13 dpi413 electoral systems - harvard university fall09/13...structure i. claims about electoral...
TRANSCRIPT
Policy OptionsPolicy OptionsMap of Map of
Program Options
Constitutions IDEA
Human rights, justice,
rule_lawAmnesty
Democratic governance
ElectionsACE/UNDP
Media freedom
governance UNDPIFES
Parlt, parties, Ci i i t
CPJ
Parlt, parties, womenQuotas ProjectPAR,
decentralization, anti-
corruptionTI
Civic society, soc cap
CIVICUS
TI
StructureStructure
I. Claims about electoral engineeringII The choice of electoral systemsII. The choice of electoral systemsIII. The effects of electoral systems IV C l i d i li ti IV. Conclusions and implications
www.pippanorris.com
Recap:Normative debatesRecap:Normative debatesAdversarial democracy
Based on majoritarian electionsElections should promote…
Consensus democracyBased on PR electionsElections should promote…
– ACCOUNTABILITY: decisive elections, transparency of decision-making
– EFFECTIVENESS: single-party executives responsible parties
– CONSENSUS: decision-making, bargaining and compromise
– PLURALISM: multiple parliamentary parties diversityexecutives, responsible parties,
unitary states– SCRUTINY: effective
opposition parties and vigorous parliamentary debate, andY t d f l ti
parliamentary parties, diversity in legislature
– DECENTRALIZATION: dispersed decision-making processes.Y t d f i ff ti– Yet dangers of elective
dictatorship, permanent majorities, lack of checks.
– Yet dangers of ineffective governance, extreme multiparty fragmentation, lack of accountability etc.
www.pippanorris.com
Discussion QuestionsDiscussion Questions
What are the pros and cons of alternative electoral systems?yWhat would you recommend if asked to advise about designing the electoral system in either (a) about designing the electoral system in either (a) Afghanistan (b) Iraq (c ) Ukraine (d) Brazil or (e) Indonesia? And why?Indonesia? And why?
www.pippanorris.com
ResourcesResources1 Required readings 1. Required readings
• Norris Driving democracy Ch 5• Haerpfer Democratization Ch 15
2 O li 2. Online resources• IFES
– www.ifes.org/eguide/elecguide.htm• ACE
– http://www.aceproject.org/ • International IDEA
– www.EPICproject.int
www.pippanorris.com
Electoral & party aidElectoral & party aid
1990s rapid growth in international aid by USAID, NED, IDEA, IFES, OAS, OSCE:
1. Design of constitutions and electoral law 2. Electoral administration and procedures3. Voter education4. Election observing5. Election dispute mediation6. Party building
www.pippanorris.com
Agenda‐setting stageAgenda‐setting stage Policy‐making stagePolicy‐making stage Implementation stageImplementation stage
Figure 1: The policy‐cycle model of the origins, maintenance and reform of electoral institutions
Public policy agenda
Public’s agenda
Referendum process
Regulatory framework
Election
Media agenda
P
Courts and judiciary
Public policy agendaLegislature and executive
Constitutional,legal &
administrative rules governing
electoral institution
ElectionManagementBodies
Election outcome
Party agenda
NGO
International diffusion
Feedback loopFeedback loop
NGO agenda
Environmental contextHistorical traditions Regime type
Economic development
p
www.pippanorris.com
II: Types of electoral systemsII: Types of electoral systems
The most basic features involve:1.The electoral formula
– how votes are counted to allocate seats,
2. The district magnitudethe number of seats per district– 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
representation.
Classification of systemsClassification of systemsNation StatesNation States
191
Majoritarian93
Combined27
PR64
No direct elections7
Majority27
Plurality66
Independent14
Dependent13
STV2
Party List62
AV2
2nd Ballot25
FPTP54
Bloc Vote10
STNV2
Closed Open
www.pippanorris.comAdversarial Consensual
Nation Type of electoral system, 1993 Type of electoral system, 2004 Freedom House, 1993 Freedom House, 2004
Table 3: Electoral system change, 1993‐2004Note: N. 46 out of 191 independent nation states worldwide (24.1%). Sources: see text.
