Representation in European National Parliaments: The Role of the

Electoral System Type

Daniel StockemerInclusion and Exclusion Conference, Ottawa,

CanadaApril 26, 2012

Research QuestionResearch Topic: An evaluation of the inclusiveness and

exclusiveness in terms of representation of various European national parliamentary assemblies that operate under various electoral system types

H 1): I hypothesize that a more proportional electoral system type triggers more diversification in national assemblies

4 representational dimensions: Gender, Age, Education and Minority presence in Parliament

5 countries: the UK, France, Ireland, Germany, Denmark with five electoral system types (i.e. single member plurality, the two round majority system, the single transferable vote, mixed member proportional representation and proportional representation)

The Literature on the Inclusiveness and Exclusiveness of various Electoral System TypesProportional Representation:

- Non-zero sum game (various candidates on each electoral list are nominated)- Parties are likely to nominate various types of candidates to appeal to the largest constituency possible- Costs of slating female candidates, unexperienced candidates, and minorities decreases

Majoritarian Electoral System Type- zero sum game (only one candidate is nominated per district)- parties are likely to prefer a specific type of candidate (i.e. a middle-age to senior men of the dominant ethnic group with relatively high educational attainment) – who is likely to be the most attractive to voters

The 5 Countries` Electoral System Types

Country District Magnitude Gallagher Disproportionality Index

The UK 1 15.1

France 1 12.27

Ireland 4.2 8.49

Germany 10 3.47

Denmark 19.57 .73

Data and MethodolgyData: I have collected data on gender,

education, age and the representation of foreign born nationals for all parliamentarians that held elected office in any of the five national assemblies as of December 2011. (Data source: Personal bibliographies on parliamentary website)

Methodology: I use descriptive statistics (mean comparisons) and inferential statistics (Anova Multi-comparision Tests and Logistic Regression Analysis) to test whether there are empirically relevant and statistically significant differences between the countries

Women`s Representation

Male Female

Total 74.78 % 25.22 %

United Kingdom

78.00 % 22.00 %

France 80.86 % 19.14 %

Ireland 84.94 % 15.06 %

Germany 67.20 % 32.80 %

Denmark 61.11 % 38.89 %

Women’s Representation in the Five Western European Countries

Logistic Regression Analysis Measuring Statistical Differences in Women’s Representation between the 5 Countries United

Kingdom France Ireland Germany Denmark

United Kingdom

1.19 (.17)

1.59* (.38)

-.58*** (.07)

-.44*** (.08)

France -.84 (.12)

1.33 (.32)

-.49*** (.67)

-.37*** (.07)

Ireland -.63* (.15)

-.75 (.18)

-.36*** (.08)

-.28*** (.07)

Germany 1.73***

(.22) 2.1*** (.28)

2.8*** (.64)

-.77 (.13)

Denmark 2.26***

(.41) 2.7*** (.50)

3.59*** (.95)

1.30*** (.23)

Pseudo Rsquared

.024 .024 .024 .024 .024

N 2177 2177 2177 2177 2177 * p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01

Women`s RepresentationHypothesis is mainly confirmed:

- PR systems (Denmark and Germany) have significantly more female deputies - the only (slight) anomaly is Ireland, which in the strictest sense should have more female representatives than France or the UK - Germany provides further support for the hypothesis; more women are elected in the PR tier than the first past the post tier

Representation of various age cohorts

Average Age of the Parliamentarians in the 5 Countries Country Mean Age Standard

Deviation Range

Total 52.81 10.88 20 – 86 United Kingdom

51.88 10.52 28 – 86

France 59.15 8.39 33 – 82 Ireland 49.40 11.15 25 – 69 Germany 51.36 10.07 25 – 76 Denmark 44.29 11.54 20 – 69

One-Way ANOVA Examining between Country Differences in MPs’ Age (Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test)

United Kingdom

France Ireland Germany Denmark

United Kingdom

France 7.27***

Ireland -.2.48*

-9.74***

Germany -.52

-7.79***

1.95

Denmark -7.59***

-14.86***

-5.11***

-7.07***

* p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01

Representation of various age cohorts

The Hypothesis is mainly confirmed

Denmark as a PR country has the most representative representation (there only a 3 point difference in the medium age of the population and that of the parliamentarians). France as a majoritarian countries has the most skewed representation (a 18 year gap between the medium age of deputies and that of the population.

