Why is electoral system important

In ordinary discourse, the term electoral system is used to refer to the entire framework that govern elections in a country including the electoral laws, procedures used in managing elections and the actual casting of a vote among others. This conception of an electoral system is however, not quite correct, even though the electoral laws, rules and procedures that go into elections have an important bearing on the successful operation of an electoral system.

The above considerations actually describe and define an electoral process and is best handled under the management of elections. A more correct way to define an electoral system is to conceptualize it as the set of rules which govern the process by which citizens, in their capacity as voters, express their opinion about candidates and political parties and by which the votes they cast are translated into seats.

An electoral system thus refers to the method used to determine how votes cast at an election, will be translated into seats won by parties and or candidates. Electoral systems thus constitute basic lines of mediation that any electoral law establishes between votes and representation. It must therefore be distinguished from a county's electoral processes which deals with how the electoral system is to be managed. The electoral process is thus a management and administrative matter.

This refers to the capacity of the voter and correspondingly of the political groups that organize candidates to determine which persons in particular will hold office being disputed. If for example a country has two houses of parliament it can use one electoral system to elect members to the lower house and another electoral system to elect members to the upper house.

It all depends on what the country wishes to achieve with its electoral system. These issues will become clearer when we discuss the specific electoral systems and where and how they are applied.

An ideal electoral system should ensure or promote the representation of all major interests in a political system. An electoral system must, in other words, be as inclusive as possible by making it possible for as many divergent interests as possible to be represented.

Identifying these interests then becomes central. It would also be unrepresentative. In liberal democratic systems of government, political parties provide the channels by which different interests are organized and compete for representation in a country's legislative body.

The interests may take a religious character, and thus leading to the formation of religious parties. It is also possible to have parties that champion the interests of workers and thus leading to the formation of labour parties such as the British Labour party.

In situations where parties provide the channels for interest aggregation an ideal electoral system should facilitates the representation of as many political parties as possible. Electoral systems that encourage inclusiveness by making it possible for even smaller parties to get represented will encourage the formation of many different kinds of political parties.

From the above observations, it is clear that an electoral system can determine what kind of political parties are formed. In Kenya for example under the current electoral system newer and smaller parties are discouraged because the system does not provide them with a lot of chances of surviving as viable political parties that can challenge the older and bigger ones. The Double Ballot system used in France on the other hand encourages the formation of smaller parties which the go on to form alliances with other parties that have similar ideological orientation.

The formation of alliances occurs especially during the second ballot. The point about this system is that it encourages as many interests as possible to be represented in parliament. Details of the system are discussed in a different section of this paper. An ideal electoral system should therefore make it possible for as many political parties as possible to have a chance of being represented in parliament if the system is to contribute to democratic governance.

This is why it is necessary to carefully deliberate on the design an electoral system. It is only in this way that the system can take into account the peculiarities of the county for which it is designed. The peculiarities to be considered include the country's political history, the social forces at play such ethnic composition religious diversity, level of political and or civic awareness, literacy levels, religious composition and level of economic development among other factors.

In practice of course it is not possible to have all interests represented in the legislature. There are, however, some interests whose exclusion from the legislature may have disastrous consequences for democratic governance and for the stability of the country. Such interests must therefore be included. In saying this one is not in any way suggesting that other interests must be ignored. We are simply saying that ways be found for accommodating as many and varied interests as possible but that those interests considered critical for political stability must not be excluded.

The challenge then is to identify an electoral system that has the capacity to be as inclusive as possible. This underscores the fact that electoral systems that work in one country need not work in another country. The challenge for countries in which political parties are either weak or under- developed is to find the best way in which different interests can be organized for purposes of representation in parliament.

Once this is done then an electoral system has to be designed that can facilitate the representation of as many of these interests as possible. This is the challenge for countries like Kenya. Some electoral systems are quite complicated while others are simple to understand. Complicated electoral systems may disfranchise many potential voters. The problem may be addressed to some extent by civic education. I say to some extent because some systems are so complicated that even civic education may not demystify the system.

Germany's two votes for each voter, the details of which we discuss later, is an example of a very complicated electoral system. The point is however that it is desirable that voters should understand the electoral system that they are required to use in electing their representatives.

Details of the various electoral systems including the major variants of each system are discussed in the section that follows. This is important because some electoral systems are more expensive than others. The cost of using a particular system may be out of reach of a particular country.

Considerations of cost must not be ignored as doing so could plunge the electoral process into chaos.

This is not to suggest that cost must dictate all other considerations. The point is that some means of balancing cost with other considerations must be found. This is the other challenge that those designing an electoral system must grapple with.

It is also true that whereas one electoral system may be suitable for one country or groups of countries it may not necessarily be suitable for another country.

