Systemic and Strategic Consequences of Electoral Systems Flashcards
In what ways can a political system be affected by a new electoral system?
- the # of parties in the parliament
- the degree of social representation in MPs
- the tendency to have more (or less) coalition govs
- the nature of parliamentary representation
- the style of party campaigning and party organization
- the degree of electoral choice given to voters
system consequences context
The Institutional Perspective
Electoral System -> Party System
system consequences context
The Sociological Perspective
Party System -> Electroal System
systemic consequences context
Duverger’s Law
“The simple-majority single ballot system favors the 2-party system most nearly perhaps as a true sociological law”
1951
FPTP ELECTROAL SYSTEM PRODUCES A 2-PARTY SYSTEM
This is the result of both mechanical effects and psychological effects.
Duverger’s Law and Duverger’s Hypotheses (Riker, 1982), form the basis of institutional research on the origins of party systems
systemic consequences context
Duverger’s Hypothesis
“The simple majority system with second ballot and proportional representation favours multi-partism”
1963
PR AND 2ROUND SYSTEMS PRODUCE A MULTIPARTY SYSTEM
Duverger’s Law and Duverger’s Hypotheses (Riker, 1982), form the basis of institutional research on the origins of party systems
Sartori’s Theory
- What are the impacts of electoral systems on political competition and party dynamics?
- Builds on Duverger’s Law… (agrees with general principles but says their is more to it)
- identifies 4 types of party systems: (1) Predominant party system (2) 2-Party system (3) Moderate pluralism (4) Polarized pluralism
2 variable: electoral system (strong/weak) & party system (structured?)
EFFECTIVE NUMBER OF PARTIES: a concept accounting for both the # of parties and their relative strength
1. Predominant Party System: 1 party domiantes but others exist
2. Two-party System: characterized by 2 parties alternating in power
3. Moderate Pluralism: involving a small # of parties with no single party close to dominance
4. Polarized Pluralism: featuring many parties, often leading to instability due ot ideological extemes
Structured Party System + Strong electoral system = reductive effect of the electoral system
Stuctured Party System + Weak electoral system = coutnerbalancing/blocking effect of the party system
Nonstructed Party System + Strong eletoral system = reductive/blocking effect at the district level
Nonstuctured + weak = no effects
Taagepera and Shugart on the realtionship btw electoral system and party system
the relationship btw the party system and the electoral system is not just about the PR nonPR dichtomoy
THE # OF PARTIES INCREASES AS THE DISPROPORTIONALITY OF THE SYSTEM DECREASES
1989
Strategic Entry and Strategic Voting (Cox)
- If candidates/parties decide to enter based on their chances of winning a seat, then expectations about who will win under various entry scenarios are crucial in determining who will actually enter
- Electoral coordination ends at the elite level if prospective candidates will not enter a race if their chances arent good enough
ex.) voter’s in a single member district may be presented with only 2 choice on the ballot, ending any need for strategic voting
Duverger’s Law in Practice
- Duverger wrote about the district level (crtitics forget this)
- district-level outcomes are not wholly driven by district-level factors, but are affected by competitions elsewhere in a country or for other levels of gov
- local 3rd parties do exist and extreme ethnic frag generates small parties
Grofman, Blais, Bowler 2009 - Duv’s law is most imp. for its exceptions
overall in practice duvergers law seems to hold true but its dominance is not complete
Laasko and Taagepera’s effective # of parties (1979)
Effective # of parties is a diversity index that provides for an adjusted # of political parties ina country’s party system, weighted by their relatice size.
ENP = effective number of parties = N
ENEP = effective # of electoral parties
ENPP = effective # of parliamentary parties
this is expressed in a complex quadratic formula that I can’t be fucked to try to type
The Gallagher Index
Measures disproportionality
complicated ass equation dont worry about it
The Index measures electoral system’s relative disproportionality btw votes recieved and seats in a legislature.
What are the benefits of a PR system in comparison to a plurality/majority system?
- PR systems are fairer to smaller parties and the supporter sof smaller parties
- PR provides better social representations
- some PR systems provide voters with greater electoral choice
The Trade off of PR systems
Either you can have a representative parliament which elects a representative gov or you can have a strong adn stable gov — you cant have both at the same time
While NonPR sys helps promot gov duration, PR sys may have same result
Main areas to take into account:
1. Government longevity and accountability
2. Party poltiical extremism
3. System complexity and voter confusion
SMD countries are characterized by long continous one party very stable govs (UK)
PR systems where coalitions predominate are characterized as less stable (Israel)
Austria/Sweden/Norway examples of PR being stable
Japan /India examples of SMD being unstable
The Relationship btw PR and Government Accountability
PR systems are criticized as being less acountable bc they tend to produce coalitions.
Coalitions are often formed behind closed doors thus severing the connections btw elections and the creation of govs.
Coalitons can also ignore manifesto pledges.
PR systems with coalitions can be difficukt to dislodge.
This is not the fully true bc:
- Coalition bargains are formed before elections soemtimes and are out in the open
- The process fo coalition formation can be entirely predictable
- While non-PR systems have a good record of producing safe legislative majorities adn thus keepign manifesto promises … is this really a good indicator of gov stabililty?
The Relationship btw System Complexity and Voter Behavior
bc PR systems are more complex they are more likely to confuse voters. Making it more likely that a voter isn’t sure what there votes mean and how the final election result is calculated
- shown in greater #s of invalid votes and lower turnout
- Economic developement, literacy rates, and compulsory voting have more to do with invalid votes than does system complexity
