POSC 1000Introduction to Politics

Unit Seven: Elections and Political Parties (Part One)

Russell Alan Williams

Unit Seven: Elections and Political PartiesPart One Electoral Systems

Required Reading: MacLean and Wood Chapter 7.Outline:

1. Introduction 2. Principles of Electoral Systems3. Types of Electoral Systems

• SMP• Majoritarian• Proportional• Additional Members• STV

4. Conclusions

1) Introduction:Electoral and party “systems” are key to

understanding modern democracy . . . .

Unit goals:Examine basic principles of electoral systemsExamine different kinds of “real world” electoral systemsExamine the role and importance of political parties

1) Introduction:Translating citizens’ preferences into government action

requires some form of voting in democratic systems . . . .

1) “Direct Democracy”: Political System where citizens directly decide public policies

Ancient city states . . . .Modern “Referendums”

1) “Indirect (or Representative) Democracy”: System where citizens elect representative to choose policies on their behalf – the “norm” in modern states

2) Principles of Representative Electoral Systems:Electoral System: System used to translate citizens’

votes into composition of the legislature and selection of the executive/government = “Elections”

Theme:Different electoral systems translate votes into different representation

Electoral system can have a big impact on:• Government stability• “Party system”• “Political culture”• Voter turnout?

System choice, or “electoral reform” seen as solution to many problems in modern democracy

2011 Canadian Federal Election

Popular Vote %

Seats Newfoundland Popular Vote

%

Newfoundland Seats

Turnout 61.1% 52.6%

Conservatives 39.6% 166 (53.9%) 28.3% 1 (14%)

Liberals 18.9% 34 (11.0%) 37.9% 4 (57%)

New Dem’s 30.6% 103 (33.4%) 32.6% 2 (29%)

Green 3.9% 1 (0.3%) .9 % 0

Bloc Quebecois

6% 4 (1.3%) 0 0

2) Principles of Representative Electoral Systems:Electoral System: System used to translate citizens'’

votes into composition of the legislature and selection of the executive/government = “Elections”

Theme:Different electoral systems translate votes into different representation

Electoral system can have a big impact on:• Government stability• “Party system”• “Political culture”• Voter turnout?

System choice, or “electoral reform” seen as solution to many problems in modern democracy

Electoral system principles:

Elections should be regular – governments must face the electorate

Voters should be free to choose without intimidation

• E.g. Secret ballots

No regulation of who can run

Universal “Suffrage”: All adult citizens should have the right to vote

• Seems to suggest that all votes should be equal in value . . .

Problem: Universal suffrage implies votes should be fairly counted

A)Apportionment problems:

Apportionment = allocation of “constituencies”: Geographic localities from which representatives are elected• Principle of voter equality - “one person = one vote” standard• Means that population of each constituency should be roughly the

same– E.g. No “Rotten Boroughs” & “Pocket Boroughs”

Requires regular redrawing of constituency boundaries = “redistricting” to reflect population changes

E.g. Boundary Commissions

Requires regular “enumeration”: Process of identifying eligible voters in a constituency

Controversy: Federal “apportionment” and voter equality

Population of Federal constituencies (2006 Census):

• Labrador = 26,364• St. John’s East = 88,022• Toronto Centre = 121,407• Fort McMurray-Athabasca = 100,805

Reasons?• Constituencies allocated to provinces before

redistricting• “Pluralist Principle” of representation

– Rural constituencies need extra representation (?)

– Problems?????

Canadian “malapportionment” not unique . . . .

• E.g. US Senate

However most systems require more equality

Questions:

Does this impact electoral outcomes?

Does this impact what governments do?

b) “Gerrymandering”: Method of combining or dividing groups of voters to maximize electoral advantage . . . Or . . . manipulation of constituency boundaries to benefit a particular party

=Y Party wins two seats

=Y Party wins three seats

=Y party wins only one seat

= Boundary commissions must be independent and non-partisan . . . Big problem in US

3) Types of Electoral Systems:A) Single Member Plurality (SMP)

Systems:

“Simple Plurality/First Past the Post”: Votes in each geographic constituency elect a single representative

Candidate with most votes wins, even if they don’t get a majority of votes

Examples: Canada, Britain, and US House of Representatives

Benefits?Clear Winners“Majority governments”High level of Government accountability

Constituency

Party Trinity North

St. John’s West

Labrador West

Quidi Vidi Province Seats

Conservatives 50% 50% 50% 40% 47.5% 3

Liberals 40% 40% 40% 15% 33.7% 0

New Democrats 10% 10% 10% 45% 17.5% 1

Problems:

“Distortion and Disproportionality”

Canadian Federal Elections – Gov’ts win majorities without getting a majority of votes . . . .

Provincial “wipe outs” – NB, BC and NL (2007), no real opposition elected despite percentage of votes . . . .

