Civil Society and Institutional Design: Electoral Systems Plan for Today

1. Civil Society and Institutional Design: Electoral SystemsPlan for Today • Finish group discussion activity. • Understand the characteristics and democratic consequences of two (out of 3) basic types of electoral systems.

2. Questions for Group Discussion on Civil Society • What characteristics of civil society would you try to promote in your programs? • How would you encourage those characteristics through specific programs? • Are you optimistic or pessimistic about your chances of success?

3. Designing Institutions Electoral Systems

4. Classifying according to democratic principles • Proportionality: How well does distribution of representatives reflect electorate’s votes? • Responsibility to constituency: Can voters identify someone who represents them in particular? • Voter choice: Diversity and complexity in voters’ available choices?

5. Plurality or “First-Past-the-Post” Systems • Examples: • Britain • Canada • USA • India

6. Plurality or “First-Past-the-Post” Systems • How the system rates: • Proportionality: Bad • Voter Choice: Bad • Responsibility to constituency: Excellent

7. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems • Examples: • Continental European countries • Israel • South Africa

8. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems • “Extreme PR” • “Moderate PR” • Some seats chosen by plurality method • Vote thresholds for seats • Country split into multiple districts

9. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems • “Extreme PR”: • Italy (pre-1994), Israel, Netherlands, Denmark • “Moderate PR” • Germany, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, probably South Africa

10. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems • How the system rates: • Proportionality: Excellent

11. Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 1

12. 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

13. 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

14. Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 2

15. 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

16. 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

17. Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 3

18. 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

19. 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

20. Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 4

21. 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.

22. Canadian Federal Election Results 2008 (Preliminary) Source: Elections Canada

23. Canadian Federal Election Results 2000 Source: Elections Canada

24. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems • How the system rates: • Proportionality: Excellent • Voter Choice: Bad • Responsibility to constituency: Bad