Electoral Systems

Electoral Systems

Pippa Norris ~ Harvardwww.pippanorris.com

Components of institutional design

Constitutional reform

Electoral systems and processes

Party systems

Roles and powers of the executive

Role of Parliament

Federalism and decentralization

Local governments

Innovative minor reforms

Participation, transparency, and

accountability

www.pippanorris.com

www.pippanorris.com

Structure

I. Normative principles of electionsII. Types of electoral systems

– What are the choices? How do they work?III. Explaining processes of electoral system

change– Do electoral systems determine party

systems? Or the reverse?IV. Conclusions and implications

Required readings

1. Pippa Norris. 2008. Driving Democracy: Do Power-Sharing Institutions Work? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch 5.

2. Benoit, Kenneth. 2007. ‘Electoral laws as political consequences: explaining the origins and change of electoral institutions.’ Annual Review of Political Science 10: 363-90. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.101608

3. International IDEA. 2008. Electoral System Design. The new IDEA International Handbook. Ed. Andrew Reynolds, Ben Reilly and Andrew Ellis. http://www.idea.int/publications/esd/upload/ESD_Handb_low.pdf

pp1-29.

www.pippanorris.com

www.pippanorris.com

Online Resources 1. IFES

– www.ifes.org/eguide/elecguide.htm2. ACE

– http://www.aceproject.org/ 3. International IDEA

– www.EPICproject.int

www.pippanorris.com

Discussion Questions

What are the pros and cons of alternative electoral systems?What would you recommend if asked to advise about designing the electoral system in either (a) Afghanistan (b) Iraq (c ) Ukraine (d) Nepal or (e) Bhutan? And why?

I: NORMATIVE DEBATES

www.pippanorris.com

Normative criteriaHow would you rank the importance of these criteria for Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan?

– Providing representation• Geographic, ideological, party, and descriptive

– Making elections accessible and meaningful– Providing incentives for conciliation– Facilitating stable and efficient government– Holding the government accountable– Holding individual representatives accountable– Encouraging political parties– Promoting legislative opposition and oversight– Making electoral processes sustainable– Meeting international standards

Source: International IDEA. 2008. Electoral System Design pp9-14.www.pippanorris.com

Recap: Consociational democracy

Lijphart (1968) The Politics of AccommodationNetherlands exemplified ‘pillorized’ divided societyYet there was stable democracy and elite consensusWhy? Constitutional arrangements

– Proportional representation of all major groups in elected/appointed office

– Executive power-sharing/grand coalition– Minority veto in government– Cultural autonomy for groups

Model for other divided (plural) societies?E.g. Belgium, Switzerland, Lebanon, Cyprus

The logical sequence of consociational theory in divided

societiesPR electoral systems (or

reserved seats)

Federalism & decentralization

Election ofethnic minority

partiesPeaceful

democratic consolidation

Election ofethnic minority

parties

Greater support within minority communities

Does the logic make sense? Criticisms?

www.pippanorris.com

II: Types of electoral systems

The most basic features involve: 1.The electoral formula

– how votes are counted to allocate seats,

2. The district magnitude – the number of seats per district,

3. The ballot structure– how voters can express their choices, and

The electoral threshold– the minimum votes needed by a party to secure

representation.

www.pippanorris.com

Classification of systems

A V2

2 n d B a llo t25

M a jo rity27

F P T P54

B lo c V o te10

S T N V2

P lu ra lity66

M a jo rita rian93

In de pe nd ent14

D e pe n de nt13

C o m b in ed27

S T V2

C lo sed O pen

P a rty L ist62

P R64

N o d ire c t e lec tio ns7

N a tion S ta tes1 91

Adversarial Consensual

Source: Norris: Driving democracy p113

www.pippanorris.com

1. Plurality

Single member plurality elections (First-Past-The-Post)Used in 54 countries Eg US, UK, India, CanadaSingle seat districts, equal size, ‘X’ voteSimple plurality of votes determines winnerCreate ‘manufactured majority’ in votes:seats ratioGeographical dispersion of support is critical High threshold for non-spatially concentrated minor parties and ethnic groups

