3/23/2010

1

Legislative representation

DPI-415

2

Structure

I. Comparing types, roles and powers of legislatures

II Legislative representation and electoral systemsII. Legislative representation and electoral systems1. Public knowledge about candidates

2. Contact with elected members

3. Election of women

4. Representation of minorities

III. Conclusions & implications

3

Readings

Caramani ch 7 Legislatures (Kreppel)

Newton and Van Deth Ch 6 Multilevel governancegovernance

Further Resources:

Inter-parliamentary Union www.ipu.org

4

Legislative capacity building

You are asked to advise the parliament in the Netherlands how to make members more responsive to constituents.

You are asked to advise the parliament in Iraq how to strengthen members oversight of budgetary decision-making and procurement.

You are asked by the Egyptian parliament how best to increase the proportion of women in elected office.

What would you advise?

5

Types of legislatures

Assembly, parliament, or congress

Local, regional, national or supranational

Separation of executive legislature powers Separation of executive-legislature powers (presidential executives) or fused powers (parliamentary democracies)

6

Roles (Kreppel)

Which roles are most important? How do they function?

– Legislature as agent• Linkage

• Representation• Debating

• Legitimating

– Legislature as principal• Control

• Oversight

– Legislature as lawmaker• Policy -making

• Policy-influencing

3/23/2010

2

7

Powers

Ref Steven Fish and Matthew Kroenig 2009. The Handbook of National Legislatures CUP

Parliamentary Power indexParliamentary Power index• The legislature’s influence over the executive

• Institutional autonomy

• Specific powers

• Institutional capacity

Experts, constitution and media accounts

8

Legislative powers

9

Legislative Powers

11

II: Legislative roles & electoral systems

Ref: Norris Electoral Engineering: CUP 2003Theoretical framework(i) Politicians are rational vote-maximizers in pursuit of elected office(ii) There are 4 basic types of ballot structure:

• Candidate-ballots, ,• Dual-ballots, • Preference-ballots, and • Party ballots

(iii) The type of ballot structure influences the provision of particularistic or programmatic benefits

(iv) The type of ballot structure influences the selection of homogeneous or diverse candidates for legislative office

(v) The behavior of politicians influences electorate(vi) Reforming the rules could potentially alter legislatures (in the long-term)

• Either increase local accountability or strength central party discipline• Can increase diversity of political representatives

12

Electoral Systems

Majority26

Plurality65

Majoritarian91

Independent21

Dependent8

Combined29

STV2

Party List62

PR64

No direct elections7

Nation States191

Candidate-Ballot

AV2

Candidate-ballot

2nd Ballot24

26

Candidate-ballot

FPTP54

Party-Ballotor

Preference-ballot

Block Vote9

Preference-ballot

SNTV2

65 21

Dual-ballot

8

Preference-ballot

2

Party-ballot35

Preference-ballot27

62

3/23/2010

3

13

Candidate-Ballot14

Combined (Mixed) Ballot

15

Party-ballot (open or closed)16

Other rules

17

Evidence

CSES Module 1 (June 2002) 32 nations & 37 presidential & parliamentary elections

‘Most different’ research strategyMost different research strategy• Older & newer democracies

• Postindustrial & industrial

• Electoral systems

• Presidential & parliamentary executives

18

CSES Coverage

Countries in the CSES Module 1

Excluded (159)Included (32)

3/23/2010

4

TYPE OF DISTRICTS

Candidate-ballots

Australia

Canada

UK

USA

Dual-ballots

Japan

Korea, Republic of

Russia

Taiwan

Ukraine

Germany

Hungary

New Zealand

Mexico

Thailand

Preference-ballots

Belgium

Czech Republic

Denmark

Peru

Poland

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

Party ballots

Iceland

Israel

Netherlands

Norway

Portugal

Romania

Spain

20

Contact with members% With contact

16

12

All Candidate-ballots

All

8

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

All Party-ballots

All Preference-ballots

All Dual-ballots

Note: Q: “During the last twelve months, have you had any contact with a Member of Parliament/a Member ofCongress] in any way?” Source: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2002.

21

Model I Model II

B SE Sig. B SE Sig.

