330 likes | 473 Views
POSC 1000 Introduction to Politics. Unit Seven: Elections and Political Parties (Part One) Russell Alan Williams. Unit Seven: Elections and Political Parties Part One Electoral Systems. Required Reading: MacLean and Wood Chapter 7. Outline: Introduction Principles of Electoral Systems
E N D
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: • Introduction • Principles of Electoral Systems • Types of Electoral Systems • SMP • Majoritarian • Proportional • Additional Members • STV • Conclusions
1) Introduction: Electoral and party “systems” are key to understanding modern democracy . . . . Unit goals: • Examine basic principles of electoral systems • Examine different kinds of “real world” electoral systems • Examine the role and importance of political parties
1) Introduction: Translating citizens’ preferences into government action requires some form of voting in democratic systems . . . . • “Direct Democracy”: Political System where citizens directly decide public policies • Ancient city states . . . . • Modern “Referendums” • “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
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 • 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
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”
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 distortion • Requires “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 (PR)”: System that ensures that proportion of seats a party gets is same as proportion of votes = No distortion • Requires “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
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) declining • Turnout is lower in non-”proportional” systems – leads to calls for reform: • System change? • “Compulsory Voting”: Citizens are legally required to vote(!) • E.g. Australia