1. Institutional Design: Electoral Systems Plan for Today 1. Understand the characteristics and democratic consequences of three basic types of electoral systems. 2. Understand other governance consequences of electoral systems. 3. Link electoral systems to party system outcomes.

2. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems Closed-List PR (S. Africa, Israel, most PR systems) ◦ Cast 1 vote for 1 party ◦ Party determines rank order of candidates to receive seats. Open-List PR (Brazil, Sri Lanka, Poland, Sweden) ◦ Voters may vote for candidates within parties (sometimes multiple votes allowed). ◦ Candidates enter legislature in order based on votes received.

3. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems Closed-List PR ◦ Strengthens parties. ◦ Increases minority/ women representation. ◦ Simple to understand. Open-List PR ◦ Increases voter choice. ◦ Often fragments parties.

4. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems “Extreme PR” “Moderate PR” ◦ Some seats chosen by plurality method ◦ Vote thresholds for seats ◦ Country split into multiple districts

5. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems “Extreme PR”: ◦ Italy (pre-1994), Israel, Netherlands, Denmark “Moderate PR” ◦ Germany, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, probably South Africa

6. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems How the system rates: ◦ Proportionality: Excellent

7. Hypothetical Election, Country X Scenario 1 Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55%

8. 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

9. 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

10. Hypothetical Election, Country X Scenario 2 Red = 85% Blue = 15% Red = 85% Blue = 15% Red = 85% Blue = 15% Red = 85% Blue = 15% Red = 15% Blue = 85% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 15% Blue = 85% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 45% Blue = 55% Red = 15% Blue = 85%

11. 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

12. 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

13. Hypothetical Election, Country X Scenario 3 Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20%

14. 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

15. 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

16. Hypothetical Election, Country X Scenario 4 Red = 20% Blue = 35% White = 45% Red = 20% Blue = 35% White = 45% Red = 20% Blue = 35% White = 45% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20% Red = 45% Blue = 35% White = 20%

17. 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.

18. Canadian Federal Election Results 2008 (Preliminary) Party% Vote% Seats (# Seats) Conservative37.646.4 (143) Liberal26.224.7 (76) Bloc Queb.10.016.2 (50) NDP18.212.0 (37) Green6.80.0 (0) Independent0.70.7 (2) Other0.50.0 (0) Source: Elections Canada

19. Canadian Federal Election Results 2000 Party% Vote% Seats Liberal40.857.1 Alliance25.521.9 Bloc Queb.10.712.6 NDP8.54.3 PC12.24.0 Other2.20.0 Source: Elections Canada

20. Proportional Representation (PR) Systems How the system rates: ◦ Proportionality: Excellent ◦ Voter Choice: Bad (unless open list) ◦ Responsibility to constituency: Bad (unless smaller districts)

21. Preferential Voting Systems Voters indicate intensity of preferences for different candidates by rank- ordering them on ballot.

22. Preferential Voting: Single Transferable Vote (STV) Malta, Ireland, Australian Senate. More complicated system: ◦ Parties have multiple candidates per constituency. ◦ Voters number rank order of candidate preferences.

23. Preferential Voting: Single Transferable Vote (STV) “Transferable” vote: ◦ If #1 vote is useless, vote transferred to next-choice candidate. ◦ Candidates receiving surplus votes have “extra” votes redistributed. ◦ If no candidate has enough 1 st choice votes to be elected, bottom candidate dropped and votes redistributed.

24. 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.

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

26. 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.

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

28. Effects of Electoral Systems on Party Systems Plurality systems  2-party systems, 1- party majority governments. PR systems  multiparty systems, coalition governments.

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

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

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