Bolivia List PR Combined dependent Free Partly free
Ecuador Combined independent List PR Free Partly free
Italy List PR Combined dependent Free Free
Japan SNTV Combined independent Free Free
Marshall Islands FPTP Combined independent Free Free
Monaco Two round Combined independent Free Free
Mongolia FPTP Two‐round Free Free
New Zealand FPTP Combined dependent Free Free
Papua New Guinea FPTP AV Free Partly free
l l kTuvalu FPTP Block vote Free Free
Albania Combined independent Combined dependent Partly free Partly free
Croatia Combined independent List PR Partly free Free
Fiji FPTP AV Partly free Partly free
Guatemala Combined independent List PR Partly free Partly free
Jordan Block vote SNTV Partly free Partly free
Kazakhstan FPTP Combined independent Partly free Not free
Lesotho FPTP Combined dependent Partly free Free
Liberia List PR No elected legislature Partly free Partly free
Macedonia Two round List PR Partly free Partly freeMacedonia Two round List PR Partly free Partly free
Madagascar List PR Combined independent Partly free Partly free
Mexico Combined independent Combined dependent Partly free Free
Moldova, Republic Of Two round List PR Partly free Partly free
Morocco FPTP List PR Partly free Partly free
www.pippanorris.com
Pakistan FPTP Combined independent Partly free Not free
Panama List PR Combined independent Partly free Free
Philippines Block vote Combined independent Partly free Free
Russian Federation Two round Combined independent Partly free Not free
South Africa FPTP List PR Partly free Free
Table 2: Net change matrix in the distribution of electoral systems, 1993 and 2004
Type of electoral system 2004
Total 1993
FPTP Block vote AV SNTV
Two‐round
Combined independe
nt
Combined
dependent
List PR STV
No elected legislatur
e FPTP 36 3 2 1 3 3 2 4 1 55
65.5%
5.5% 3.6% 1.8% 5.5% 5.5% 3.6% 7.3% 1.8% 100.0%
Block vote 6 0 1 2 9
66.7%
.0% 11.1%
22.2% 100.0%
AV 2 2
em 1993
AV 2 2
100.0%
100.0%
SNTV 1 1 2
50.0%
50.0% 100.0%
Two round 18 5 3 26
Type of electoral syste
69.2%
19.2% 11.5%
100.0%
Combined independent
16 2 3 22
72.7% 9.1% 13.6%
100.0%
Combined d d
2 2
Ty dependent 100.0% 100.0%
List PR 2 3 55 3 63
3.2% 4.8% 87.3%
4.8% 100.0%
STV 2 2
100 0 100 0 100.0%
100.0%
No elected legislature
1 7 8
12.5%
87.5% 100.0%
Total 2004 37 9 4 3 21 29 9 65 2 12 191
19.4 4.7% 2.1% 1.6% 11.0 15.2% 4.7% 34.0 1.0% 6.3% 100.0
www.pippanorris.com
19.4%
4.7% 2.1% 1.6% 11.0%
15.2% 4.7% 34.0%
1.0% 6.3% 100.0%
Notes: The table lists the number (and row% ) of independent nation states worldwide using each type of electoral system for the lower house of the national parliament in 1993 and 2004. The highlighted diagonal shows those countries which have not changed their electoral system during these years. FPTP First Past the Post; 2nd Ballot; Block Vote; AV Alternative Vote; SNTV Single Non‐Transferable Vote; STV Single Transferable Vote. For the typology, see Figure 2.
