question 1

Majoritarian FPTP

Answer 1

Type- most votes win

Pros
Stable government
Greater bonds with constituents Accountability

Cons
Minority groups are less likely to be represented e.g. Reynolds, Reilly, and Ellis 2005 found that in African countries helped produce countries that are “divided into geographically separate party strongholds, with little incentive for parties to make appeals outside their home region and cultural-political base

Strategic voting - Gibbard 1973, whilst shown all electoral systems promote strategic voting, Majoritarian FPTP systems create the strongest incentive
E.g - Carey & Shugart (1995) (Info on another card)

Question 2

Majoritarian - Two Round System

Answer 2

Automatically elected in the first round if they obtain a specified level of votes, if not a second round of elections takes place

Pros:
Voters more choice - vote for a candidate who “loses” in round one they get a second opportunity to influence whose elected in round two.

Stable government - creates incentives for candidates who make it to the 2nd round to look for beyond their electoral base and reach compromises with leaders of parties who are already eliminated in an attempt to win over their supporters.

Greater bonds with voters - Accountability

Cons:
Minority groups are less likely to be represented

Costly - The electoral administration has to conduct 2 sets of elections. Indeed, these additional costs have led some countries, such as Sri Lanka, that were initially interested in the TRS to adopt a different system

Reduction in turnout -empirical evidence suggests that there is a considerable drop in the level of turnout between the 2 rounds of elections. E.g. Georgia senate seat (the runoff election saw a drop in voter turnout

Question 3

Majoritiarn- Alternative Vote (AV)

Answer 3

Voters mark their preferences by rank ordering the candidates. A candidate who receives an absolute majority is elected. If no absolute majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and her votes are reallocated until one candidate has an absolute majority.

Pros:
Only 1 rep for each constituencie (easy accountability)

Voters have a greater opportunity to convey information about their preferences as they get to rank the candidates rather than vote yes and no.

Cons:
Strategic voting does not disapper entirley as voters may decide not to rank the candidates according to their sincere preferences in an attempt to who ultimately wins in a district.

Critics claim the winning candidate does not necessarily obtain a “genuine” majority as it is possible for a majority of the voters in a district to prefer another to the one who wins. The reason why is that a candidate who is preferred to all the other candidates in a series of head-to-head races can be eliminated early on because he or she receives an insufficient num- ber of first-place votes

Question 4

PR- proportional representation

Answer 4

Goal is to produce proportional outcomes

Pros
Minority groups can be represented - As small parties are able to win

Produce a more accurate translation of votes - avoids the possibility that a party wins a large percentage of the vote but few legislative seats

Increased Voter turnout - know that their votes are less likely to be wasted (Blais and Carty)

Cons
Harder to form a single party gov

Allow small extremist parties to gain representation

Weak links between voters & candidates - no single rep is responsible for policy in a given district. Voters might also wonder which of the elected representatives from their districts actually represent them

Question 5

Open PR

Answer 5

Several MPs elected in each constituency

Each party presents a list of candidates in each constituency

Citizen’s vote (X) either for a party (a ‘party vote’) or for an individual candidate (a ‘personal vote’)

Seats are allocated to parties in proportion to the total votes they receive in a constituency (party votes + personal votes)

Seats are allocated to candidates within parties according to the number of personal votes each candidate receives

Question 6

Closed PR

Answer 6

Several MPs elected in each constituency

Each party presents a list of candidates in each constituency

Citizen’s vote (X) for one of the party lists in the constituency

Seats are allocated to parties in each constituency in proportion to the votes they received in that constituency

Most countries have local or regional multi-member constituencies, while a few have only one single national constituency (e.g. Israel)

Question 7

Proportional: Single-Transferable Vote

Answer 7

Same as Alternative Vote, but in a multi-member constituency

Several MPs elected in each constituency

Each party presents several candidates in each constituency, citizens rank the candidates (1,2,3,4,5 etc.)