Except for Denmark and to a less degree Ireland, the 20 to 39 age group is unterrepresented everywhere and particularly in France

Percentage of MPs per Age Cohort Country 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 - 86 Total 13.23 % 55.21 % 31.56 % United Kingdom

12.00 % 63.23 % 24.77 %

France 1.79 % 44.19 % 54.03 % Ireland 23.49 % 46.39 % 30.12 % Germany 14.79 % 60.29 % 24.92 % Denmark 38.33 % 51.11 % 10.56 %

An Additional Factor Impacting the Skewed Age Representation is Incumbency

Mean Years of Parliamentary Service by MPs

Country Mean Standard Deviation Range Total 9.36 8.19 0 – 51 United Kingdom 9.53 9.12 1 – 51 France 11.90 7.69 1 – 44 Ireland 6.80 9.00 0 – 36 Germany 8.54 6.95 0 – 39 Denmark 6.08 6.87 0 – 30

The table above shows a strong relationship between mean tenure of deputies and mean stay in power. In Denmark the country with the most representative representation, the mean candidate has held parliamentary office for 6 years. In contrast in France, the average MP has been in office for 12 years and the average MP is 60 years. Ireland, as the `second youngest` parliament has the second youngest tenure of its MPs

Education Average Educational Attainment

Country Mean Education

Standard Deviation

Range

Total 3.48 .97 1 – 5 United Kingdom

3.23 .70 1 – 5

France 3.63 1.03 1 – 5 Ireland 3.25 .85 1 – 5 Germany 3.71 1.10 1 – 5 Denmark 3.26 .85 1 – 5 Education Coding: 1 less than High School 2 High School 3 Bachelors 4 Masters 5 Ph.D.

Percentage of MPs per Education Level Country Less

than High School

High School

Bachelors

Masters Ph.D.

Total 3.92 % 9.04 % 35.82 % 37.92 % 13.3 % United Kingdom

.95 % 7.61 % 64.50 % 21.87 % 5.07 %

France 3.41 % 9.47 % 29.36 % 35.80 % 21.97 % Ireland 2.24 % 16.42 % 39.55 % 38.06 % 3.73 % Germany 8.39 % 5.81 % 11.77 % 54.68 % 19.35 % Denmark 1.69 % 18.54 % 34.27 % 42.70 % 2.81 %

EducationHypothesis is not confirmed

- Educational attainment is high everywhere (the average MP in all countries is more highly educated than a bachelors degree)

- In all parliaments, individuals having less than High School only make a tiny portion of the parliamentarians, despite the fact that they could make up more than 60 percent of the adult population, as is the case in Germany.

- In some countries PhDs are highly overrepresented (e.g Germany and France)

Foreign Born IndividualsPercentage of Foreign Born Nationals per country

Country Foreign Born Domestically Born Total 3.82 96.18 United Kingdom

4.15 95.85

France 5.91 94.09 Ireland .60 99.40 Germany 2.90 97.1 Denmark 2.22 97.78

Logistic Regression Analysis Measuring Statistical Differences in the Number of Foreign Nationals in the 5 National Parliaments United

Kingdom France Ireland Germany Denmark

United Kingdom

-.69 (.18)

7.15* (7.31)

1.45 (.45)

1.91 (1.03)

France 1.45 (.39)

10.37** (10.57)

2.11** (.63)

2.77* (1.48)

Ireland -.14* (.14)

-.09** (.10)

-.20 (.21)

-.27 (.30)

Germany -.69 (.21)

-.47** (.14)

4.93 (5.08)

1.31 (.73)

Denmark -.52 (.28)

-.36* (.19)

3.75 (4.21)

-.76 (.43)

Pseudo Rsquared

.023 .023 .023 .023 .023

N 2175 2175 2175 2175 2175 * p < 0.1 ** p < 0.05 *** p < 0.01

Foreign Born IndividualsHypothesis is disconfirmed

- the two countries operating under majoritarian rule – Great Britain and, even more so, France – have the highest representation of foreign born individuals with respectively 4.15 and nearly 6 percent of all representatives.

- It seems to be important to look at other factors such as the specific historical trajectories of the five countries under consideration, when interpreting the parliamentary representation of foreign born individuals.

Summary of ResultsThe influence of PR on the four representational dimensions

Indicator Positive Impact of PR

Women’s representation yes

Representation of various age cohorts yes

Representation of various educational levels no

Foreign born representation Reversed

ConclusionsAcross these four dimensions, the results are

mixed, it appears that the electoral system type has an influence on some representational dimension but not on others

This research cautions us not to overstate the electoral system type’s influence on the presence of any cohort of the population in parliament, but rather to also consider other institutional (e.g. the candidate nomination process or quotas) and non-institutional variables (the specific political culture and history of a country) and their influence on parliamentary representational patterns.

Future ResearchExpand the scope of this study by

incorporating more countries representing any of these electoral system types

Add more electoral system types into the equation (e.g. mixed member plurality systems such as Italy)

Determine why the electoral system type has a positive (causal)impact on some representational dimensions but not on others.