Figure 5.3: Trends in types of electoral g ypsystems used worldwide, 1973-2003
100
120
60
80
20
40
0
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
www.pippanorris.com
Majoritarian Combined Proportional No competative elections
Source: Coded from Arthur S. Banks Cross-national Time-series Data Archive, Andrew Reynolds and Ben Reilly. Eds. 2005. The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. 2nd ed. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and related sources
1 Plurality1. Plurality
Single member plurality elections (First-Past-The-Post)Used in 54 countries Eg US, UK, India, Canadag , , ,Single seat districts, equal size, ‘X’ voteSimple plurality of votes determines winnerp p yCreate ‘manufactured majority’ in votes:seats ratioGeographical dispersion of support is critical Geographical dispersion of support is critical High threshold for non-spatially concentrated minor parties and ethnic groups
www.pippanorris.com
pa t es a d et c g oups
FPTP Ballot Eg UKFPTP Ballot Eg UK%%
30 Advantages and disadvantages?
X 20
g
15
35Elected w.
www.pippanorris.com
w. plurality
2005 UK election result2005 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 3PC 0.6 0.5 0.83 3
Other 8.4 3.4 0.40 23
Labour Maj. 2.9 24.5 66
www.pippanorris.com
Total 100 100 659
Source: Pippa Norris & Chris Wlezien Ed. Britain Votes 2005 (OUP 2005)
Simulated seats GB June 2005Simulated seats GB June 2005355400
239300
350 LabConLd239
197 207
140150
200
250 LdemUKIPNat
62
119 1850
100
150 GreenBNPOther
0 119 180 50 44 30
50
Actual results FPTP List PR
www.pippanorris.comSource: Dunleavy and Margetts in Pippa Norris (Ed) Britain Votes 2005 OUP
Majoritarian VariantsMajoritarian Variants
Single Non-Transferable Vote– Japan 1948-1993, Jordan, Vanuatu, Afghanistan
S ll lti b di t i t– Small multimember districts– Multiple candidates from same party– Single vote cast & plurality vote requiredSingle 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 majority2. Second ballot majority
Eg Presidential elections France, Russia, DRCUsed in 14/25 presidential contests + some
li t l ti parliamentary elections Majority required (50%+) 1st round – winnerO ‘ ff’ 2nd d t t did tOr ‘run off’ 2nd round w. top two candidatesAims to produce party coalitions on left and right and popular legitimacy of the winnerpopular legitimacy of the winner‘Heart’ and ‘head’ votingAdvantages and disadvantages?
www.pippanorris.com
Advantages and disadvantages?
3 Alternative Vote (AV)3. Alternative Vote (AV)
Eg Australian House of RepresentativesSingle member districtsSingle member districtsPriority ranked voting (1st,2nd,3rd,etc.)M j it i d (50% ) 1st dMajority required (50%+) 1st roundOr 2nd round bottom votes 2nd preferences redistributed etc. and results recalculated until majority achieved
www.pippanorris.com
Eg AV AustraliaEg AV Australia
Vote ticket or…
V t 1 tVote 1 to 10 among candidates
www.pippanorris.com
Advantages and disadvantages?
4 Single Transferable Vote4. Single Transferable Vote
Used in Ireland, Australian Senate, MaltaMultimember constituencies (4/5 members)Multimember constituencies (4/5 members)Priority voting (1,2,3,..)Q t f l ti Quota for election eg100,000 voters/4 seats=25000+1Redistribution in successive counts from candidate with least votes
www.pippanorris.com
5 PR Party Lists5. PR – Party Lists
National or regional districtClosed or open listClosed or open listUsed 62/191 nations eg Israel, NetherlandsO t f t (X)One vote for party (X)Minimum threshold of votes
www.pippanorris.com
Eg Party List S AfricaEg Party List S.Africa
Advantages and disadvantages?disadvantages?
www.pippanorris.com
PR List formulaPR List formula
Votes proportional to seats allocated by different formula
Hi h t – Highest averages• Total votes per party divided by divisors, seats allocated to highest
quotient up to total seats availableD’H dt f l di i i 1 2 3 t P l d S i (l t )– 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– Largest remainder• Minimum quota (total votes/total seats)
– Hare quota total votes/total seats eg Benin, Costa RicaD t i di i b 1 S Af i C h R
www.pippanorris.com
– Droop quota raises divisor by 1 eg S.Africa, Czech Rep.