SOCIAL CONTROLS

Level of development 3.18 .220 .000 2.82 .253 .000

Age .002 .001 .012 .001 .001 .130

Gender (male) .365 .029 .000 .375 .029 .000

Education 249 015 000 225 015 000

Contact w. elected members

Education .249 .015 .000 .225 .015 .000

Income .098 .011 .000 .101 .011 .000

BALLOT STRUCTURE

Candidate-ballot .297 .054 .000

Dual-ballot .329 .045 .000

Preference-ballot -.196 .041 .000

Mean district magnitude -.004 .000 .000

Constant -6.25 -5.36

% Correctly predicted 89.0 89.0

Nagelkerke R2 .040 .053

Note: Q: “During the last twelve months, have you had any contact with a [Member of Parliament/a Member of Congress] in any way?” Source: ComparativStudy of Electoral Systems, 1996-2002. Party-ballots are the default (reference) category in logistic regression models.

22

Knowledge of Candidates% None Correct

41

47

All candidate-ballots

All

66

45

41

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

All party-ballots

All preference-ballots

All dual-ballots

Note: Q: “Do you happen to remember the name of any candidates who ran/stood in you [lower house primary electoral district] in the last [parliamentary/congressional] election? [If YES] What were their names?”Source: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2002.

23

Knowledge of candidatesModel I Model II

B SE Sig. B SE Sig.

SOCIAL CONTROLS

Level of Development 1.09 .195 .000 7.72 .246 .000

Age -.012 .001 .000 -.038 .001 .000

Gender (male) .140 .026 .000 .264 .030 .000

Ed ti 092 013 000 103 016 000Education .092 .013 .000 .103 .016 .000

Income .067 .010 .000 -.019 .012 .129

BALLOT STRUCTURE

Candidate-ballot 6.82 1.37 .000

Dual-ballot 1.11 .049 .000

Preference-ballot 1.00 .035 .000

Mean district magnitude -.009 .000 .000

Constant .413 -5.81

% Correctly predicted 69.1 80.8

Nagelkerke R2 .017 .395

Note: Q: “Do you happen to remember the name of any candidates who ran/stood in you [lower house primary electoral district] in the las[parliamentary/congressional] election? [If YES] What were their names?” (i) Only two categories were coded in Australia. Source: Comparative Study oElectoral Systems, 1996-2002. Party-ballots are the default (reference) category in logistic regression models.

24

Women’s representation

Rhetorical Equal opportunities Positive action

Options

RhetoricalEg speeches and conventions

Equal opportunitiesEg training and finance

for women and men

Voluntary gender quotasby party rules

Legal gender quotasby statute

Reserved seatsby statute

Positive action

Least opposition -------------------------------------------- Most opposition

3/23/2010

5

25

Electoral systems% Of women, 2000 Number of nations

All Majoritarian 8.5 91 Alternative Vote 11.2 2

Block vote 7.1 92nd Ballot 9.6 24

First-Past-The-Post 8 5 54First Past The Post 8.5 54

All Combined 11.3 29Combined Independent 8.7 21

Combined Dependent 18.0 8

ALL Proportional 15.4 64Single Transferable Vote 10.6 2

Party List 15.6 62

TOTAL 11.7 182Note: The percentage of women in the lower house of national parliaments 2000, 182 nations worldwide. Source: Pippa Norris Electoral Engineering Table 8.2

26

Legal gender quotasCountry Date % Quota % Before % After Change

Argentina 1991 30 6 27 +21Ecuador 1997 20 4 15 +11Paraguay 1996 20 11 18 +7Peru 1997 30 11 18 +7Venezuela 1998 30 6 13 +7Belgium 1994 33 18 23 +5Costa Rica 1997 40 14 19 +5Dominican Rep 1997 25 12 16 +4Panama 1997 30 8 10 +2Venezuela 1998 30 8 9 +2France 1999 50 11 12 +1Bolivia 1997 30 11 12 +1Mexico 1996 30 15 16 +1Bolivia 1997 30 4 4 0Paraguay 1996 20 3 3 0Brazil 1997 30 7 6 -1Mexico 1996 30 17 16 -1Average 30 10 14 +4

Note: Legal gender quotas for the lower house of national parliaments: laws which specify that each party must include a minimum proportion of women on party lists of candidates. Source: Pippa Norris Electoral EngineeringT bl 8 5

27

Why different impact?

