Electoral Systems

Pippa Norris ~ Harvardwww.pippanorris.com

Components of institutional design

Constitutional reform

Electoral systems and processes

Party systems

Roles and powers of the executive

Role of Parliament

Federalism and decentralization

Local governments

Innovative minor reforms

Participation, transparency, and accountability

www.pippanorris.com

www.pippanorris.com

Structure

I. Normative principles of electionsII. Types of electoral systems

– What are the choices? How do they work?

III. Explaining processes of electoral system change

– Do electoral systems determine  party systems? Or the reverse?

IV. Conclusions and implications 

Required readings

1. Pippa Norris. 2008. Driving Democracy: Do Power‐Sharing Institutions Work? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch 5.

2. Benoit, Kenneth. 2007. ‘Electoral laws as political consequences: explaining the origins and change of electoral institutions.’ Annual Review of Political Science 10: 363‐90. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.101608

3. International IDEA. 2008. Electoral System Design. The new IDEA International Handbook. Ed. Andrew Reynolds, Ben Reilly and Andrew Ellis. http://www.idea.int/publications/esd/upload/ESD_Handb_low.pdf

pp1‐29.

www.pippanorris.com

www.pippanorris.com

Online Resources

1. IFES– www.ifes.org/eguide/elecguide.htm

2. ACE– http://www.aceproject.org/  

3. International IDEA– www.EPICproject.int

www.pippanorris.com

Discussion Questions

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) Nepal or (e) Bhutan? And why?

I: NORMATIVE DEBATES

www.pippanorris.com

Normative criteriaHow would you rank the importance  of these criteria for Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan?

– Providing representation• Geographic, ideological, party, and descriptive

– Making elections accessible and meaningful– Providing incentives for conciliation– Facilitating stable and efficient government– Holding the government accountable– Holding individual representatives accountable– Encouraging political parties– Promoting legislative opposition and oversight– Making electoral processes sustainable– Meeting international standards

Source: International IDEA. 2008. Electoral System Design pp9‐14.www.pippanorris.com

Recap: Consociationaldemocracy

Lijphart (1968) The Politics of AccommodationNetherlands exemplified ‘pillorized’ divided societyYet there was stable democracy and elite consensusWhy? Constitutional arrangements

– Proportional representation of all major groups in elected/appointed office

– Executive power‐sharing/grand coalition– Minority veto in government– Cultural autonomy for groupsModel for other divided (plural) societies?E.g. Belgium, Switzerland, Lebanon, Cyprus 

The logical sequence of consociational theory in divided 

societiesPR electoral systems (or

reserved seats)

Federalism & decentralization

Election ofethnic minority

partiesPeaceful

democratic consolidation

Election ofethnic minority

parties

Greater support within minority communities

Does the logic make sense? Criticisms?

www.pippanorris.com

II: Types of electoral systems

The most basic features involve:1.The electoral formula

– how votes are counted to allocate seats,

2. The district 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.

www.pippanorris.com

Classification of systems

AV2

2nd Ballot25

Majority27

FPTP54

Bloc Vote10

STNV2

Plurality66

Majoritarian93

Independent14

Dependent13

Combined27

STV2

Closed Open

Party List62

PR64

No direct elections7

Nation States191

Adversarial Consensual

Source: Norris: Driving democracy p113

www.pippanorris.com

1. Plurality

Single member plurality elections (First‐Past‐The‐Post)Used in 54 countries Eg US, UK, India, CanadaSingle seat districts, equal size, ‘X’ voteSimple plurality of votes determines winnerCreate ‘manufactured majority’ in votes:seats ratioGeographical dispersion of support is critical High threshold for non‐spatially concentrated minor parties and ethnic groups

www.pippanorris.com

FPTP Ballot Eg UK

X

%

30

20

15

35Elected w. plurality

Advantages and disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

2005 UK election resultJune 2005 % of Votes % of seats Ratio Number of

seatsLabour 35.2 54.9 1.56 355

Conservative 32.3 30.4 0.94 197

Lib Dem 22.0 9.5 0.43 62

SNP 1.5 0.9 0.60 6

PC 0.6 0.5 0.83 3

Other 8.4 3.4 0.40 23

Labour Maj. 2.9 24.5 66

Total 100 100 659

Source: Pippa Norris & Chris Wlezien Ed. Britain Votes 2005 (OUP 2005)

www.pippanorris.com

Simulated seats GB June 2005355

239197 207

62

140

0 119 180 50 44 30

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Actual results FPTP List PR

LabConLdemUKIPNatGreenBNPOther

Source: Dunleavy and Margetts in Pippa Norris (Ed) Britain Votes 2005 OUP

www.pippanorris.com

Majoritarian Variants

Single Non‐Transferable Vote– Japan 1948‐1993, 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 1980Limited vote eg Spanish senate

www.pippanorris.com

2. Second ballot majority

Eg Presidential elections France, Russia, DRCUsed in 14/25 presidential contests + some parliamentary elections Majority required (50%+) 1st round – winnerOr ‘run off’ 2nd round w. top two candidatesAims to produce party coalitions on left and right and popular legitimacy of the winner‘Heart’ and ‘head’ votingAdvantages and disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

3. Alternative Vote (AV)

Eg Australian House of Representatives[Preferential voting]Single member districtsPriority ranked voting (1st, 2nd, 3rd,etc.)Majority required (50%+) 1st roundOr 2nd round bottom votes 2nd preferences redistributed etc. and results recalculated until majority achieved

www.pippanorris.com

Eg AV Australian HofRep

Advantages and disadvantages?

Must rank preferences across all candidates to be a valid ballot

2010 Australian HofR results

www.pippanorris.com

93.2% counted.Updated Thu Sep 16 03:28PM

Party % Vote Swing Won % seats 

Labor 38.0 ‐5.4 72 48.0%

Coalition 43.7 +1.5 73 48.6%

Greens 11.7 +4.0 1 0.6%

Others 6.6 ‐0.1 4 Support Lab Gov

150

www.pippanorris.com

www.pippanorris.com

4. Single Transferable Vote

Used in Ireland, Australian Senate, MaltaMultimember constituencies (4/5 members)Priority voting (1,2,3,..)Quota for election eg100,000 voters/4 seats=25000+1Redistribution in successive counts from candidate with least votes

www.pippanorris.com

2007 Irish Dial election results

www.pippanorris.com

Candidates Votes % vote Change since 2002 Seats % seats Ratio Votes : 

Seats

Fianna Fáil 106 858,565 41.56 +0.08 77 46.67 1.12

Fine Gael 91 564,428 27.32 +4.84 51 30.91 1.13

Labour 50 209,175 10.13 ‐0.65 20 12.12 1.19

Green Party 44 96,936 4.69 +0.85 6 3.64

Sinn Féin 41 143,410 6.94 +0.43 4 2.42

Progressive Democrats 30 56,396 2.73 ‐1.23 2 1.21

Socialist Party 4 13,218 0.64 ‐0.16 0

People before profit / SWP 5 9,333 0.45 +0.27 0

Workers Party 6 3,026 0.15 ‐0.07 0

Christian Solidarity Party 8 1,705 0.08 ‐0.18 0

Fathers rights 8 1,355 0.07 +0.07 0Immigration control 3 1,329 0.06 ‐0.01 0

Independents 74 106,934 5.18 ‐4.25 5 3.03

Total 470 2,065,810 100.00 0 165 100.00

www.pippanorris.com

5. PR – Party Lists

National or regional districtClosed or open listUsed 62/191 nations eg Israel, NetherlandsOne vote for party (X)Minimum threshold of votes

www.pippanorris.com

Eg Party List S.Africa

Advantages and disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

Parties Votes Seats % seats% VotesAfrican National Congress (ANC) 11,650,748 65.90 264 66.0Democratic Alliance (DA) 2,945,829 16.66 67 16.7Congress of the People (COPE) 1,311,027 7.42 30 7.5

Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) 804,260 4.55 18 4.5

Independent Democrats (ID) 162,915 0.92 4 1.0United Democratic Movement (UDM) 149,680 0.85 4 1.0Freedom Front Plus (VF+) 146,796 0.83 4 1.0African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) 142,658 0.81 3