“Wrong Winners”

1979 Federal Election – Liberals won most votes, but not most seats

1989 NL election: Liberals 47% of votes=31 seats

Conservatives 48% of votes=21 seats

Problems:

“Wasted votes”

Large share of votes receives no representation - Small parties punished

Effects voter turnout??• E.g. NL General Elections

– 2003 Turnout 75.2%– 2007 Turnout 60.2%

“Voter Apathy”: Growing condition in which citizens do not vote or participate in electoral system because they believe elections do not affect them, or that their vote does not “count”

Problems:

“Wasted votes”

2007 NL General Election

Electoral District

Candidate Party Votes % of Vote EligibleVoters

Total VotesCast

Turnout

31 PORT AU PORT

CORNECT, Tony (PC) 3936 81% 7972 4871 61%FELIX, Michelle (Lib) 910 19%

32 PORT DE GRAVE

BUTLER, Roland (Lib) 3329 51% 8612 6583 76%DAWE, Randy Wayne (NDP) 162 2%

LITTLEJOHN, Glenn (PC) 3069 47%

Problems:

“Regionalism” - Parties have incentive to concentrate votes geographically

E.g. 1993 Federal Election

– Conservatives 20% of vote 2 seats– Reform Party 19% of vote 50 seats– Bloq Quebecois 10% of vote 53 seats

Regionalism may reduce political systems’ responsiveness to some issues . . . .

B) Majoritarian Systems: Systems designed to ensure winner receives a majority of the

votes.

“Two Round System/Run-off System”: A system in which the two leading candidates receiving the most votes (if neither had a majority of votes) are subjected to a second round of voting to pick a winner. Other candidates are eliminated – ensures winning candidate has more than 50% of votes

•Examples: Presidential elections in France and Russia

“Preferential Voting”: System where voters “rank” candidates based on their order of preference – different “ballot” structure.

•If no candidate gets majority of “first preferences”, last place candidate is dropped and their ballots are reallocated based on second choices - Process continues until someone has majority.

•Examples? Pretty rare. Used in Fiji, Bosnia and in Can. provinces in past

Benefits?

Rewards biggest parties

• Clear winners

• Stable governments

High “legitimacy” – popular in new democracies

Problems?

Rewards biggest parties(!)

Are all preferences the same?E.g. I support my third choice the same as my first choice????

“Proportional Representation (PR)”: System that ensures that proportion of seats a party gets is same as proportion of votes

= No distortionRequires “multi-member constituencies” - Sometimes the entire nation is a single constituency

• No local representatives

Parties choose which candidates represent them• “Party lists”: Parties submit lists of rank ordered

candidates. The more votes they receive the more candidates are elected.

– “open” versus “closed” lists

Examples: Italy, Sweden, Netherlands and Israel

Proportional Representation Ballot – “closed list”

Proportional Representation Ballot – “open list”

“Proportional Representation (PR)”: System that ensures that proportion of seats a party gets is same as proportion of votes

= No distortionRequires “multi-member constituencies” - Sometimes the entire nation is a single constituency

• No local representatives

Parties choose which candidates represent them• “Party lists”: Parties submit lists of rank ordered

candidates. The more votes they receive the more candidates are elected.

– “open” versus “closed” lists

Examples: Finland, Sweden, Netherlands and Israel

Benefits? No wasted votes: all count towards representation = higher turnout (?) Fair to small parties Diversity - More women get elected ??????

Problems? Fewer governments can win majority of seats

= “Minority Governments”: Gov’t needs support of other parties to pass legislation and budgets

= “Coalition Governments”: Two or more parties join together to form gov’t

– Means voters don’t directly determine who is in government

– INSTABILITY!

Problems?

Unclear link between voters and “their” representative• Who is your member?

“Additional Member Systems”: Mixture of SMP-style voting with proportional representation outcomes

E.g. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP): System used in New Zealand and Germany - ensures that proportion of seats a party gets is same as proportion of votes, but there are still single member constituencies.

Voters vote for a local representative, but there are additional seats to “top up” party representation

Party Popular Vote %

Local Constituencies

Won

“Top Up” Members

Total

Liberals 40% 60 0 60Conservatives 35% 30 23 53New Dem’s 15% 10 12 22Green 10% 0 15 15

Total 100% 100 50 150

Benefits?

Combines local members with proportionality•Popular choice for system change in places like

Canada – Has been proposed in several provinces

Problems?

Same as PR – unstable governments . . . .

“Single Transferable Vote (STV)”: Voters rank candidates by preference, but in multimember constituencies

Encourages higher proportionality than majoritarian systems

System:

• Voters “rank” candidates

• Counting is complicated (!)

“STV” requires that voters rank candidates, not simply vote for one:

“Single Transferable Vote (STV)”: Voters rank candidates by preference but in multimember constituencies

Encourages higher proportionality than majoritarian systems

Counting system:

• In a 4 member constituency each winner must get a “quota” of 20% +1 of the votes

• As winning candidates hit the quota, remaining votes are “transferred” to second choices until there are four winning candidates (each with 20% + 1 of the votes)

• This can take many rounds of counting . . . .

Examples: Ireland, Malta, Tasmania, and almost BC

Benefits?

Similar to MMP – popular alternative choice

“Anti Party” system – voters can “split their” ballot (?)

Problems?

Same as PR – could cause unstable governments

Has large local constituencies, would we like this in Canada?

Proportionality?

5) Conclusions:Electoral systems all over the world are struggling with “voter apathy” – turnouts (% of people voting) decliningTurnout is lower in non-”proportional” systems – leads to calls for reform:

System change? “Compulsory Voting”: Citizens are legally required to vote(!)

•E.g. Australia