If any candidate reaches a ‘quota’ of votes, he/she is elected otherwise least is eliminated

Question 8

Mixed Member System

Answer 8

The electoral system has ‘2 ‘tiers’:
- some MPs are elected in single-member constituencies
- some MPs are elected in multi-member constituencies

Each party presents 1 candidate in a single-member constituency and a list of candidates in a multi-member (regional or national) constituency

Citizens usually have 2 votes: (1) for a candidate in a single-member constituency; and (2) for a party on a regional/national party list

In each single-member constituency the candidate with the most votes is elected AND …

Example - Germany – 299 single member constituency and there are 2 ballots one for party list, and another for constituency seats

• In Mixed-Member Proportional systems; the party list seats are allocated to compensate those parties who have not won enough single-member seats given their overall score
• In Mixed-Member Majoritarian systems; the party lists seats are allocated separately, in proportion to the voters received by the parties in the multi-member party list constituencies

Question 9

Political Effects of Electoral Systems: Two Trade off

Answer 9

1. Parliamentary Representation vs. Government Accountability
   - Should there be stable single-party government, or should the make-up of
   parliament fairly reflect the vote choices of citizens?
2. Cohesive Parties vs. Accountable Politicians
   - Should parties be highly centralised and cohesive, or should citizens be able to
   choose between politicians from the same political party (which increases individual
   accountability)?

Question 10

Duverger’s Law (1954)- party systems

Answer 10

Majoritarian party systems - two party systems dominance
Proportional systems - multi party systems dominance

This is due to ….

Mechanical: majoritarian system favours big parties to win proportionally more seats than vote shares, while smaller parties win proportionally less seats than vote shares. So as a result, majoritarian systems tend to benefit big parties as those are the parties for which people move to the centre

Psychological: people vote strategically for bigger parties, as they have more chances of winning even if it’s not the most preferred party

Question 11

Gary Cox’s (1987), Correction of Duverger

Answer 11

– argues that Duverger’s law only works on the constituency level, as if voters are strategic, then they should co-ordinate around only those candidates that have a realistic chance of being elected

Cox predicts that in each constituency the number of competitive candidates should equal the number of seats to be elected (district magnitude) plus one.

Looking at heterogenous societies (UK, Canada, India), we find multi-party politics because of the regional grouping of the types of competative candidates in certain areas

Question 12

Cohesive Parties v Accountable Politicians

Answer 12

• Closed-List PR systems lead to the most cohesive parties, as if candidates get out of line, the parties has the power to ensure that they are removed from the party list next election
• Whereas in open-list PR systems, are not very cohesive, as candidates compete with other members of their party’s however it does lead to them producing accountable politicians
• As the district magnitude increases, it becomes more candidate based as there is a greater incentive to campaign for votes

Question 13

How to stop corruption in Electoral systems and is it a better trade-off than securing cohesive parties

Answer 13

Torsten Perrson – in order to get rid off corrupt politicians we need to remove Closed-List systems and use Open-List PR and FPTP systems

 However, parties are stronger in Closed-List system, and politicians have fewer incentives to engage in corruption in Closed-Lists systems
 And majoritarian systems lead to high stake elections, which create incentives to use corruption as a means to win – FPTP being the worst

 Chang & Golden (2006) – looked at how corruption varies in the type of systems and the district magnitude, had found that in the low district magnitude systems Perrson is correct, but when in high district magnitude systems the worries of high election start to kick in we see more electoral corruption in Open-List PR system
 In very high district magnitude system public spending is lower than in low district magnitude systems

Question 14

Electoral Systems: A Primer for Decision Makers - Donald Horowitz - What are the 6 goals for electoral systems
(READING)