United Christian Democratic Party (UCDP) 66,086 0.37 2Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) 48,530 0.27 1Minority Front (MF) 43,474 0.25 1Azanian People's Organisation (AZAPO) 38,245 0.22 1African Peoples' Convention (APC) 35,867 0.20 1Movement Democratic Party (MDP) 29,747 0.17 0 0Al Jama‐ah 25,947 0.15 0 0Christian Democratic Alliance (CDA)* 11,638 0.07 0 0

National Democratic Convention (NADECO) 10,830 0.06 0 0

New Vision Party (NVP) 9,296 0.05 0 0United Independent Front (UIF) 8,872 0.05 0 0Great Kongress of SA (GKSA) 8,271 0.05 0 0

South African Democratic Congress (SADECO) 6,035 0.03 0 0

Keep It Straight and Simple (KISS) 5,440 0.03 0 0Pan Africanist Movement (PAM) 5,426 0.03 0 0Alliance of Free Democrats (AFD) 5,178 0.03 0 0Women Forward (WF) 5,087 0.03 0 0A Party 2,847 0.02 0 0

Total 17,680,729 100.0 400 100

Summary of the 22 April 2009 South African National Assembly election results

www.pippanorris.com

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 1,2,3 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.

www.pippanorris.com

Eg D’Hondt formulaHighest averages

PartySeats

Blues6

Whites3

Reds2

Green1

Yellow0

Pinks0

1 57000* 26000* 25950* 12000* 6100 30502 28500* 13000* 12975* 60003 19000* 8667* 86504 14250* 65005 11400*6 9500*

www.pippanorris.com

Eg Largest remainders Hare

Votes Quota Dividend SeatsBlues 57000 10834 5260 5Whites 26000 10834 2400 3Reds 25590 10834 2395 2Greens 12000 10834 1110 1Yellows 6010 10834 550 1Pinks 3050 10834 280 0

Quota=(130,010 total votes/12 seats=10,384)

www.pippanorris.com

6. Combined systems

Aka ‘Mixed’, ‘hybrid’, ‘side‐by‐side’‘Combined‐independent’– eg Taiwan and Ukraine– Ukraine half FPTP, half nation‐wide lists, 4% thresholds‘Combined‐dependent’– eg Germany, New Zealand, – Germany half seats by party list, half by FPTP.– Seats allocated by FPTP– Total seats proportional to 2nd party vote 

www.pippanorris.com

Eg Combined system Germany

X

xAdvantages and disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

III: Explaining processes of change

Types of electoral rule change:1. Design of constitutions and basic electoral 

law  2. Electoral administration and procedures3. Voter education4. Election observing5. Election dispute mediation6. Party building

Actors and processes

System inherited from colonial powersPeace process negotiations among domestic actorsInfluenced by the international communityRole of expert commissionsPublic consultation process, including referenda

www.pippanorris.com

Theories of electoral change

Rational choice institutionalism– Negotiation among party actors seeking to maximize their 

interests (votes and seats)– Party systems and elites determine electoral reforms, not vice 

versa– Exceptional process due to incumbent interests

Or policy process – Multiple actors engaged in policy outcome– More common evolutionary changes– Policy systems sequential model of agenda setting, policymaking, 

implementation, and feedback

www.pippanorris.com

www.pippanorris.com

Public policy agendaLegislature and executive

Public’s agenda

International diffusion

Referendum process

Regulatory framework

Constitutional,legal & 

administrative rules governing 

electoral institution

Environmental contextHistorical traditions Regime type

Economic development

ElectionManagementBodies

Feedback loopFeedback loop

Election outcome

Media agenda

Party agenda

NGO agenda

Courts and judiciary

Agenda‐setting stageAgenda‐setting stage Policy‐making stagePolicy‐making stage Implementation stageImplementation stage

Figure 1: The policy‐cycle model of the origins, maintenance and reform of electoral institutions 

www.pippanorris.com

Nation  Type of electoral system, 1993 Type of electoral system, 2004 Freedom House, 1993 Freedom House, 2004

