topics for today civil society and institutional design: electoral systems 1.finish group discussion...

Topics for TodayCivil Society and

Institutional Design: Electoral Systems

1. Finish group discussion activity.

2. Characteristics and consequences of three basic types of electoral systems.

Questions for Group Discussion on Civil Society

1. What characteristics of civil society would you try to promote in your programs?

2. How would you encourage those characteristics through specific programs?

3. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about your chances of success?

Designing Institutions

Electoral Systems

Classifying according to democratic principles

1. Proportionality: How well does distribution of representatives reflect electorate’s votes?

2. Responsibility to constituency: Can voters identify someone who represents them in particular?

3. Voter choice: Diversity and complexity in voters’ available choices?

Plurality or “First-Past-the-Post” Systems

• Examples:–Britain

–Canada

–USA

–India

Plurality or “First-Past-the-Post” Systems

• How the system rates:–Proportionality: Bad

–Voter Choice: Bad

–Responsibility to constituency: Excellent

Proportional Representation Systems

• Examples:–Continental European

countries

–Israel

–South Africa

Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

• “Extreme PR”

• “Moderate PR”–Some seats chosen by

plurality method

–Vote thresholds for seats

–Country split into multiple districts

Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

• “Extreme PR”:– Italy (pre-1994), Israel,

Netherlands, Denmark

• “Moderate PR”– Germany, Russia, Sweden,

Norway, Belgium, probably South Africa

PR Systems

• How the system rates:–Proportionality: Excellent

Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 1

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Results of Scenario 1 with Plurality System

• Overall percentage of national vote:–Red Party: 45%

–Blue Party: 55%

• Blue Party wins 100% of seats in the legislature

Results of Scenario 1 with PR System

• Overall percentage of national vote:–Red Party: 45%

–Blue Party: 55%

• Red Party wins 45% of seats

• Blue Party wins 55% of seats

Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 2

Red = 85%

Blue = 15%

Red = 85%

Blue = 15%

Red = 85%

Blue = 15%

Red = 85%

Blue = 15%

Red = 15%

Blue = 85%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 15%

Blue = 85%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 45%

Blue = 55%

Red = 15%

Blue = 85%

Results of Scenario 2 with Plurality System

• Overall percentage of national vote:– Red Party: 50%

– Blue Party: 50%

• Red Party wins 27% (4/15) seats

• Blue Party wins 73% (11/15) of seats

Results of Scenario 2 with PR System

• Overall percentage of national vote:–Red Party: 50%

–Blue Party: 50%

• Red Party wins 50% of seats

• Blue Party wins 50% of seats

Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 3

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Results of Scenario 3 with Plurality System

• Overall percentage of national vote:– Red Party: 45%

– Blue Party: 35%

– White Party: 20%

• Red Party wins 100% of seats in the legislature

Results of Scenario 3 with PR System

• Overall percentage of national vote:– Red Party: 45%– Blue Party: 35%– White Party: 20%

• Red Party wins 45% of seats

• Blue Party wins 35% of seats

• White Party wins 20% of seats

Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 4

Red = 20%

Blue = 35%

White = 45%

Red = 20%

Blue = 35%

White = 45%

Red = 20%

Blue = 35%

White = 45%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Red = 45%

Blue = 35%

White = 20%

Implications of Examples in Plurality Systems

• Voter support for small parties underrepresented in seats.

• Best for small parties to focus on winning support in select regions.

• Majority governments the norm.

Canadian Federal Election Results 2006 (Preliminary)

Party % Vote % Seats (# Seats)

Conservative 36.3 40.3 (124)

Liberal 30.2 33.4 (103)

Bloc Queb. 10.5 16.6 (51)

NDP 17.5 9.4 (29)

Independent 0.5 0.3 (1)

Other (mostly Green)

5.0 0.0 (0)

Source: Elections Canada

Canadian Federal Election Results 2000

Party % Vote % Seats

Liberal 40.8 57.1

Alliance 25.5 21.9

Bloc Queb. 10.7 12.6

NDP 8.5 4.3

PC 12.2 4.0

Other 2.2 0.0

Source: Elections Canada

PR Systems

• How the system rates:–Proportionality: Excellent

–Voter Choice: Bad

–Responsibility to constituency: Bad

Preferential Voting Systems

• Voters indicate intensity of preferences for different candidates by rank-ordering them on ballot.

Preferential Voting:Single Transferable Vote (STV)

• Malta, Ireland, Australian Senate.

• More complicated system:–Parties have multiple

candidates per constituency.–Voters number rank order of

candidate preferences.

Preferential Voting: Single Transferable Vote (STV)

• “Transferable” vote:–If #1 vote is useless, vote

transferred to next-choice candidate.

Preferential Voting: Single Transferable Vote (STV)

• This was the system recommended for BC by the recent BC Citizens’ Assembly.

• Referendum on question held May 17, 2005.

Preferential Voting: Single Transferable Vote (STV)

• How the system rates:–Proportionality: Excellent

–Voter Choice: Excellent

–Responsibility to constituency: Moderately Good

Preferential Voting: Alternative Vote

• Australian House of Reps, Fiji.• Rank order candidates in single-

member districts. Candidate wins through gaining “majority” of votes.

• Worse for proportionality than STV or PR.

• Better for voter choice, constituency representation.

NON-Preferential Voting: Single Non-Transferable Vote

• Multiple representatives elected per constituency, but voters only cast 1 vote choice.

• Japan (until 1994).

• Taiwan.