POSC 1000 Introduction to Politics Unit Seven: Elections and Political Parties (Part One) Russell Alan Williams
Jan 22, 2016
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