Eg D’Hondt formulagHighest averages
PartySeats
Blues6
Whites3
Reds2
Green1
Yellow0
Pinks0
1 57000* 26000* 25950* 12000* 6100 30502 28500* 13000* 12975* 60002 28500 13000 12975 60003 19000* 8667* 86504 14250* 65005 11400*
www.pippanorris.com6 9500*
Eg Largest remainders HareEg Largest remainders HareQuota=(130,010 total votes/12 seats=10,384)
Votes Quota Dividend SeatsBlues 57000 10834 5260 5Blues 57000 10834 5260 5Whites 26000 10834 2400 3R d 25590 10834 2395 2Reds 25590 10834 2395 2Greens 12000 10834 1110 1Yellows 6010 10834 550 1Pinks 3050 10834 280 0
www.pippanorris.com
Pinks 3050 10834 280 0
6 Combined systems6. 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’Combined-dependent– eg Germany, New Zealand, – Germany half seats by party list, half by FPTP.y y p y , y– Seats allocated by FPTP– Total seats proportional to 2nd party vote
www.pippanorris.com
Eg Combined system GermanyEg Combined system Germany
X
xAdvantages and disadvantages?x disadvantages?
www.pippanorris.com
III Effects of electoral systemsIII. Effects of electoral systems
1. On democracy2 Proportionality of votes to seats (fair outcomes)2. Proportionality of votes to seats (fair outcomes)3. Party competition4 El t l t t4. Electoral turnout5. Parliamentary representation
– Women & ethno-political minorities6. Strength of cleavage politics
www.pippanorris.com
g g p7. Constituency service
On democracy
Figure 5.4: Levels of democracy by type of electoral system, 2000
On democracy
65 67
7771
78
70
80
90
h
58
49
65
57
4250
60
70
ocra
cy >
> Hi
gh
35
25
32
20
30
40
Low <
< De
mo
0
10
20
FH Polity Vanhanen Cheibub
www.pippanorris.com
FH Polity Vanhanen Cheibub
Majoritarian Combined PR
In plural societiesIn plural societies90
69
59
7075
5964
7983
74
81
70
80
90
Hig
h
59
5046
59
40
50
60
moc
racy
>>
H
20
30
40
Low
<<
Dem
0
10
FH Polity FH Polity
www.pippanorris.com
y y
Homogeneous Heterogeneous
Majoritarian Combined PR
Table 5.2: Electoral systems and democracy, y y,all societies worldwide
Liberal democracy Constitutional democracy Participatory democracyy y p y y
Freedom House Polity IV Vanhanen
b (pcse) p b (pcse) p b (pcse) pINSTITUTIONAL RULES
Majoritarian -2.33 (.454) *** -7.64 (.949) *** -3.18 (.533) ***
Proportional representation .904 (.619) N/s 3.85 (.561) *** 1.95 (.344) ***
Positive action strategies 4.13 (.466) *** 11.41 (.777) *** 5.76 (.284) ***Positive action strategies 4.13 (.466) 11.41 (.777) 5.76 (.284)
CONTROLS
Log GDP/Capita 13.90 (.832) *** 11.91 (1.01) *** 14.05 (.663) ***Ex-British colony 12.35 (.962) *** 12.36 (1.36) *** 2.05 (.803) **
-10.99 (1.16) *** -16.79 (1.40) *** -5.87 (.809) ***
