topics for today civil society and institutional design: electoral systems 1.finish group discussion...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
214 views
TRANSCRIPT
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.