Structure. Electoral Systems. Recap:Normative debates. Discussion Questions. Resources. Electoral & party aid

Transcription

1 Structure Electoral Systems Pippa Norris ~ Harvard I. Claims about electoral engineering II. The choice of electoral systems III. The effects of electoral systems IV. Conclusions and implications Recap:Normative debates Discussion Questions Adversarial democracy Based on majoritarian elections Elections should promote ACCOUNTABILITY: decisive elections, transparency of decision-making EFFECTIVENESS: single-party executives, responsible parties, unitary states SCRUTINY: effective opposition parties and vigorous parliamentary debate, and Yet dangers of elective dictatorship, permanent majorities, lack of checks. Consensus democracy Based on PR elections Elections should promote CONSENSUS: decisionmaking, bargaining and compromise PLURALISM: multiple parliamentary parties, diversity in legislature DECENTRALIZATION: dispersed decision-making processes. Yet dangers of ineffective governance, extreme multiparty fragmentation, lack of accountability etc. What are the pros and cons of alternative electoral systems? What would you recommend if asked to advise about designing the electoral system in either (a) Afghanistan (b) Iraq (c ) Ukraine (d) Brazil or (e) Indonesia? And why? Resources 1. Required readings Norris Driving democracy Ch 5. Online resources IFES ACE International IDEA Elections around the world Electoral & party aid 199s rapid growth in international aid by USAID, NED, IDEA, IFES, OAS, OSCE: 1. Electoral system design. Electoral administration 3. Voter education 4. Election observing 5. Election mediation 6. Party building 1

2 II: Types of electoral systems Classification of systems The most basic features involve: 1.The electoral formula how votes are counted to allocate seats,. The district i t magnitude the number of seats per district, 3. The ballot structure how voters can express their choices, and The electoral threshold the minimum votes needed by a party to secure representation. AV Majority 7 nd Ballot 5 Majoritarian 93 FPTP 54 Plurality 66 Bloc Vote STNV Nation States 191 Independent 14 Combined 7 Dependent 13 STV PR No direct elections 64 7 Closed Party List 6 Open Adversarial Consensual Figure 5.3: Trends in types of electoral systems used worldwide, Plurality Single member plurality elections (First-Past-The-Post) Used in 54 countries Eg US, UK, India, Canada Single seat districts, equal size, X vote Simple plurality of votes determines winner Create manufactured majority in votes:seats ratio Geographical dispersion of support is critical High threshold for non-spatially concentrated minor parties and ethnic groups Majoritarian Combined Proportional No competative elections Source: Coded from Arthur S. Banks Cross-national Time-series Data Archive, Andrew Reynolds and Ben Reilly. Eds. 5. The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. nd ed. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and related sources FPTP Ballot Eg UK X % 3 Advantages and disadvantages? 15 5 UK election result June 5 % of Votes % of seats Ratio Number of seats Labour Conservative Lib Dem SNP PC Other Elected w. plurality Labour Maj Total 659 Source: Pippa Norris & Chris 5 (OUP 5) Wlezien Ed. Britain Votes

3 Simulated seats GB June Actual results FPTP List PR Lab Con Ldem UKIP Nat Green BNP Other Majoritarian Variants Single Non-Transferable Vote Japan , Jordan, Vanuatu, Afghanistan Small multimember districts Multiple candidates from same party Single vote cast & plurality vote required Advantages and disadvantages? Cumulative vote Dual member seats eg Illinois until 19 Limited vote eg Spanish senate Source: Dunleavy and Margetts in Pippa Norris (Ed) Britain Votes 5 OUP. Second ballot majority Eg Presidential elections France, Russia, DRC Used in 14/5 presidential contests + some parliamentary elections Majority required (5%+) 1 st round winner Or run off nd round w. top two candidates Aims to produce party coalitions on left and right and popular legitimacy of the winner Heart and head voting Advantages and disadvantages? 3. Alternative Vote (AV) Eg Australian House of Representatives Single member districts Priority ranked voting (1st,nd,3rd,etc.) Majority required (5%+) 1 st round Or nd round bottom votes nd preferences redistributed etc. and results recalculated until majority achieved Eg AV Australia 4. Single Transferable Vote Advantages and disadvantages? Vote ticket or Vote 1 to among candidates Used in Ireland, Australian Senate, Malta Multimember constituencies (4/5 members) Priority voting (1,,3,..) Quota for election eg, voters/4 seats=5+1 Redistribution in successive counts from candidate with least votes 3

4 5. PR Party Lists National or regional district Closed or open list Used 6/191 nations eg Israel, Netherlands One vote for party (X) Minimum threshold of votes Eg Party List S.Africa Advantages and disadvantages? PR List formula Votes proportional to seats allocated by different formula Highest averages Total votes per party divided by divisors, seats allocated to highest quotient up to total seats available D Hondt formula divisions 1,,3 etc eg Poland, Spain (least prop.) Pure Saint-Laguë divisor 1,3,5,7 etc eg New Zealand Modified Saint-Laguë 1.4, 3,5,7 etc eg Norway (most proportional) Largest remainder Minimum quota (total votes/total seats) Hare quota total votes/total seats eg Benin, Costa Rica Droop quota raises divisor by 1 eg S.Africa, Czech Rep. Party Seats Blues 6 Eg D Hondt formula Highest averages Whites 3 Reds Green 1 Yellow Pinks 1 57* 6* 595* * * 13* 1975* * 8667* * * 6 95* Eg Largest remainders Hare Quota=(13, total votes/1 seats=,384) Votes Quota Dividend Seats Blues Whites Reds Greens Yellows Pinks Combined systems Aka Mixed, hybrid, side-by-side Combined-independent eg Taiwan and Ukraine Ukraine half FPTP, half nation-wide id lists, 4% thresholdsh Combined-dependent eg Germany, New Zealand, Germany half seats by party list, half by FPTP. Seats allocated by FPTP Total seats proportional to nd party vote 4