Regional diffusion .632 (.036) *** .883 (.049) *** .481 (.029) ***Ethnic fractionalization -8.45 (.878) *** -1.98 (1.56) N/s -10.05 (.694) ***
Population size .001 (.001) N/s .000 (.001) *** .001 (.001) ***Area size .001 (.001) *** .001 (.001) *** .001 (.001) ***
www.pippanorris.com
Constant -21.96 -38.45 -46.6
N. observations 4768 3946 4128N. of countries 174 145 167Adjusted R2 .487 .533 .624
2 Impact on proportionality2. Impact on proportionalityProportionality of votes to seatsProportionality of votes to seats
Winning partyPerfect proportionality
Seat20%
2nd party, 3rd etc
Perfect proportionality
Seat share
V t h20%
www.pippanorris.com
Vote share
ProportionalityProportionalityStandardized Loosemore-Hanby Index
Proportionalityp y
8083
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
MAJORITARIAN UK
Canada 8384
94
84868686
CanadaAustralia
USACOMBINED
Korea, Republic ofJapan
UkraineHungary
8889
9294
9596
g yThailand
RussiaMexico
GermanyTaiwan
New ZealandPROPORTIONAL
8282
8489
9393
95
PolandRomaniaSlovenia
Czech RepublicSpain
SwitzerlandNetherlands
www.pippanorris.com
959696
9798
NorwayBelgium
IsraelSweden
DenmarkPeru
Proportionality influenced by:Proportionality influenced by:
1. Number of parties in the electorate2 Geographical distribution of the vote2. Geographical distribution of the vote3. District magnitude4 L l t th h ld4. Legal vote thresholds5. The type of electoral formulae eg d’Hondt etc
www.pippanorris.com
3. Impact on parties:p pDuverger’s laws
(1) “The plurality single-ballot rule tends to party dualism.” p y
(2)“The double-ballot system and proportional representation tend toproportional representation tend to multipartyism.”
Maurice Duverger. 1954. Political Parties, Their Organization and Activity in the
Modern State. New York: Wiley.
www.pippanorris.com
Effect on partiesEffect on partiesMean N of parl parties (1 seat)
Mean N of relevant parl parties (3%+
% Vote for party 1st
% Seats for party 1st
Number of countriesparties (1 seat) parl parties (3%+
seats)party 1st party 1st countries
All Majoritarian 5.22 3.33 54.5 56.8 83
Alternative Vote 9.00 3.00 40.3 45.3 1
Block vote 5.60 4.57 52.9 56.2 10
2nd Ballot 6.00 3.20 54.8 57.8 23
FPTP 4.78 3.09 55.1 57.8 49
All C bi d 8 85 4 52 46 8 49 5 26All Combined 8.85 4.52 46.8 49.5 26
Independent 8.89 3.94 51.7 53.9 19
Dependent 8.71 6.17 33.9 36.9 7
ALL Proportional 9.52 4.74 45.3 43.8 61
STV 5.00 2.50 45.3 50.1 2
Party List 9.68 4.82 44.5 43.6 59
www.pippanorris.com
TOTAL 7.05 4.12 48.7 50.0 143
Ref: Pippa Norris ‘Institutions Matter’ CUP 2003
ENPP by Electoral SystemENPP by Electoral SystemEffective Number of Parliamentary Parties