How statutory mechanisms are implemented The level of the gender quota Whether the rules regulate the rank order of gwomen and men candidates on listsWhether party lists are open or closed Levels of incumbency turnover. Any legal-financial penalties

28

Reserved seatsElection Number of seats

reserved for women

% Of seats reserved for

women

Appointed or elected

Tanzania 2000 43 20.0 Appointed

Uganda 2001 53 18.1 Indirectly elected

Pakistan 2002 60 16.8 Elected

Zimbabwe 2000 37 13.5 Appointed

Bangladesh 2001 30 10.0 Appointed

Sudan 2000 35 9.7 Elected

Morocco 2002 30 9.2 Elected

Botswana 1999 2 4.5 Appointed

Lesotho 1998 3 3.8 Appointed

Taiwan 1996 Varies Varies Elected

Note: Reserved seats in the lower house of the national parliament are defined as those that by law can only be filled by women, either by appointment or election. Source: Pippa Norris Electoral Engineering Table 8.4

29

Voluntary gender quotas

Voluntary gender quotas:• Internal party rules, regulations, or constitutions specifying that

the party should include a minimum proportion of women as candidates for elected office.

Evidence from 15-European Union member states, 2000

76 parties (each with at least 10 MPs)• 35 of these parties use voluntary gender quotas

– On average 33% of their MPs are women

• 41 of these parties do not use voluntary quotas– On average, 18% of their MPs are women

30

EU Parties with most womenParty Country Elect.

yearTot

MPs% Women Gender

quota1. VIHR Finland 1999 11 81.8

2. PDS Germany 1998 36 58.3

3. B90/Grüne Germany 1998 47 57.4

4. Centerpartiet Sweden 1998 18 55.6 X5. GroenLinks Netherland

s1998 11 54.5

6. Miljöpartiet de Grona Sweden 1998 16 50.0

7 S i l D t S d 1998 131 49 6 7. Social Democrats Sweden 1998 131 49.6

8. PvdA Netherlands

1998 45 48.9

9. Ecolo Belgium 1999 11 45.5

10.

SDP Finland 1999 51 43.1

11.

D’66 Netherlands

1998 14 42.9 X12.

Vänsterpartiet Sweden 1998 43 41.9

13.

Christian Democrats Sweden 1998 42 40.5

14.

SKL Finland 1999 10 40.0

15.

Socialstick Folkeparti Denmark 1998 13 38.5 X16.

Venstre Liberale Parti Denmark 1998 42 38.1 X17.

KOK Finland 1999 46 37.0

18.

Social Democrats Denmark 1998 63 36.5 X19.

SPÖ Austria 1999 65 35.5

20.

Folkpartiet Liberelna Sweden 1998 17 35.3 Notes: Voluntary gender quotas are defined as internal party rules, regulations, or constitutions specifying that the party should include a minimum proportion of women as candidates for elected office. Source: Pippa Norris Electoral Engineering Table 8.6

3/23/2010

6

31

Voluntary quotas

Effect varies according to…• Levels set (20%, 30%, etc)

• Process of implementation – eg require ranking of women candidates on lists?g q g

• Party organization and culture– Parties of the left more sympathetic

• May have a ‘contagion’ effect on other parties

• May be easier to implement than legal quotas

• Common, important, although not essential for women’s representation

32

Conclusions

Candidate ballots are associated with significantly stronger contact and knowledge than party-ballotsPreference-ballots and dual ballots intermediate categoriesMore women can be elected through positive action strategiesI li i f l l i iImplications for electoral engineering– Candidate ballots promote local accountability and personal

voting in legislatures with weak voter-member linkages– Party-ballots promote party discipline and cohesion in

legislatures with excessive pork-barrel politics– Rules influence diversity of legislatures – What are the pros and cons of these options?

33

Case study: UK Labour party

W om en MPs in UK Parliam ent

120118120

140

1 28

4

14 159

24 2117

24 2529 26 26 23

2719 23

41

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

19181922192319241929193119351945195019511955195919641966197019741974197919831987199219972001

N. o

f W

om

en

34

UK Labour party

1993 –all-women shortlists in 50% of Labour’s target seats

1996 - policy abandoned after legal challenge

The 1997 election doubled the number of women in parliament overnight (from 60-120)

In 2001, 118 women MPs were returned (incumbency)

‘Twinning’ policy adopted for regional assemblies: two seats, each pair selecting one man and one woman candidate