POSC 1000 Introduction to Politics Unit Seven: Elections Russell Alan Williams

Unit Seven: Elections Required Reading: Mintz, Chapter 8. Outline: Introduction - Elections Types of Electoral Systems SMP Majoritarian PR Mixed Systems (MMP and STV) Election Campaigns and Voting Behavior

1) Introduction: “Electoral System”: System used to translate votes into composition of the legislature and selection of the government 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 – skip to next slide

Newfoundland Popular Vote % 2011 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 % Bloc Quebecois 6% 4 (1.3%)

Newfoundland Popular Vote % 2008 Federal Election Popular Vote % Seats Newfoundland Popular Vote % Newfoundland Seats Turnout 59% 48% Conservatives 38% 143 (46%) 17% Liberals 26% 76 (25%) 47% 6 (86%) New Dem’s 18% 37 (12%) 34% 1 (14%) Green 7% 2 % Bloc Quebecois 10% 50 (16%)

1) Introduction: “Electoral System”: System used to translate votes into composition of the legislature and selection of the government 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 seats and drawing of boundaries Principle of voter equality - “one person = one vote” standard Means that population of each constituency should be roughly the same Requires regular redrawing of constituency boundaries = “redistricting” E.g. Boundary Commissions

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?

Boundary commissions must be independent and non-partisan b) “Gerrymandering”: 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 Boundaries can be partisan if parties in power are allowed to draw boundaries, or worse in ethnically divided communities . . . E.g. Northern Ireland

2) Types of Electoral Systems: “Single Member Plurality (SMP)”: 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

“Majority governments” High level of Gov’t accountability Constituency Party Trinity North St. John’s West Labrador West Quidi Vidi Province Seats Conservatives 50% 40% 47.5% 3 Liberals 15% 33.7% New Democrats 10% 45% 17.5% 1 Benefits? Clear Winners “Majority governments” High level of Gov’t accountability

“Distortion and Disproportionality” 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 US “Electoral College”: Body that elects President. Members from each state must vote for the candidate that received most votes in state. Can lead to President who did not “win the popular vote” E.g.?????? US example = Bush vs Gore 2000

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% NL Elections (x)

Problems: “Wasted votes” 2007 NL General Election 61% 76% Electoral District Candidate Party Votes % of Vote Eligible Voters Total Votes Cast 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

“Majoritarian Systems”: System designed to ensure winner receives a majority of the votes. Types: “Runoff Election”: A second election is held if no candidate receives a majority of votes. Normally only top two candidates remain on ballot ensuring one will get a majority Examples: Presidential elections in France and Russia “Preferential Voting”: System where voters “rank” candidates based on their order of preference. 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? Problems? 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. I.e. No distortion Requires “multi-member constituencies” No local representatives Parties choose which candidates represent them “Party lists” Examples: Italy, Sweden, Netherlands and Israel

No wasted votes: all count towards representation = higher turnout (?) 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! Insert a picture of one of the geographic features of your country.

-Italy has had 61 different governments since 1945. -Italy has had PR (1945-1993), and has had two reforms since 1993 to reduce the importance of PR, but even under the new systems, the electoral map is “multiparty”. -Current prime minister Berlusconi has three parties in his coalition which may fall apart over government austerity programs.

Problems? Unclear link between voters and “their” representative Who is your member? Insert a picture of one of the geographic features of your country.

Mixed Systems: “Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)”: System that ensures that proportion of seats a party gets is same as proportion of votes, but there are still single member constancies. Voters vote for a local representative, but there are extra seats to “top up” party representation  Party Popular Vote % Local Constituencies “Top Up” Members Total Liberals 40% 60 Conservatives 35% 30 23 53 New Dem’s 15% 10 12 22 Green 10% 15 100% 100 50 150 Q) What is the outcome in this example???? Who forms a government???

MMP used in Germany and New Zealand(!) Benefits? Combines local members with proportionality Popular choice for system change Problems? Same as PR – unstable governments . . . .

Mixed Systems: “Single Transferable Vote (STV)”: Voters rank candidates by preference but in multimember constituencies Encourages higher proportionality than majoritarian systems 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) Examples: Ireland, Malta, Tasmania, and almost BC Key difference between this and majoritarian systems is that voters rank candidates in multimember constituencies

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?

3) Election Campaigns and Voting Behavior: Why do people vote the way the do? What factors drive vote choice? Long term factors – interests and values Short term factors – Strategic calculation

a) Driven by socialization & social group identity? Long term factors: People have long term predispositions towards certain parties relating to socialization, values and interests a) Driven by socialization & social group identity? Class Religion Culture/Ethnicity Gender Region – Particularly in Canada (Due to electoral system or different values?) Insert a picture of one of the geographic features of your country.

Long term factors: People have long term predispositions towards certain parties relating to socialization, values and interests b) Driven by “Party Identification”: long term psychological attachment to a particular party E.g. Best predictor of which party someone will vote for is who they voted for in the past Elections mainly about “swing voters” or “independents” Modern parties choose issues to attract swing voters They also choose some issues to “protect their base” . . . .

Short term factors: Circumstances of a particular election may alter long term predisposition Campaign dynamics: The “local team” may have a particular impact Party platforms may make promises of particular interest to some voters What issues become important? E.g. Michael Dukakis and Willie Horton The role of leaders: The Howard Dean scream: “B’YEEEEH!” Link The Ignatieff “rise up” speech. Link

For next time: Unit Seven: Interest Groups and Social Movements Required Reading: Mintz, Chapter 9.