2.02.1
2 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MAJORITARIAN USA
UKA t li 2.6
3.0
2.42.5
2.92.9
AustraliaCanada
COMBINEDKorea, Republic of
TaiwanMexico
Thailand2.9
3.33.5
3.85.4
6.0
JapanGermanyHungary
New ZealandRussia
UkrainePROPORTIONAL
2.73.0
3.44.2
4.34.4
4 8
PROPORTIONALSpain
PolandRomania
Czech RepublicSwedenNorway
Netherlands
Ref: Pippa Norris ‘Institutions Matter’ CUP
www.pippanorris.com
4.84.9
5.15.55.6
9.1
NetherlandsDenmark
SwitzerlandSlovenia
IsraelBelgium
2003
4 Effect on Turnout4. Effect on TurnoutRef: Pippa Norris 2002. Democratic Phoenix Ch 4.
Type of Electoral System Mean Vote/VAP 1990
N.1990s
MAJORITARIAN
Alternative Vote 65.5 2
2nd Ballot 58.5 21
Fi t P t Th P t 61 2 43First-Past-The-Post 61.2 43
Single Non-Transferable Vote 52.6 2
Block Vote 56.5 9
All majoritarian 60.4 77j
COMBINED
Combined-Dependent 66.6 7
Combined-Independent 63.5 19
All combined 64.0 26
PROPORTIONAL
List PR 70.0 59
Single Transferable Vote 83 4 2
www.pippanorris.com
Single Transferable Vote 83.4 2
All PR Systems 70.0 68
All 65.0 164
Effect on TurnoutEffect on TurnoutRef: Pippa Norris 2002. Democratic Phoenix Ch 4.
Type of Electoral System Mean Vote/VAP 1990
N.1990s
MAJORITARIAN
Alternative Vote 65.5 2
2nd Ballot 58.5 21
Fi t P t Th P t 61 2 43First-Past-The-Post 61.2 43
Single Non-Transferable Vote 52.6 2
Block Vote 56.5 9
All majoritarian 60.4 77j
COMBINED
Combined-Dependent 66.6 7
Combined-Independent 63.5 19
All combined 64.0 26
PROPORTIONAL
List PR 70.0 59
Single Transferable Vote 83 4 2
www.pippanorris.com
Single Transferable Vote 83.4 2
All PR Systems 70.0 68
All 65.0 164
Impact of compulsory votingImpact of compulsory votingVote/VAP Vote/Reg N. of Nationsg
Older democracies Compulsory 79.4 86.9 7Non-Compulsory 71.7 72.7 32Difference +7.7 +14.2 39
Newer democracies Compulsory 67.7 75.8 9Non-Compulsory 69.3 73.9 31Difference -1.6 +1.9 40
Semi-democracies Compulsory 53.9 60.6 5Non-Compulsory 56.6 67.0 40Difference -2.7 -6.4 45
Non-democracies Compulsory 40.9 70.6 2Non-Compulsory 61.8 67.8 38Difference -20.9 +2.8 40
All Compulsory 65 9 75 4 23
www.pippanorris.com
All Compulsory 65.9 75.4 23Non-Compulsory 64.2 70.0 140Difference +1.9 +5.4 163
5 Impact on women5. Impact on women
“As a simple rule, women proved twice as likely to be elected under PR than majoritarian electoral systemselectoral systems.
Women were 10.8 percent of MPs in majoritarian systems, 15.1 percent in mixedmajoritarian systems, 15.1 percent in mixed or semi-proportional systems, and 19.8 percent of members in PR systems.”
P.Norris in R.Rose Encyclopedia of Elections (CQ 2001)
www.pippanorris.com
(CQ 2001)
South KoreaPakistan
MaliNepal
UkraineMalawi
ThailandFranceZambia
IndiaChile
PhilippinesAustralia
UKBangladesh
USA
FPTP
USACanadaTaiwanJapan
EcuadorVenezuela
HungaryIrelandRussiaMexico
Italy MixedItalyBolivia
New ZealandGermany
TurkeyMadagasgar
GreeceBrazil
Czech RepUraguayPortugal
TRY
PortugalIsrael
ColombiaBelgiumPoland
BulgariaCosta Rica
SpainSwitzerland
ArgentinaAustria
PR
CO
UN
T AustriaNetherlandsSouth Africa
MozambiqueFinland
DenmarkNorwaySweden
50403020100
www.pippanorris.com%Women MPs mid 1990s
50403020100
ConclusionsConclusions
Therefore no single ‘best’ system Depends upon priorities –choice of governability Depends upon priorities choice of governability v. diversityCritical for many other democratic institutionsCritical for many other democratic institutionsWhat are the consequences of electoral
t ?systems?
www.pippanorris.com