www.pippanorris.com

FPTP Ballot Eg UK

X

%

30

20

15

35 Elected w. plurality

Advantages and disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

2005 UK election resultJune 2005 % of Votes % of seats Ratio Number of

seatsLabour 35.2 54.9 1.56 355

Conservative 32.3 30.4 0.94 197

Lib Dem 22.0 9.5 0.43 62

SNP 1.5 0.9 0.60 6

PC 0.6 0.5 0.83 3

Other 8.4 3.4 0.40 23

Labour Maj. 2.9 24.5   66

Total 100 100   659

Source: Pippa Norris & Chris Wlezien Ed. Britain Votes 2005 (OUP 2005)

www.pippanorris.com

Simulated seats GB June 2005355

239197 207

62

140

0 119 180 50 44 30

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Actual results FPTP List PR

LabConLdemUKIPNatGreenBNPOther

Source: Dunleavy and Margetts in Pippa Norris (Ed) Britain Votes 2005 OUP

www.pippanorris.com

Majoritarian Variants

Single Non-Transferable Vote– Japan 1948-1993, Jordan, Vanuatu, Afghanistan – Small multimember districts– Multiple candidates from same party– Single vote cast & plurality vote required– Advantages and disadvantages?

Cumulative vote – Dual member seats eg Illinois until 1980

Limited vote eg Spanish senate

www.pippanorris.com

2. Second ballot majority

Eg Presidential elections France, Russia, DRCUsed in 14/25 presidential contests + some parliamentary elections Majority required (50%+) 1st round – winnerOr ‘run off’ 2nd round w. top two candidatesAims to produce party coalitions on left and right and popular legitimacy of the winner‘Heart’ and ‘head’ votingAdvantages and disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

3. Alternative Vote (AV)

Eg Australian House of Representatives[Preferential voting]Single member districtsPriority ranked voting (1st, 2nd, 3rd,etc.)Majority required (50%+) 1st roundOr 2nd round bottom votes 2nd preferences redistributed etc. and results recalculated until majority achieved

www.pippanorris.com

Eg AV Australian HofRep

Advantages and disadvantages?

Must rank preferences across all candidates to be a valid ballot

2010 Australian HofR results

www.pippanorris.com

93.2% counted. Updated Thu Sep 16 03:28PM

Party % Vote Swing Won % seats

Labor 38.0 -5.4 72 48.0%

Coalition 43.7 +1.5 73 48.6%

Greens 11.7 +4.0 1 0.6%

Others 6.6 -0.1 4 Support Lab Gov

150

www.pippanorris.com

www.pippanorris.com

4. Single Transferable Vote

Used in Ireland, Australian Senate, MaltaMultimember constituencies (4/5 members)Priority voting (1,2,3,..)Quota for election eg100,000 voters/4 seats=25000+1Redistribution in successive counts from candidate with least votes

www.pippanorris.com

2007 Irish Dial election results

www.pippanorris.com

Candidates Votes % vote Change since 2002 Seats % seats Ratio Votes :

Seats

Fianna Fáil 106 858,565 41.56 +0.08 77 46.67 1.12

Fine Gael 91 564,428 27.32 +4.84 51 30.91 1.13

Labour 50 209,175 10.13 -0.65 20 12.12 1.19

Green Party 44 96,936 4.69 +0.85 6 3.64

Sinn Féin 41 143,410 6.94 +0.43 4 2.42

Progressive Democrats 30 56,396 2.73 -1.23 2 1.21

Socialist Party 4 13,218 0.64 -0.16 0

People before profit / SWP 5 9,333 0.45 +0.27 0

Workers Party 6 3,026 0.15 -0.07 0

Christian Solidarity Party 8 1,705 0.08 -0.18 0

Fathers rights 8 1,355 0.07 +0.07 0Immigration control 3 1,329 0.06 -0.01 0

Independents 74 106,934 5.18 -4.25 5 3.03

Total 470 2,065,810 100.00 0 165 100.00

www.pippanorris.com

5. PR – Party Lists

National or regional districtClosed or open listUsed 62/191 nations eg Israel, NetherlandsOne vote for party (X)Minimum threshold of votes

www.pippanorris.com

Eg Party List S.Africa

Advantages and disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

Parties Votes Seats % seats% VotesAfrican National Congress (ANC) 11,650,748 65.90 264 66.0Democratic Alliance (DA) 2,945,829 16.66 67 16.7Congress of the People (COPE) 1,311,027 7.42 30 7.5

Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) 804,260 4.55 18 4.5

Independent Democrats (ID) 162,915 0.92 4 1.0United Democratic Movement (UDM) 149,680 0.85 4 1.0Freedom Front Plus (VF+) 146,796 0.83 4 1.0African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) 142,658 0.81 3

United Christian Democratic Party (UCDP) 66,086 0.37 2Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) 48,530 0.27 1Minority Front (MF) 43,474 0.25 1Azanian People's Organisation (AZAPO) 38,245 0.22 1African Peoples' Convention (APC) 35,867 0.20 1Movement Democratic Party (MDP) 29,747 0.17 0 0Al Jama-ah 25,947 0.15 0 0Christian Democratic Alliance (CDA)* 11,638 0.07 0 0

National Democratic Convention (NADECO) 10,830 0.06 0 0

New Vision Party (NVP) 9,296 0.05 0 0United Independent Front (UIF) 8,872 0.05 0 0Great Kongress of SA (GKSA) 8,271 0.05 0 0

South African Democratic Congress (SADECO) 6,035 0.03 0 0

Keep It Straight and Simple (KISS) 5,440 0.03 0 0Pan Africanist Movement (PAM) 5,426 0.03 0 0Alliance of Free Democrats (AFD) 5,178 0.03 0 0Women Forward (WF) 5,087 0.03 0 0A Party 2,847 0.02 0 0

Total 17,680,729 100.0 400 100

 Summary of the 22 April 2009 South African National Assembly election results

www.pippanorris.com

PR List formula

Votes proportional to seats allocated by different formula – Highest averages

• Total votes per party divided by divisors, seats allocated to highest quotient up to total seats available

– D’Hondt formula divisions 1,2,3 etc eg Poland, Spain (least prop.)

– Pure Saint-Laguë divisor 1,3,5,7 etc eg New Zealand– Modified Saint-Laguë 1.4, 3,5,7 etc eg Norway (most

proportional)– Largest remainder

• Minimum quota (total votes/total seats)– Hare quota total votes/total seats eg Benin, Costa Rica– Droop quota raises divisor by 1 eg S.Africa, Czech Rep.

www.pippanorris.com

Eg D’Hondt formulaHighest averages

PartySeats

Blues6

Whites3

Reds2

Green1

Yellow0

Pinks0

1 57000* 26000* 25950* 12000* 6100 3050

2 28500* 13000* 12975* 6000

3 19000* 8667* 8650

4 14250* 6500

5 11400*

6 9500*

www.pippanorris.com

Eg Largest remainders Hare

Votes Quota Dividend Seats

Blues 57000 10834 5260 5

Whites 26000 10834 2400 3

Reds 25590 10834 2395 2

Greens 12000 10834 1110 1

Yellows 6010 10834 550 1

Pinks 3050 10834 280 0

Quota=(130,010 total votes/12 seats=10,384)

www.pippanorris.com

6. Combined systems

Aka ‘Mixed’, ‘hybrid’, ‘side-by-side’‘Combined-independent’ – eg Taiwan and Ukraine– Ukraine half FPTP, half nation-wide lists, 4% thresholds

‘Combined-dependent’ – eg Germany, New Zealand, – Germany half seats by party list, half by FPTP.– Seats allocated by FPTP– Total seats proportional to 2nd party vote

www.pippanorris.com

Eg Combined system Germany

X

xAdvantages and disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

IV: Conclusions

Therefore no single ‘best’ system Depends upon priorities –choice of governability v. diversityCritical choices for many other democratic institutionsRules are often amendedWhat are the consequences of electoral systems?