5 Eg Combined system Germany III. Effects of electoral systems X x Advantages and disadvantages? 1. On democracy. Proportionality of votes to seats (fair outcomes) 3. Party competition 4. Electoral turnout 5. Parliamentary representation Women & ethno-political minorities 6. Strength of cleavage politics 7. Constituency service Figure 5.4: Levels of democracy by type of electoral system, On democracy In plural societies Low << Democracy >> High Low << Democracy cy >> High FH Polity Vanhanen Cheibub FH Polity FH Polity Majoritarian Combined PR Homogeneous Heterogeneous Majoritarian Combined PR Table 5.: Electoral systems and democracy, all societies worldwide Liberal democracy Constitutional democracy Participatory democracy Freedom House Polity IV Vanhanen. Impact on proportionality Proportionality of votes to seats b (pcse) p b (pcse) p b (pcse) p INSTITUTIONAL RULES Majoritarian -.33 (.454) *** (.949) *** (.533) *** Proportional representation.94 (.619) N/s 3.85 (.561) *** 1.95 (.344) *** Positive action strategies 4.13 (.466) *** (.777) *** 5.76 (.84) *** CONTROLS Log GDP/Capita 13.9 (.83) *** (1.1) *** 14.5 (.663) *** Ex-British colony 1.35 (.96) *** 1.36 (1.36) ***.5 (.3) ** -.99 (1.16) *** (1.) *** (.9) *** Seat share % Winning party Perfect proportionality nd party, 3rd etc Regional diffusion.63 (.36) ***.883 (.49) ***.481 (.9) *** Ethnic fractionalization (.878) *** (1.56) N/s -.5 (.694) *** Population size.1 (.1) N/s. (.1) ***.1 (.1) *** Area size.1 (.1) ***.1 (.1) ***.1 (.1) *** Constant N. observations N. of countries Adjusted R Vote share % 5

6 Proportionality Standardized Loosemore-Hanby Index Proportionality influenced by: Proportionality UK Canada 83 Australia 84 USA 94 Korea, Republic of 84 Japan Ukraine Hungary Thailand Russia Mexico Germany Taiwan New Zealand Poland Romania Slovenia Czech Republic Spain Switzerland Netherlands Norway Belgium Is rael Sweden Denmark Peru Number of parties in the electorate. Geographical distribution of the vote 3. District magnitude 4. Legal vote thresholds 5. The type of electoral formulae eg d Hondt etc 3. Impact on parties: Duverger s laws (1) The plurality single-ballot rule tends to party dualism. () The double-ballot ballot system and proportional representation tend to multipartyism. Effect on parties Mean N of parl Mean N of relevant % Vote for % Seats for Number of parties (1 seat) parl parties (3%+ party 1st party 1st countries All Majoritarian 5. seats) Alternative Vote Block vote nd Ballot FPTP All Combined Independent Dependent Maurice Duverger Political Parties, Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley. ALL Proportional STV Party List TOTAL Ref: Pippa Norris Institutions Matter CUP 3 USA UK Australia Canada Korea, Republic of Taiwan Mexico Thailand Japan Germany Hungary New Zealand Russia Ukraine Spain Poland Romania Czech Republic Sweden Norway Netherlands Denmark Switzerland Slovenia Israel Belgium ENPP by Electoral System Effective Number of Parliamentary Parties Ref: Pippa Norris Institutions Matter CUP Effect on Turnout Ref: Pippa Norris. Democratic Phoenix Ch 4. Type of Electoral System Mean Vote/VAP N. 199s Alternative Vote 65.5 nd Ballot First-Past-The-Post Single Non-Transferable Vote 5.6 Block Vote All majoritarian Combined-Dependent Combined-Independent All combined List PR Single Transferable Vote 83.4 All PR Systems All 6

7 Type of Electoral System Effect on Turnout Ref: Pippa Norris. Democratic Phoenix Ch 4. Mean Vote/VAP 199s Alternative Vote 65.5 nd Ballot First-Past-The-Post Single Non-Transferable Vote 5.6 Block Vote All majoritarian Combined-Dependent Combined-Independent All combined N. List PR Impact of compulsory voting Vote/VAP Vote/Reg N. of Nations Older democracies Compulsory Non-Compulsory Difference Newer democracies Compulsory Non-Compulsory Difference Semi-democracies Compulsory Non-Compulsory Difference Non-democracies Compulsory Non-Compulsory Difference Single Transferable Vote 83.4 All PR Systems All All Compulsory Non-Compulsory Difference Impact on women As a simple rule, women proved twice as likely to be elected under PR than majoritarian electoral systems. Women were.8 percent of MPs in majoritarian systems, 15.1 percent in mixed or semi-proportional systems, and 19.8 percent of members in PR systems. P.Norris in R.Rose Encyclopedia of Elections (CQ 1) COUNTRY South Korea Pakistan Mali Nepal Ukraine Malawi Thailand France Zambia India Chile Philippines Australia UK Bangladesh USA Canada Taiwan Japan Ecuador Venezuela Hungary Ireland Russia Mexico Italy Bolivia New Zealand Germany Turkey Madagasgar Greece Brazil Czech Rep Uraguay Portugal Israel Colombia Belgium Poland Bulgaria Costa Rica Spain Switzerland Argentina Austria Netherlands South Africa Mozambique Finland Denmark Norway Sweden 3 FPTP Mixed PR 5 %Women MPs mid 199s Conclusions Therefore no single best system Depends upon priorities choice of governability v. diversity Critical for many other democratic institutions What are the consequences of electoral systems? Next class: executives 7