Bolivia List PR Combined dependent Free Partly free

Ecuador Combined independent List PR Free Partly free

Italy List PR Combined dependent Free Free

Japan SNTV Combined independent Free Free

Marshall Islands FPTP Combined independent Free Free

Monaco Two round Combined independent Free Free

Mongolia FPTP Two‐round Free Free

New Zealand FPTP Combined dependent Free Free

Papua New Guinea FPTP AV Free Partly free

Tuvalu FPTP Block vote Free Free

Albania Combined independent Combined dependent Partly free Partly free

Croatia Combined independent List PR Partly free Free

Fiji FPTP AV Partly free Partly free

Guatemala Combined independent List PR Partly free Partly free

Jordan Block vote SNTV Partly free Partly free

Kazakhstan FPTP Combined independent Partly free Not free

Lesotho FPTP Combined dependent Partly free Free

Liberia List PR No elected legislature Partly free Partly free

Macedonia Two round List PR Partly free Partly free

Madagascar List PR Combined independent Partly free Partly free

Mexico Combined independent Combined dependent Partly free Free

Moldova, Republic Of Two round List PR Partly free Partly free

Morocco FPTP List PR Partly free Partly free

Pakistan FPTP Combined independent Partly free Not free

Panama List PR Combined independent Partly free Free

Philippines Block vote Combined independent Partly free Free

Russian Federation Two round Combined independent Partly free Not free

South Africa FPTP List PR Partly free Free

Table 3: Electoral system change, 1993‐2004Note: N. 46 out of 191 independent nation states worldwide (24.1%).  

www.pippanorris.com

Table 2: Net change matrix in the distribution of electoral systems, 1993 and 2004       Type of electoral system 2004 

Total 1993 

     

FPTP Block vote  AV  SNTV 

Two‐round 

Combined independe

nt 

Combined 

dependent 

List PR  STV 

No elected legislatur

e 

Type of electoral system 1993 

FPTP  36  3  2 1 3 3  2 4 1 55 65.5

% 5.5%  3.6% 1.8% 5.5% 5.5%  3.6% 7.3% 1.8% 100.0

% Block vote     6  0 1 2  9 

   66.7% 

.0% 11.1% 

22.2%  100.0% 

AV        2    2       100.0

%    100.0

% SNTV        1 1  2 

      50.0% 

50.0%  100.0% 

Two round        18 5  3 26       69.2

% 19.2%  11.5

% 100.0

% Combined independent 

      16  2 3 22       72.7%  9.1% 13.6

% 100.0

% Combined dependent 

         2 2          100.0% 100.0

% List PR        2  3 55 3 63 

      3.2%  4.8% 87.3% 

4.8% 100.0% 

STV           2 2          100.0

% 100.0

% No elected legislature 

1        7 8 12.5

%       87.5% 100.0

% Total 2004  37  9  4 3 21 29  9 65 2 12 191 

19.4% 

4.7%  2.1% 1.6% 11.0% 

15.2%  4.7% 34.0% 

1.0% 6.3% 100.0% 

Notes: The table lists the number (and row% ) of independent nation states worldwide using each type of electoral system for the lower house of the national parliament in 1993 and 2004. The highlighted diagonal shows those countries which have not changed their electoral system during these years. FPTP First Past the Post; 2nd Ballot; Block Vote; AV Alternative Vote; SNTV Single Non‐Transferable Vote; STV Single Transferable Vote. For the typology, see Figure 2.  

Figure 5.3: Trends in types of electoral systems used worldwide, 1973-2003

www.pippanorris.com

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Majoritarian Combined Proportional No competative elections

Source: Coded from Arthur S. Banks Cross-national Time-series Data Archive, Andrew Reynolds and Ben Reilly. Eds. 2005. The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. 2nd ed. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and related sources

Majoritarian Combined

None

PR

www.pippanorris.com

IV: Conclusions

Therefore no single ‘best’ system Depends upon priorities –choice of governability v. diversityCritical choices for many other democratic institutionsRules are often amendedWhat are the consequences of electoral systems?

www.pippanorris.com

The effects of electoral systems1. On democracy2. Proportionality of votes to seats (fair outcomes)3. Party competition4. Electoral turnout5. Parliamentary representation

– Women & ethno‐political minorities

6. Strength of cleavage politics 7. Constituency service  

On democracy

www.pippanorris.com

Figure 5.4: Levels of democracy by type of electoral system, 2000

58

35

25

49

65

57

32

67

7771

42

78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

FH Polity Vanhanen Cheibub

Low <

< De

moc

racy

>>

High

Majoritarian Combined PR

In plural societies

www.pippanorris.com

69

59

5046

7075

5964

7983

74

81

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

FH Polity FH Polity

Homogeneous Heterogeneous

Low

<<

Dem

ocra

cy >

> H

igh

Majoritarian Combined PR

Table 5.2: Electoral systems and democracy, all societies worldwide

www.pippanorris.com

Liberal democracy Constitutional democracy Participatory democracy

Freedom House Polity IV Vanhanen

b (pcse) p b (pcse) p b (pcse) pINSTITUTIONAL RULES

Majoritarian -2.33 (.454) *** -7.64 (.949) *** -3.18 (.533) ***

Proportional representation .904 (.619) N/s 3.85 (.561) *** 1.95 (.344) ***

Positive action strategies 4.13 (.466) *** 11.41 (.777) *** 5.76 (.284) ***

CONTROLS

Log GDP/Capita 13.90 (.832) *** 11.91 (1.01) *** 14.05 (.663) ***Ex-British colony 12.35 (.962) *** 12.36 (1.36) *** 2.05 (.803) **

-10.99 (1.16) *** -16.79 (1.40) *** -5.87 (.809) ***

Regional diffusion .632 (.036) *** .883 (.049) *** .481 (.029) ***Ethnic fractionalization -8.45 (.878) *** -1.98 (1.56) N/s -10.05 (.694) ***

Population size .001 (.001) N/s .000 (.001) *** .001 (.001) ***Area size .001 (.001) *** .001 (.001) *** .001 (.001) ***

Constant -21.96 -38.45 -46.6

N. observations 4768 3946 4128N. of countries 174 145 167Adjusted R2 .487 .533 .624

www.pippanorris.com

2. Impact on proportionality

Proportionality of votes to seats

Vote share

Seat share

20%

20%2nd party, 3rd etc

Winning partyPerfect proportionality

www.pippanorris.com

ProportionalityStandardized Loosemore-Hanby Index

Proportionality

8083

8494

84868686

8889

9294

9596

8282

8489

9393

9595

9696

9798

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

MAJORITARIAN UK

CanadaAustralia

USACOMBINED

Korea, Republic ofJapan

UkraineHungaryThailand

RussiaMexico

GermanyTaiwan

New ZealandPROPORTIONAL

PolandRomaniaSlovenia

Czech RepublicSpain

SwitzerlandNetherlands

NorwayBelgium

IsraelSweden

DenmarkPeru

www.pippanorris.com

Proportionality influenced by:

1. Number of parties in the electorate2. Geographical distribution of the vote3. District magnitude4. Legal vote thresholds5. The type of electoral formulae eg d’Hondt 

etc

www.pippanorris.com

3. Impact on parties:Duverger’s laws

(1) “The plurality single-ballot rule tends to party dualism.”

(2)“The double-ballot system and proportional representation tend to multipartyism.”

Maurice Duverger. 1954. Political Parties, Their Organization and Activity in the

Modern State. New York: Wiley.

www.pippanorris.com

Effect on partiesMean N of parl parties (1 seat)

Mean N of relevant parl parties (3%+

seats)

