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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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%)

5. 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%)

6. 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

7. 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 . . .

8. 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

9. 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?????

10. 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?

11. 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

12. 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

13. “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

14. “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

15. 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)

16. 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%

17. Problems:
“Regionalism” - Parties have incentive to concentrate votes geographically
E.g Federal Election
Conservatives 20% of vote 2 seats
Reform Party 19% of vote 50 seats
Bloq Quebecois 10% of vote 53 seats

18. “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

19. 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????

20. “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

21. 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.

22. -Italy has had 61 different governments since 1945.
-Italy has had PR ( ), 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.

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

24. 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???

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

26. 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

27. 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?

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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”

31. 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

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