POLITICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS: Simulation in Kosovo Arben Qirezi 9/15/2015 SUPPORTED BY

Aim of the Study Informing all involved stakeholders Fostering the debate about electoral systems Informing public on electoral systems Identifying motives for various political preferences by political parties

Which electoral systems Single Member Plurality (SMP) Alternative Vote (AV) Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Debate on Electoral System in Kosovo during 2001 Disagreements between Kosovar and International representatives. Exclusion of this topic from the talks on Constitutional Framework for PISG.

Which systems were discussed in 2001? LDK and PDK representatives wanted SMP with the support of some Western countries OSCE insisted and prevailed on PR with reserved seats

Effects of the SMP

Strengths and Weaknesses of the SMP

Method for creation of districts Ten districts were created in muniicpalities with less than 1% of voters Remaining 110 districts were distributed proportionally One municipality – One District

Simulation for Prizren

Trends Domination of bigger parties Less opportunity for ethnic parties Opportunity for disaggregation of the minority votes De-motivates ethnic voting Larger parties may reach out more to minority voters

Simulation in Peja

Trends Parties with string geographic base have good chances with SMP (AAK) SMP may, however, change the situation.

Simulation in Gjakovë

Trends Same trends like in Peja – geographic base Gjakova supports the claim that SMP can foster changes because fo the importance of the candidate

Simuliation for Gjilan

Trends Parties that do good in PR because of their wide spread of vote, will not do well in SMP if they do not have geographical base (VV)

Alternative Vote

How does AV works Alternative vote is very much recommended in multi-ethnic countries Alternative vote can moderate ethnic leaders It can be voted for first, second …preference Candidate that in the first round has more votes, but lacks 50% + 1 will not achieve to be elected because he lacks the preferential votes

How AV functions?

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

STV characteristics Multi-member districts 3 – 5 candidates per district Voters may vote for more than one candidate and party according to their preferences

STV Characteristics Optional preference Vote for one, up to many preferences Mandatory prefence More than one and up to all candidates in the list.

STV functioning Kuota Droop = {Total number of valid votes/Total number of seats+1} (1,000/5+1)=167, 67

STV example from a district in Ireland Valid votes: 33,404 Candidates: 5 Seats: 3 Quota Droop: 33,404 / 4 = = 8,352

Counting of votes in STV First round – First preferences Second round – second preferences of eliminated candidate Third round – Left over from the elected candidate as second preferences, or from the third preferences of the eliminated candidate until the next candidate(s) reaches the Droop Quota

Main conclusions related to Kosovo SMP Convenient because of the scale of ethnic homogeneity Problem of accommodation of parties Huge political turn around due to evolution according to PR Minority representation is a problem, but can be solved Two-round system Not convenient for assembly elections Convenient for presidential and mayoral elections The last mayoral elections have proven the ability of two-round system to generate change

Main conclusions related to Kosovo Alternative vote Generates moderation Small number of minorities Counting can be problematic Single Transferable Vote The most realistic alternative Attractive May generate moderation and change Increases accountability of MP-s Counting can be problematic

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION