Elections and Electoral Systems PDF

ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS  ELECTIONS & ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 1. TYPES OF ELECTIONS & ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 2. ELECTIONS 3. ELECTORAL SYSTEMS  ELECTIONS & ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 1. ELECTIONS Democratic Elections Autocratic Elections 2. ELECTORAL SYSTEMS...

ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS  ELECTIONS & ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 1. TYPES OF ELECTIONS & ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 2. ELECTIONS 3. ELECTORAL SYSTEMS  ELECTIONS & ELECTORAL SYSTEMS 1. ELECTIONS Democratic Elections Autocratic Elections 2. ELECTORAL SYSTEMS Plurality / Majority Proportional Mixed  ELECTIONS Change political leaders peacefully and predictably Can support democratic legitimacy − If elections are free and fair Basis of obligation to obey law − Consent of the governed Voter support may be based on many factors − Issues − Policies − Leaders − Candidates − Parties  ELECTIONS ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS Regular, reasonably frequent intervals Free and fair A choice of candidates − Open/accessible ability to run for office Sufficient information to make informed choices Cannot be cancelled or postponed arbitrarily  ELECTIONS ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS (CONT’D) Universal adult suffrage − vs property franchise, poll taxes, limits based on age, residency, literacy… Political freedom − of expression, the press, association (groups, parties etc. can organize opposition) → Accountability → Legitimacy  ELECTIONS AUTOCRATIC ELECTIONS Mobilize support for government Superficial opposition Voters ratify candidates chosen by government − May face penalties for failure to participate  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS TYPES OF DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS 1. Plurality/Majority − Single-member plurality (SMP)/First Past the Post (FPP) − Majority-runoff − Majority-plurality − Alternative vote (AV)  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS TYPES OF DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS (CONT’D) 2. Proportional − List − Single transferable vote (STV) 3. Mixed − Corrective − Superposition or parallel  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS PLURALITY / MAJORITY First Past the Post (FPP) / Single Member Plurality (SMP) The winning party in each constituency/riding/district receives more votes than any other candidate. − May be less than a majority if there are more than two candidates − Can distort the relationship between votes and seats  E.g. more votes, fewer seats  BC Liberals in 1996: 2.4% more votes, 6 fewer seats  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS MAJORITY SYSTEMS: FPP/SMP Federal Election (2019) - more votes/fewer seats 2019 Votes Seats 2021 Votes Seats 5,747,410 119 6,239,227 121 [33.7%] [35.2%] 5,556,629 160 6,018,728 157 [32.6%] [47.3%]  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS LESS THAN A MAJORITY BC election (1996) – more seats with fewer votes NUMBER (%) OF SEATS % OF VOTE 39 (52%) (- 23.53% from 1991) 39.45% (- 1.26 from 1991) 33 (44%) (+ 94.12 from 1991) 41.82 % (+ 8.58 from 1991) 2 (2.67%) PROGRESSIVE 1 (1.33%) DEMOCRAT TOTAL 75  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS WINNER TAKE ALL BC Provincial Election (2001) OTHER % of vote 57.6 21.5 12.3 8.5 Seats 77 2 0 0  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS WINNER TAKE ALL Federal Election (2004) Oshawa 30.5% 32.3% 33.2% (.9% more votes) Saskatoon-Humboldt 25.5% 25.6% 26.7% (+1.1%) Newton- North Delta 31.6% 29.2% 32.8% (+1.2%)  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS MAJORITY SYSTEMS: PROBLEMS Persistent underrepresentation of − Parties whose vote is thinly spread  E.g. NDP − Small parties unless vote is regionally concentrated  E.g. Green Party compared to BQ − Minorities  May undermine democratic legitimacy  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS BQ 7.63% of votes  32 seats Green 6.55% of votes  3 seats  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS MAJORITY SYSTEMS: PROBLEMS (CONT’D) Overrepresentation of parties − landslide victories - large shifts in seats with small changes in popular vote  E.g. federal elections in 1984 and 1993 − where support is regionally concentrated  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS FEDERAL ELECTION (1984) Landslide shift in seats with small increase in popular vote Number of seats % of seats (change % of vote Proportional from 1980) Seats 211 74.8% 49.96 141 (up from 103: +108) (up from 36.5: +38.3%) (up from 37.4 +12.56%) 40 14.18% 28.02 79 (down from 147: (down from 44.34 -107 -72.8% -16.32%) 30 11.34% 18.81 53 (down from 32: (down from 10.64: (down from 19.78: -2) -.7) -.97) No 1 Affiliation TOTAL 282  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS FEDERAL ELECTION (1993) Disproportionate shift in seats NUMBER % OF SEATS % OF VOTE PROPORT’L OF SEATS (change from 1988) SEATS 177 60% 41% 124 (-53) (+94) (+133.3 % from 1988) (+9.32% from 1988) 54 (*) 18% 14% 37 (-17) 52(*) 17.6% 19% 55 (+3) (+ 16.59% from 1988) 9 (-34) (3%) 7% 21 (+12) (- 79.1% from 1988) (-13.5 from 1988) 2 (-167) 0.67% 16% 49 (+47) (-98.8% from 1988) (- 26.97% from 1988) OTHER 1 0.73% TOTAL 295  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS MAJORITY SYSTEMS - Ways of Adapting SMP Majority run-off system − Two rounds of voting on different dates − Round 1: SMP vote – if no one achieves a majority − Round 2: only the top two candidates are on the ballot, one of whom will achieve a majority  France: presidential elections  Georgia: Senate elections in 2020  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS MAJORITY SYSTEMS - Ways of Adapting SMP (cont’d) Majority-plurality system − Similar to the run-off, but on the second ballot only a plurality is required Alternative /preferential vote system − Ballot allows voters to rank their preferences  If a majority is not reached on the first count, the ballots for the candidate with the fewest votes are recounted… until a majority is achieved.  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS MAJORITY SYSTEMS - Alternative/Preferential Ballot Less time and money than a runoff Votes are transferred and not wasted In Canada used for many party leadership selections  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEMS Percentage of vote approximates the percentage of seats List system − Voters choose the party they wish to support − The party has a list of candidates in order of priority  In a 100-seat legislature, a party winning 30% of the vote  the top 30 candidates on their list would be elected.  Usually, a minimum threshold is required to qualify for any seats  Gives party leaders significant power (E.g. Israel, Netherlands)  Coalition governments  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEMS (CONT’D) − Quota/largest remainder - if achieve a set quota of votes  win a seat − Highest average – formula calculates the highest average  first seat, second highest average  second seat...  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEMS (CONT’D) If a voter’s first choice has already achieved a seat, their ballot is counted for their second choice… − Less power is given to the party to choose those elected − Don’t need to achieve majority support −  increases the number of parties, usually ideologically focused − Usually requires coalition governments  Can be stable - e.g. Scandinavian countries  Or not - e.g. Italy  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEMS (CONT’D) Single-Transferable Vote (STV) system/Hare system Electors vote for candidates A formula sets the quota of votes needed to win a seat  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS LIST SYSTEM  ELECTORAL SYSTEMS MIXED SYSTEMS Combine proportionality and constituency-based representation Corrective System − Mixed-member proportional (MMP) system − Voters cast 2 ballots; 1 for a local constituency-based candidate (SMP), 1 for a national list of candidates added to achieve proportionality for each party on the national list ballot. Superposition System − Uses the same ballot system but does not adjust to ensure proportionality.