Institutional Design: Electoral Systems and Executive- Legislative Relations Plan for Today 1. Understand the characteristics and democratic consequences of preferential voting systems. 2. Understand other governance consequences of electoral systems. 3. Link electoral systems to party system outcomes. 4. Consider which electoral system is best for new democracies. 5. Distinguish between presidential and parliamentary forms of government. 6. Learn the “pro” and “anti” presidentialism cases re: democracy.

Preferential Voting: Single Transferable Vote (STV) This was the system recommended for BC by the recent BC Citizens’ Assembly.BC Citizens’ Assembly Referendum on question held May 17, 2005.

Preferential Voting: Single Transferable Vote (STV) How the system rates: ◦ Proportionality: Excellent ◦ Voter Choice: Excellent

Australian Senate STV Sample Ballot Source: Australian Electoral Commission

Preferential Voting: Single Transferable Vote (STV) How the system rates: ◦ Proportionality: Excellent ◦ Voter Choice: Excellent ◦ Responsibility to constituency: Moderately Good

Preferential Voting: Alternative Vote Australian House of Reps, Fiji. Rank order candidates in single- member districts. Candidate wins through gaining “majority” of votes. Worse for proportionality than STV or PR. Better for voter choice, constituency representation.

Non-Preferential Voting: Single Non-Transferable Vote Multiple representatives elected per constituency, but voters only cast 1 vote choice. Japan (until 1994). Taiwan.

Effects of Electoral Systems on Party Systems (Duverger’s Law) Plurality systems  2-party systems, 1- party majority governments. PR systems  multiparty systems, coalition governments.

Effects of Electoral Systems on Other Political Values 1. Accountability: Who can the public hold accountable for policies? Plurality system better.

Effects of Electoral Systems on Other Political Values 2. Effectiveness: How quickly and efficiently can governments make decisions? Plurality system better.

Effects of Electoral Systems on Other Political Values 3. Stability: How predictable is the government’s existence? Plurality system better?

Choices for New Democracies Electoral systems really a spectrum rather than sharply divided. Once a system is chosen, hard to change.

What is the best system for new democracies?  Pro-PR: In systems with a lot of divisions, PR can represent interests in a fair way.

What is the best system for new democracies?  Pro-PR: PR is a good way to encourage creation of political parties.

What is the best system for new democracies?  Pro-plurality: May be best to minimize societal divisions.

What is the best system for new democracies?  Pro-plurality: PR allows representation and encouragement of extremist groups.

What is the best system for new democracies?  Pro-plurality: Encourages majority governments and strong policy leadership.

Conclusion Best to have system that: ◦ Has stable, efficient, majority governments? ◦ Or more accurately represents diverse interests? Electoral systems have consequences – all depends on the values one prefers.

DESIGNING EXECUTIVE INSTITUTIONS

Branches of Government Executive ◦ i mplement or “execute” laws Legislative ◦ d ebate and pass laws Judicial ◦ c ourts system

Presidential vs. Parliamentary Institutions

Parliamentary Government Parliament only democratically legitimate institution. Executive and legislative institutions basically fused. PM dependent on parliament confidence (usually).

Parliamentary Government Some variations: ◦ Westminster model:  e.g. Canada, Britain.  PM & cabinet truly dependent on legislature confidence. ◦ Consensus model:  e.g. Switzerland.  Executive more sheltered from legislative approval.

Presidential Government Executive leader (president) has considerable constitutional powers. Directly elected by the people for fixed term. Parliament’s role only legislative: debating and passing laws.

Is presidential government good or bad for new democracies?

Pro-Presidential Case 1. Democratic: executive directly elected by the people. 2. Strong check on power of legislature.

Anti-Presidential Case 1. Anti-democratic implications: 1.“Aura” of president.  E.g. Venezuela, Russia.Russia 2.Where strong powers, heavy “winner-take-all” character (“hyperpresidencies”). 3.Where history of dictators, danger of antidemocratic behaviour.

Anti-Presidential Case 2. Weakens government effectiveness. 1.Legislative “deadlock.” 2.Discontinuity due to fixed term and power concentration. 3.“Lame-duck” syndrome.

How different are prime ministers from presidents? Isn’t a PM with party discipline & plurality just as powerful and irremovable as a president?

How different are prime ministers from presidents? Cabinet shuffling equally powerful in each system, but different.

Conclusion Certainly some dangers in too- strong presidencies. Next class: ◦ Ways to mitigate presidential powers. ◦ Is presidentialism the culprit? ◦ New constitutions: explaining choices.