School of Political Science & Sociology

Feb 7th 2011 Presentation for Galway Branch of Claiming our Future. http://www.claimingourfuture.ie/ Do we need a new electoral system...and how does the existing one actually work? Dr. Brendan Flynn. School of Political Science & Sociology

More ideas and information on this topic can be found at my academic blog: http://brendanflynn.wordpress.com/

Background-why the interest in our system? • How does our system actually work? • Reflections on reform options; tweaking, going Kiwi, or a purer list option?

BACKGROUND Ireland’s economic crisis has been associated with a political system crisis-the system is being challenged. Is the electoral system at fault in promoting ‘poor political leadership’? In election 2011 several parties are making suggestions for changing our electoral system (FF, Greens, etc.) Others are much more cautious (Labour). In July 2010 the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution published a report on our electoral systems which advocated a large number of small changes [tweaks] but no overall change of the system we use, PRSTV. You can find what that report said at: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees30thdail/j-constitution/report_2008/20100722.pdf Still debate continues. Fintan O’Toole argues we should adopt the New Zealand/German system and have quotas for women candidates. The McGill Summer school report 2010 also endorsed the NZ/German type system. FF have suggested this in the past and the Oireachtas July 2010 report suggested that the New Zealand style AMS system was the only serious ‘contender’ (but ultimately rejected change).

To Explain PR-STV its useful to compare it with some other systems 1. The British/US “First Past the Post” system (Single Seat Member Plurality/SSMP) II. The German.N.Zealand, double ballot system (PR-double ballot-Additional Member System) You can find out more about these (and other) electoral systems From: Heywood, Andrew. Politics (3rd ed.), pp.253-265 Or pp.211-223 in the 1st ed. And Wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_systems See also: www.fixingelections.com www.10steps.net International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) http://www.idea.int/publications/esd/index.cfm

An example of a British ballot paper Problems? Who gets elected?BUT has the elected got a majority of voters? (The majority didn’t vote Tory!) NOTE also only ONE representative-”winner takes all” 1992 Tories got 51% of the seats in the Hse of Commons with 42% of the vote! (about 11% of US presidential elections have gone this way!) Can also reduce turnout/increase tactical voting.

An example of a US Ballot paper 2004 (X marks your man)

An example of a German-split/two ballot paper- AMS/MMP voting!

Example of a Dutch ballot paper-the voter picks a party list and then chooses just one MP who they like on that list (and no other)

Now compare those with a PRSTV ballot paper.....there is an abundance of CHOICE...within and between parties, for non-party candidates, for coalition or not....

To really understand how PR-STV works you will have to work through an example. You only get to understand how they turn votes/preferences into Seats by working through an example-not easy at first! In class we’ll only get time to give you an impression. Lets look at the the results of a first count for a mythical four seat Constituency “Ballynowhereland”…..

Step 1: Calculate a Quota; (Total valid poll divided by number of seats plus one, plus one on that result) 100,000 + 1 = 20,001 4 + 1 Step 2: Does anyone reach it on 1st count? NO! So eliminate the person who came last-Mr.White. Redistribute his ballot papers based on his second preferences and these are added to each remaining candidates total. Now we count all the next available (or second) preferences-the second count…..

Mr. Yellow is elected ! He has got 899 votes more than our quota of 20,001 ! We have three seats left. Step 3. What happens now is that we distribute Mr. Yellow’s surplus, all 899 votes. How? We examine all of Mr. Yellow’s 20,900 votes for their ‘next available preference’, putting each in a sub-pile for each candidate. We calculate how many ballots of the 20,900 overall, actually have a transferable surplus. Lets say this is 20,500, because say 400 are No.1s for Mr.Yellow only and these voters expressed no other preference at all. They are put to one side and declared ‘dead’.

Let us say (simplifying) that 60% of next available preferences of the 2,500 transferable ballot papers were for Miss. Green (FF) and another 40% were for Miss. Orange (FF). Put another way, this would look like the following: of the 20,500 transferable votes, some 12,300 of the “next available preference” went to Miss Green and 8,200 to Miss Orange. Now you then calculate a transfer fraction of the 899 surplus votes. A fraction can be calculated from 60%. For example it can be expressed as 6/10 and the same for 40% = 4/10. 6/10 and 4/10 can be further reduced to 3/5 & 2/5 899/ 5 = 179.8, 179.8 X 3 = 539 179.8 X 2 = 360

So of the 899 surplus votes, after examining all the next available preference of the total number of transferable preferences (2500), we now know that two candidates are each respectively entitled to 539 ballots for Miss Green and 360 for Miss Orange. But which papers do we actually take and transfer from the sub-pile for Miss Green pile of first preferences votes? NOTE: The actual papers they select are the ballots last filed in each sub pile, or in effect those on the top of the pile. This causes a sampling error later on which can cause problems in the end of the count. Prof. Michael Gallagher (TCD) has argued that it is not insignificant but at the same time not a major problem. He argues what we should do is take the entire sub-pile of votes but give it a fractional value. This means the total cumulative vote would be the same, but the next available preference examined might be of a different sort.

NOTE I: Remember that when you transfer a SURPLUS, you transfer for a fraction of the candidates votes, BUT when you ELIMINATE you just transfer all the actual ballots-you don’t calculate the fraction by examining all the votes. NOTE II: Remember also the number of the count has nothing necessarily to do with the number of the preference they are counting: they examine always the next available preference for a candidate either not eliminated or already elected.

Nobody, got enough to get elected so they continue on with distributing Miss Black’s votes by eliminating her from contention for a seat. They will examine all her 3,000 votes for “next available preferences’ to transfer for other candidates. When they eventually have eliminated enough people so that a second candidate actually has a surplus, they declare this person elected and then figure what they will do with his/her surplus. There is a rule that if the number of transferable papers from the last batch of votes going to a candidate, is actually larger than the surplus it confers, then they re-examine ALL his votes to get a fraction as described before, so as to distribute his/her surplus very accurately. Often this will not happen because by late counts there may not be many transfers left for people who are not either elected or eliminated! THE RULE IS: If the transferable number of ballots is smaller than the surplus, then you just transfer them as if they were eliminated votes. Otherwise you use the ‘fraction method’.

NOTE, while PR-STV is very complex in how the count process works (most voters for sure don’t understand it), The actual ballot paper is easy to use, and voters get a sense of what they can do…in ranking the candidates 1,2, 3 In conclusion, How does PR-STV stack up as an electoral system?

EVALUATING DIFFERENT ELECTORAL SYSTEMS? A checklist of features which may be desirable. Is it proportionate? If 40% of the people back me, do I get 40% of the Representation- i.e.the parliamentary seat? (with the UK/USA system you often get 100% of the representation-the seat-with just 40% of the vote!!!! disproportionate!). No system is totally proportionate PR-STV gives bigger parties a bit more representation but overall its about average in proportionality…. Can my vote make some difference in the chances of government formation…can I vote say for my preferred coalition? Irish PR-STV system allows you to do this (although few do!). Most other systems do not!

Does the electoral system hinder or favour government stability? Like 1920s Germany, 1940s France?…in fact its seldom the electoral System itself that is to blame. Gallagher has suggested Independents can have too much influence under PR-STV…..BUT Irish and Maltese politics under PR-STV has been dominated by 2-2.5 parties for Much of the last 30 years…..governments have been lasting longer In Ireland……many INDs really FF? NO evidence that Proportionate Representation systems lead to weaker governments- coalition governments in Europe last as long Sometimes longer than in UK…. ANYHOW: 1964 and 1974 Elections in UK delivered weak governments with tiny majorities….

Can the voter choose to vote for candidates, or must they choose Party lists? Can they choose between candidates from the same Party or split their vote between parties? Parties can select and impose a candidate on a local Electorate…..in the British/USA system there is only one Party candidate anyhow! (Not much choice) In a LIST system, the higher up your name is on the party List, the greater probability of being elected AND party hierarchies agree the list-which gives a lot of power to party Bosses? (an issue in Germany, N.Zealand) PR-STV gives the voter a lot of choice-you can vote for candidates within a party, across parties, or even Vote for candidates who are non-party! (Maybe too much choice?)

Does PR-STV encourage localism/clientelism? Hard to say for definite…but localistic bias found in INES studies deters some from entering politics….. Competition within parties encourages constituency work Irish TDs spend about 2.5 days on local constituency business compared with 1.9 days for British MPs. But constituency work seems to be a growing trend in many States who don’t have PR-STV…. A list system would allow different types of TDs…and perhaps more Women TDs to emerge?

Other concerns? TURNOUT A 2003 Irish Central Statistics Office (CSO) study showed than 40% of unemployed did not vote which was twice the general average for those employed, and nearly 60% of 18-19 (students?) did not vote! After 35 years voting rates are about 80%.! Prof. Sinnott argues turnout has dropped over the last 25 years from 76% to 63% (more than 10%). He also argues however that about 33% of non-voters would vote if it were made easier. Conclusion-efforts needed to improve turnout among key Groups unlikely to vote….mobile voting stations, voting in Super-markets? Free transport on voting day?

Reform Option 1: Tweaking within constitutional constraints....some of this tweaking could be quite major....e.g. we could reduce the Dáil to 141 TDs without the need for a referendum....... Oireachtas July 2010 Report suggests a large ‘menu’ of changes...such as automatic voter registration, lowering voting age to 17, voter education, voting at weekends, by-elections within 6 months, an independent elections commission, possible quota for women candidates, increase in constituency size to a minimum of 4 seats, etc. Some of these would require constitutional amendment. My View is that most of these ideas are sensible and should be proceeded with, however they should be accompanied by other measures, for example reform designed to reduce clientelism....

Reform Option 2: Go Kiwi?

This system is widely described as ‘one of the best’......BUT I’m not so sure. 1. It has British first past the post 1 seat constituencies...which in my view are unsound in principle......you have 1 and only 1 local TD. In Ireland the two larger parties would dominate these-FF and FG. In NZ the two largest parties take most of the constituency seats....... 2. Also under the NZ system a candidate can run in a constituency and be included on a list..meaning they have insurance. 3. The party hierarchies choose the composition of the list-not the voter. This massively increases the power of party hierarchies.....

Reform Option 3 A purer list system-only a list, no single seat British style constituencies! In theory we could actually use a type of national PRSTV, whereby voters voted for parties rather than candidates by PRSTV (never been tried and would be hard to organize). A simpler option might a Danish style ‘open list’.

This is a Danish ballot paper-they use an open list system. You choose the party you want to vote for, and then if you want, you can nominate your preferred party candidate. Many list systems are closed -you cannot express any preference-the hierarchy of the list is established by the party itself. And only a very few list systems allow you to express a split vote for a candidate who is in another party

Conclusions PR-STV is quite a good electoral system-from the voters’ Perspective…..and quite a good system in terms of how one can assess electoral systems….CHOICE is its key virtue It may though in Ireland, reward localism, and discourage new types of politician more interested in national rather than local issues. Irish TDs too localistic? The debate about reform has been patchy-driven mainly by party elite concerns…more serious issues would be… Low turnout among young/disadvantaged, low levels of female Candidates, giving too much tactical power to independents… etc. Suggests for now a modest reform agenda of working within PR-STV rather than ditching it?

School of Political Science & Sociology