Civil Society and Institutional Design: Electoral Systems Plan for Today

1
Civil Society and Institutional Design
Electoral SystemsPlan for Today

• Finish group discussion activity.
• Understand the characteristics and democratic
  consequences of two (out of 3) basic types of
  electoral systems.

2
Questions for Group Discussion on Civil Society

• What characteristics of civil society would you
  try to promote in your programs?
• How would you encourage those characteristics
  through specific programs?
• Are you optimistic or pessimistic about your
  chances of success?

3
Designing Institutions

• Electoral Systems

4
Classifying according to democratic principles

• Proportionality How well does distribution of
  representatives reflect electorates votes?
• Responsibility to constituency Can voters
  identify someone who represents them in
  particular?
• Voter choice Diversity and complexity in voters
  available choices?

5
Plurality or First-Past-the-Post Systems

• Examples
• Britain
• Canada
• USA
• India

6
Plurality or First-Past-the-Post Systems

• How the system rates
• Proportionality Bad
• Voter Choice Bad
• Responsibility to constituency Excellent

7
Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

• Examples
• Continental European countries
• Israel
• South Africa

8
Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

• Extreme PR
• Moderate PR
• Some seats chosen by plurality method
• Vote thresholds for seats
• Country split into multiple districts

9
Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

• Extreme PR
• Italy (pre-1994), Israel, Netherlands, Denmark
• Moderate PR
• Germany, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Belgium,
  probably South Africa

10
Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

• How the system rates
• Proportionality Excellent

11
Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 1
12
Results of Scenario 1 with Plurality System

• Overall percentage of national vote
• Red Party 45
• Blue Party 55
• Blue Party wins 100 of seats in the legislature

13
Results of Scenario 1 with PR System

• Overall percentage of national vote
• Red Party 45
• Blue Party 55
• Red Party wins 45 of seats
• Blue Party wins 55 of seats

14
Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 2
15
Results of Scenario 2 with Plurality System

• Overall percentage of national vote
• Red Party 50
• Blue Party 50
• Red Party wins 27 (4/15) seats
• Blue Party wins 73 (11/15) of seats

16
Results of Scenario 2 with PR System

• Overall percentage of national vote
• Red Party 50
• Blue Party 50
• Red Party wins 50 of seats
• Blue Party wins 50 of seats

17
Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 3
18
Results of Scenario 3 with Plurality System

• Overall percentage of national vote
• Red Party 45
• Blue Party 35
• White Party 20
• Red Party wins 100 of seats in the legislature

19
Results of Scenario 3 with PR System

• Overall percentage of national vote
• Red Party 45
• Blue Party 35
• White Party 20
• Red Party wins 45 of seats
• Blue Party wins 35 of seats
• White Party wins 20 of seats

20
Hypothetical Election, Country XScenario 4
21
Implications of Examples in Plurality Systems

• Voter support for small parties underrepresented
  in seats.
• Best for small parties to focus on winning
  support in select regions.
• Majority governments the norm.

22
Canadian Federal Election Results 2008
(Preliminary)
Source Elections Canada
23
Canadian Federal Election Results 2000
Source Elections Canada
24
Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

• How the system rates
• Proportionality Excellent
• Voter Choice Bad
• Responsibility to constituency Bad