POSC 1000 Introduction to Politics Unit Seven:Elections and Political Parties (Part One) Russell Alan Williams

Unit Seven: Elections and Political Parties Part One Electoral Systems Required Reading: MacLean and Wood Chapter 7. Outline: 1. Introduction 2. Principles of Electoral Systems 3. Types of Electoral Systems SMP Majoritarian Proportional Additional Members STV 4. Conclusions

1) Introduction: Electoral and party “systems” are key to understanding modern democracy.... Unit goals: Examine basic principles of electoral systems Examine different kinds of “real world” electoral systems Examine the role and importance of political parties

1) Introduction: Translating citizens’ preferences into government action requires some form of voting in democratic systems.... 1)“Direct Democracy”: Political System where citizens directly decide public policies Ancient city states.... Modern “Referendums” 1)“Indirect (or Representative) Democracy”: System where citizens elect representative to choose policies on their behalf – the “norm” in modern states

2) Principles of Representative Electoral Systems: Electoral System: System used to translate citizens’ votes into composition of the legislature and selection of the executive/government = “Elections” 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

2011 Canadian Federal Election Popular Vote % SeatsNewfoundland Popular Vote % Newfoundland Seats Turnout61.1%52.6% Conservatives39.6%166 (53.9%)28.3%1 (14%) Liberals18.9%34 (11.0%)37.9%4 (57%) New Dem’s30.6%103 (33.4%)32.6%2 (29%) Green3.9%1 (0.3%).9 %0 Bloc Quebecois 6%4 (1.3%)00

2) Principles of Representative Electoral Systems: Electoral System: System used to translate citizens'’ votes into composition of the legislature and selection of the executive/government = “Elections” 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 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...

Problem: Universal suffrage implies votes should be fairly counted A)Apportionment problems: Apportionment = allocation of “constituencies”: Geographic localities from which representatives are elected Principle of voter equality - “one person = one vote” standard Means that population of each constituency should be roughly the same –E.g. No “Rotten Boroughs” & “Pocket Boroughs” Requires regular redrawing of constituency boundaries = “redistricting” to reflect population changes E.g. Boundary Commissions Requires regular “enumeration”: Process of identifying eligible voters in a constituency

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?????

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?

b) “Gerrymandering”: Method of combining or dividing groups of voters to maximize electoral advantage... Or... 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... Big problem in US

3) Types of Electoral Systems: A) Single Member Plurality (SMP) Systems : “Simple Plurality/First Past the Post”: 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

Benefits? Clear Winners “Majority governments” High level of Government accountability Constituency PartyTrinity North St. John ’ s West Labrador West Quidi VidiProvinceSeats Conservatives 50% 40%47.5%3 Liberals 40% 15%33.7%0 New Democrats 10% 45%17.5%1

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

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% “Voter Apathy”: Growing condition in which citizens do not vote or participate in electoral system because they believe elections do not affect them, or that their vote does not “count”

Problems: “Wasted votes” 2007 NL General Election Electoral District Candidate Party Votes% of VoteEligible Voters Total Votes Cast Turnout 31 PORT AU PORT CORNECT, Tony (PC) % % FELIX, Michelle (Lib) % 32 PORT DE GRAVE BUTLER, Roland (Lib) % % DAWE, Randy Wayne (NDP) 162 2% LITTLEJOHN, Glenn (PC) %

Problems: “Regionalism” - Parties have incentive to concentrate votes geographically E.g Federal Election –Conservatives20% of vote2 seats –Reform Party19% of vote50 seats –Bloq Quebecois10% of vote53 seats Regionalism may reduce political systems’ responsiveness to some issues....

B) Majoritarian Systems: Systems designed to ensure winner receives a majority of the votes. “Two Round System/Run-off System”: A system in which the two leading candidates receiving the most votes (if neither had a majority of votes) are subjected to a second round of voting to pick a winner. Other candidates are eliminated – ensures winning candidate has more than 50% of votes Examples: Presidential elections in France and Russia “Preferential Voting”: System where voters “rank” candidates based on their order of preference – different “ballot” structure. 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

Benefits? 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????

“Proportional Representation (PR)”: System that ensures that proportion of seats a party gets is same as proportion of votes = No distortion Requires “multi-member constituencies” - Sometimes the entire nation is a single constituency No local representatives Parties choose which candidates represent them “Party lists”: Parties submit lists of rank ordered candidates. The more votes they receive the more candidates are elected. –“open” versus “closed” lists Examples:Italy, Sweden, Netherlands and Israel

Proportional Representation Ballot – “closed list”

Proportional Representation Ballot – “open list”

“Proportional Representation (PR)”: System that ensures that proportion of seats a party gets is same as proportion of votes = No distortion Requires “multi-member constituencies” - Sometimes the entire nation is a single constituency No local representatives Parties choose which candidates represent them “Party lists”: Parties submit lists of rank ordered candidates. The more votes they receive the more candidates are elected. –“open” versus “closed” lists Examples:Finland, Sweden, Netherlands and Israel

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!

Problems? Unclear link between voters and “their” representative Who is your member?

“Additional Member Systems”: Mixture of SMP-style voting with proportional representation outcomes E.g. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP): System used in New Zealand and Germany - ensures that proportion of seats a party gets is same as proportion of votes, but there are still single member constituencies. Voters vote for a local representative, but there are additional seats to “top up” party representation  PartyPopular Vote % Local Constituencies Won “ Top Up ” Members Total Liberals 40%600 Conservatives 35% New Dem ’ s 15% Green 10%015 Total100%

Benefits? Combines local members with proportionality Popular choice for system change in places like Canada – Has been proposed in several provinces Problems? Same as PR – unstable governments....

“Single Transferable Vote (STV)”: Voters rank candidates by preference, but in multimember constituencies Encourages higher proportionality than majoritarian systems System: Voters “rank” candidates Counting is complicated (!)

“STV” requires that voters rank candidates, not simply vote for one:

“Single Transferable Vote (STV)”: Voters rank candidates by preference but in multimember constituencies Encourages higher proportionality than majoritarian systems Counting 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) This can take many rounds of counting.... Examples:Ireland, Malta, Tasmania, and almost BC

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?

5) Conclusions: Electoral systems all over the world are struggling with “voter apathy” – turnouts (% of people voting) declining Turnout is lower in non-”proportional” systems – leads to calls for reform: System change? “Compulsory Voting”: Citizens are legally required to vote(!) E.g. Australia