% Vote for party 1st

% Seats for party 1st

Number of countries

All Majoritarian 5.22 3.33 54.5 56.8 83

Alternative Vote 9.00 3.00 40.3 45.3 1

Block vote 5.60 4.57 52.9 56.2 10

2nd Ballot 6.00 3.20 54.8 57.8 23

FPTP 4.78 3.09 55.1 57.8 49

All Combined 8.85 4.52 46.8 49.5 26

Independent 8.89 3.94 51.7 53.9 19

Dependent 8.71 6.17 33.9 36.9 7

ALL Proportional 9.52 4.74 45.3 43.8 61

STV 5.00 2.50 45.3 50.1 2

Party List 9.68 4.82 44.5 43.6 59

TOTAL 7.05 4.12 48.7 50.0 143

Ref: Pippa Norris ‘Institutions Matter’ CUP 2003

www.pippanorris.com

ENPP by Electoral SystemEffective Number of Parliamentary Parties

2.02.1

2.63.0

2.42.5

2.92.92.9

3.33.5

3.85.4

6.0

2.73.0

3.44.2

4.34.4

4.84.9

5.15.55.6

9.1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MAJORITARIAN USA

UKAustralia

CanadaCOMBINED

Korea, Republic ofTaiwanMexico

ThailandJapan

GermanyHungary

New ZealandRussia

UkrainePROPORTIONAL

SpainPoland

RomaniaCzech Republic

SwedenNorway

NetherlandsDenmark

SwitzerlandSlovenia

IsraelBelgium

Ref: Pippa Norris ‘Institutions Matter’ CUP 2003

www.pippanorris.com

4. Effect on TurnoutRef: Pippa Norris 2002. Democratic Phoenix Ch 4.

Type of Electoral System Mean Vote/VAP 1990s

N.

MAJORITARIAN

Alternative Vote 65.5 2

2nd Ballot 58.5 21

First-Past-The-Post 61.2 43

Single Non-Transferable Vote 52.6 2

Block Vote 56.5 9

All majoritarian 60.4 77

COMBINED

Combined-Dependent 66.6 7

Combined-Independent 63.5 19

All combined 64.0 26

PROPORTIONAL

List PR 70.0 59

Single Transferable Vote 83.4 2

All PR Systems 70.0 68

All 65.0 164

www.pippanorris.com

Effect on TurnoutRef: Pippa Norris 2002. Democratic Phoenix Ch 4.

Type of Electoral System Mean Vote/VAP 1990s

N.

MAJORITARIAN

Alternative Vote 65.5 2

2nd Ballot 58.5 21

First-Past-The-Post 61.2 43

Single Non-Transferable Vote 52.6 2

Block Vote 56.5 9

All majoritarian 60.4 77

COMBINED

Combined-Dependent 66.6 7

Combined-Independent 63.5 19

All combined 64.0 26

PROPORTIONAL

List PR 70.0 59

Single Transferable Vote 83.4 2

All PR Systems 70.0 68

All 65.0 164

www.pippanorris.com

Impact of compulsory votingVote/VAP Vote/Reg N. of Nations

Older democracies Compulsory 79.4 86.9 7Non-Compulsory 71.7 72.7 32Difference +7.7 +14.2 39

Newer democracies Compulsory 67.7 75.8 9Non-Compulsory 69.3 73.9 31Difference -1.6 +1.9 40

Semi-democracies Compulsory 53.9 60.6 5Non-Compulsory 56.6 67.0 40Difference -2.7 -6.4 45

Non-democracies Compulsory 40.9 70.6 2Non-Compulsory 61.8 67.8 38Difference -20.9 +2.8 40

All Compulsory 65.9 75.4 23Non-Compulsory 64.2 70.0 140Difference +1.9 +5.4 163

www.pippanorris.com

5. Impact on women

“As a simple rule, women proved twice as likely to be elected under PR than majoritarian electoral systems.

Women were 10.8 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 2001)

www.pippanorris.com

CO

UN

TRY

South KoreaPakistan

MaliNepal

UkraineMalawi

ThailandFranceZambia

IndiaChile

PhilippinesAustralia

UKBangladesh

USACanadaTaiwanJapan

EcuadorVenezuela

HungaryIrelandRussiaMexico

ItalyBolivia

New ZealandGermany

TurkeyMadagasgar

GreeceBrazil

Czech RepUraguayPortugal

IsraelColombia

BelgiumPoland

BulgariaCosta Rica

SpainSwitzerland

ArgentinaAustria

NetherlandsSouth Africa

MozambiqueFinland

DenmarkNorwaySweden

%Women MPs mid 1990s

50403020100

PR

Mixed

FPTP