Answer 14

• Proportionality of Seats to Votes
• Accountability to Constituents
• Durable Government – promote policy consistency & responsibility & avoid the instability that can result from coalitions
• Victory of the Condorcet Winner – the candidate who would receive the majority of the votes in a paired or head-to-head contests
• Inter-ethnic and Inter-religious Conciliation – govs ability to provide politicians with the electoral incentives for moderate behaviour e.g. compromises with minority groups for the sake of success
• Minority Officeholding – group proportionality should be a goal for political systems, as many electoral systems produce results that underrepresent members of a minority group

Question 15

Parliamentary Representation v Government Accountability

Answer 15

Proportional systems – aims to maximise representation as vote shares map fairly into seat-shares, with parliament being microcosm of society. But after elections governments form coalitions which creates a low clarity of responsibility
Majoritarian systems – maximise governments accountability as people know who to blame, which creates more responsive politics as small vote shifts lead to big seat shifts. But produces a disproportionate outcome

Question 16

Parliamentary representation v Accountable government - Case Studies

Answer 16

Carey & Shugart (1995)
– looked at how the share of seats varies with the share of votes in proportionate and non-proportionate systems.

• In Majoritarian systems
  a party which has less than 50% of votes will receive less than 40% of seats, however receiving more than 50% of votes you will receive a greater proportion of seats to your votes.
• Therefore, parties have to be very responsive to minor shifts in the electorate as it can have huge shifts in policy. - Thus Majoritarian systems maximise government accountability as even small shifts in support can lead them to loose an election
• Looking at the proportion of votes to the proportional of seats in the UK (majoritarian system) during 1992 – 2019
   With a relatively minor shift in the electorate preferences Labour was able to gain 20% more seats in 2001
   In 2017-19 Conservatives able to gain a huge increase in seats with a minor shift in publics preferences towards immigration and Brexit

Question 17

Cohesive Parties v Accountable Politicians - Case Study

Answer 17

• Carey (2007) – found that the extent that a party votes together (cohesian), candidates are more likely to deviate from party in an Open-List system than those within a Close-List system

Question 18

How could one improve PR systems

Answer 18

• One way to adjust PR to strengthen large parties is by …

 Small multi-member districts – strengthens big parties
 High electoral thresholds – limits number of small parties in government
 Winners Bonus – extra seats for the winning parties
 Mixed-Member Majoritarianism – leads to clarity of responsibility as well as a proportional system

Question 19

Electoral Systems: A Primer for Decision Makers - Donald Horowitz - Why do states choose a specific type of electoral system
(READING)

Answer 19

• Decision-makers have multiple goals when deciding on an election system e.g. Germany has a constituency-based-system but with a proportional overlay, so legislators have reasons to respond to their constituents, but parties also receive an overall number of seats which are proportional to the votes they had won nationally
• The United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, India, many Anglophones African countries, and Malaysia all use the first-past-the-post system, which is regarded as a system common in the English-speaking world. By contrast, continental Europe tends to use list PR, and so do Francophone countries in Africa.
  However, when postcolonial countries rethink their electoral arrangements, they often depart from their inherited electoral systems, but generally their choices stay close to those of the former metropole e.g. Ireland choose proportional representation tending to opt for the STV

Question 20

Define District Magnitude

Answer 20

the number of representatives elected in a district

Question 21

Alternative Vote - Example

Answer 21

Example - Australia
- The AV system was used in the Richmond constituency of New South Wales in the 1990 Australian legislative elections
- When the first-preference votes from all the voters were initially tallied up, Charles Blunt came first with 40.9 percent of the vote. Because no candidate won an absolute majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes (Gavin Baillie) was eliminated.
- Baillie was ranked first on 187 ballots, and these 187 ballots were then reallocated to whichever of the remaining candidates the voters ranked second after Gavin Baillie. For example, the fact that Ian Paterson received 445 votes in the first count but 480 votes in the second count
- This indicates that 35 of the people who had listed Baillie as their most preferred candidate listed Ian Paterson as their second-choice candidate.
- This had carried on for 7 rounds of voting till there was a candidate with a clear majority with Neville Newell became the first candidate to finally obtain an absolute majority of the votes.