Electoral Systems Ensuring Representation, Ensuring Stability February 4 th, 2003

Electoral Systems are never neutral  help ensure certain outcomes and make other outcomes less likely  the question – which type of outcome do different electoral systems favour??

Canadian National Election Results, 2000 Seats (301) Seats (%) Vote (%) Diff. Lib.17257%40.8%+16.2 CA6622%25.5%-3.5% BQ3812.6%10.7%+1.9% NDP134.3%8.5%-4.2% PC124%12.2%-8.2%

1998 Quebec Provincial Election Seats (124) % Seats% VoteDiff. Liberal4838.7%43.6%-5.9 PQ7560.5%42.9%+17.6 ADQ10.8%12.0%-11.2

Single Member Plurality System (SMPS) one representative per geographic area (riding, constituency, district) ‘first-past-the-post’, ‘winner-take-all’ system  win a seat by having more votes than the next candidate  i.e. do not need a majority (50%+1) to win overall election, party does NOT have to win the most votes

Canadian National Election Results, 1979 Seats (282) Seats (%) Vote (%) Diff. Lib %40%+0.4 PC %36%+12.2 NDP269.2%18%-8.8% SC62.1%5%-2.9%

Effects of SMPS tends to over-represent strongest party (more seats than votes warrant)  helps ensure majority government  decisive leadership  accountability  stability (governments do not fall often)  distorts patterns of representation

Distortion under SMPS example: Canada  exacerbates regional differences in party support  favours parties with concentrated regional support i.e. encourages regional parties  discourages minor national parties (e.g. with diffuse support)  exacerbates regionalized images of parties  creates impression that parties have little regional support

Liberals %Vote Liberals %Seats Alliance %Vote Alliance %Seats PC %Vote PC %Seats Nfld44.9%71.4%3.9%034.5%28.6% PEI47.0%100%5.0%038.4%0 NS36.5%36.4%9.6%029.1%36.4% NB41.7%60%15.7%030.5%30% QB44.2%48%6.2%05.6%1.3% ON51.5%97.1%23.6%1.9%14.4%0 MB32.5%35.7%30.4%28.6%14.5%7.1% SK20.7%14.3%47.7%71.4%4.8%0 AB20.9%5.9%58.9%84.6%13.5%3.8% BC27.7%14.7%49.4%79.4%7.3%0 Total40.8%57.1%25.5%21.9%12.2%4.0%

% of Party Seats in Each Region, 2000 LiberalCABQPCNDP Atlantic Canada 11%0075%31% QB21%0100%8%0 ON58%3%008% Prairie4%21%08%46% Rockies/ Pacific 4%76%08%15%

Alternative Systems: Proportional Representation representation (# of seats) directly proportional to share of popular vote received (# of votes) mechanics:  party lists  single transferable vote

PR – cont’d advantages:  every vote counts  voters have greater choice  minorities and variety of interests better represented disadvantages:  may produce unstable governments  encourages ideological polarity  splintering of party system  majority government unlikely  centralizes control with parties

Hypothetical Results Under Different Electoral Systems Election % VoteSeats: SMPS Seats: PR Liberal40.8%172 (57%)127 CA25.5%66 (22%)77 BQ10.7%38 (12.6%)30 NDP8.5%13 (4.3%)27 PC12.2%12 (4%)37

LiberalCanadian Alliance Progressive Conservative Bloc Quebecois New Democrats 2000PR2000PR2000PR2000PR2000PR Atlan tic QB ON MB/ SK AB/ BC CD A

Alternative Systems: Proportional Representation Western Europe  21 of 28 countries using proportional representation  Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland

Other Alternative Systems – The Hybrid Model German ‘Hybrid’Model  mixed member proportional system  2 votes: candidate, party list  5% rule Germany, Bolivia, Venezuela, New Zealand, Hungary, parliaments of Scotland and Wales

Electoral Systems & Democracy SMPS:  emphasizes accountability and stability  exaggerates majority rule  concern with rights of minorities  concern with representation proportional representation  more competition, choice, political equality  better representation  costs?  accountability  stability  bold leadership

Electoral Systems & Power  which party does the SMPS system benefit most?  the winning party  which party would PR disadvantage most relative to current system  the winning party  what are the characteristics of the SMPS system  helps ensure that winning party has majority control over parliament  who’s consent is required to undertake shift to PR?  parliament (controlled by winning party)  Is change likely to take place??