This is why it is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of a country before designing an electoral system for it. These must include the political history of the country, the nature of its population in terms of literacy rates, ethnic composition cultural and religious diversity, and the nature of other social forces that require representation among other factors.

An electoral system must certainly not be imposed on a country from another country simply because it worked in that particular country.

Electoral systems matter because — in interaction with other structural and institutional factors — they influence incentives regarding government effectiveness, violence and conflict, accountability, public policy, and electoral malpractice. There are trade-offs involved in all electoral systems. For example, proportional representation systems may be more likely than majority systems to produce desirable public goods — but they also foster greater corruption.

An electoral system determines the way in which votes cast in a general election are translated into seats in the legislature. Electoral systems can be grouped into four categories based on their electoral formula:. Understanding how electoral systems work provides insight into the interests, opportunities and constraints that drive political actors. Further lessons are that:. Full text [PDF - KB] - 17 pages Summary Electoral systems matter because — in interaction with other structural and institutional factors — they influence incentives regarding government effectiveness, violence and conflict, accountability, public policy, and electoral malpractice.

They usually involve only one seat and one candidate per electoral district. Under plurality, candidates can win a seat when they win the most votes.

This is usually done through party lists of candidates: in open lists voters rank candidates in order of preference; in closed lists, the party decides the order of the candidates. A closely related argument is that PR systems offer greater opportunities for legislative representation for minority groups and women.

However, a recent Canadian Royal Commission on electoral reform pointed out that levels of women's representation in elected assemblies are often attributable to variables other than the electoral system, for example political parties' adoption of quotas for women candidates. In this respect, the behaviour of political parties, especially in party-list PR systems, is crucial to women's ability to gain seats in elected assemblies.

More careful analysis reveals that PR jurisdictions that do not use a quota system for women candidates have records similar to Canada's in this regard -- and sometimes worse.

It is also claimed that, because minority views are not marginalized, political discourse and political participation are enlivened in PR systems. The one reliable empirical indicator for this assertion, levels of voter turnout at elections, tends to confirm this. Arguments against PR, however, can be just as compelling as those in its favour. Some critics point out that PR systems encourage the emergence of extreme views, which, though quite often based on short-lived opinions of the day, are given a certain longevity and enhanced legitimacy through access to parliamentary representation.

This argument is best summed up by Irvine, who writes that under PR systems. They remain as available and plausible alternatives if regimes run into economic difficulties, and may be able to make difficult the functioning of a democratic regime. PR systems are also criticized for the complexity of their balloting process and the way in which votes are tallied. Available information suggests that, while voter turnout may indeed be high in PR systems, ballot spoilage is also high, a possible sign of voter confusion when offered a multiplicity of choice.

Concerns are also expressed about the shape of the governments that result from PR electoral systems. Thus, when casting their ballots in a PR system, voters are not electing a government. Governments under PR are typically formed after elections, when parties attempt, through a bargaining process, to build governing coalitions. Voters, in effect, have little direct say regarding the complexion of their government.

As well, coalition governments are viewed as less than stable. The bargaining among parties continues after the government-building process as various elements strive to have parts of their agenda adopted as official policy. Compromise can be brokered, but negotiations often produce rifts that cannot be resolved.

Consequently, unless there are changes in governing coalitions, the coalition will collapse, leading to new elections. It is on this basis that some have argued that coalition government is inherently unstable so that the electoral system that produces it is unsatisfactory. Critics also claim that, contrary to appearances, coalitions actually make it more difficult to change governments.

Coalition membership may fluctuate following elections, but the stronger members usually remain in place. Additional claims are made with respect to the advantages and disadvantages offered by specific forms of PR. Those who defend party list PR systems argue that political parties occupy an important place in any representative democracy and that the list system helps to ensure that the role of parties will be maintained and strengthened.

On the other hand, parties acquire too much power when they can determine whose names will appear at the top of the lists. Those elected on the basis of this system owe primary allegiance to their parties rather than to their electorates. Such concerns can be addressed by allowing voters to choose among lists or within lists. Variants of the party list system that allow voters to chose either from among a party's candidates or between the candidates on several parties' lists allow voters a truer expression of their preferences.

These variants help ensure that the candidates with the strongest levels of support are elected; the legitimacy of the outcome is enhanced. If however, voter choice is restricted to the candidates from a single party, candidates will be encouraged to compete against members of their own party rather than those from rival formations. This puts party cohesion at risk and makes the task of governing more difficult.

Because STV, unlike party-list forms of PR, emphasizes the candidate rather than the party, it offers an advantage in that it " Critics of STV claim that it leads to weaker parties and hinders the emergence of a responsible party system because candidates work to attract personal support, sometimes at the expense of other candidates from their own party. Experience in Australia has shown that when as many as fifty candidates can contest an election under an STV system, the process of counting the vote may be lengthy.

An additional disadvantage, also drawn from Australia, is the complexity of casting a ballot, as suggested by high levels of ballot-spoilage. Two countries, New Zealand and Italy, have recently held referendums in which citizens expressed a desire to adopt new electoral systems.

New Zealanders indicated a willingness to move away from SMP towards an arrangement including some proportionality, while Italians went in the opposite direction.

It is noteworthy that in both instances the decision to change systems took place against a background of dissatisfaction with "politics as usual. On 18 September , New Zealanders voted in a referendum on electoral change. Voters were asked whether they supported their single-member plurality system and, if not, which of four different PR models they would prefer.

September's referendum results are not binding; New Zealanders will have an opportunity to choose between the status quo and a refined version of the mixed system during the next general election, expected sometime in late In a recently held referendum 18 April , Italians voted to leave the PR electoral system, which has given them 51 governments since the end of the Second World War.

Voters were asked to respond to questions dealing with party financing and the system of proportional representation used for elections to the upper and lower houses of parliament.

Italians voted to move to a single-member plurality system, which, it is hoped, will produce single-party governments and put an end to the power of party bosses. Through their votes, Italians have approved a plan to fill three quarters of their Senate's seats out of the seats by the first-past-the-post system.

It is hoped that the same rules will be subsequently applied to the Italian lower house. It will be the government's task to determine the eventual shape of electoral reform. While electoral systems are a vital component of any representative democracy, one should not overstate their importance. Even the best electoral system will fail if other conditions are not met. Two Canadian political scientists have written a thoughtful reminder of this.

Governmental outcomes are largely a function of the balance of party forces: the party system, in turn, is largely shaped by a country's political culture and social structure and by the electoral behaviour of its citizens. However, the electoral system Since elections are key institutions in modern democracies and provide the chief mechanism of political participation for most people, the means of translating individual votes into political representation is As stated in the introduction to this paper, elections constitute the most direct, and indeed for many the only, experience of what it is to be a citizen in a democratic society.

Perhaps it is for this reason that rising levels of discontent result in demands for change in the way elections are structured, as was seen recently in New Zealand and Italy, when a change of electoral system appeared to be a convenient and effective way of redressing the wrongs in the democracies as a whole.

Canadians, beset with many of the same doubts and discontents, may well begin to ask whether they desire a similar change. Freedom House Survey Team. Freedom House, New York, Interparliamentary Union. Parliaments of the World. Facts on File Publications, New York, Irvine, William P.

Jackson, Robert and Doreen. Politics in Canada. Prentice-Hall Canada, Scarborough, Ontario, Lakeman, Enid.

Faber and Faber, London, Leonard, Dick and Richard Natkiel. The Economist Publications, London, Mackie, Thomas T. The International Almanac of Electoral History. Macmillan, London, New Zealand, Electoral Referendum Panel. The Guide to the Electoral Referendum. Wellington, Rose, Richard, editor. Electoral Participation: A Comparative Analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Kingston, Ontario, Irvine provides an overview of the various kinds of electoral systems proposed for use in Canada.

The later Charlottetown Accord agreed only that the Senate would be elected either by the populations of provinces or by their elected assemblies without specifying any electoral system.

This is the case in Israel. The result is coalition government in which small fringe parties may exercise an influence out of proportion to the support they have received during elections. He also indicates that the probability of a one-party majority government is 40 percentage points higher in a plurality than in a PR election. Cairns calls the ability of Canada's single-member plurality system to produce stable majoritarian governments "mediocre.

The National Front, which was supported by This index was calculated by summing the difference between each party's percentage share of seats and its share of votes, dividing by two and subtracting the result from Individual plurality systems, however, are empirically capable as the authors point out of achieving higher proportionality than some PR systems.

The U. Congress, for example, achieves a higher score than the Spanish electoral system. This may come about as a consequence of the number of parties contesting the elections, rather than the structure of the electoral system. Where plurality elections take place in a two-party system, as in the case of U.

However, when more than two parties participate in elections under a plurality system, the degree of proportionality is bound to plummet.

Lijphart point outs that the degree of proportionality depends on the particular quotas and divisors used in seat allocation. In the largest remainder systems, use of the Hare quota "tends to yield closely proportional results," while use of the Droop and Imperiali quotas produces less proportional outcomes.

Lijphart bases his assessment on the degree to which small and large parties are treated evenhandedly by the formulas. I, Ottawa, , p. Bingham Powell Jr. Powell adds, however, that some of the difference can be attributed to the facilitated registration and compulsory voting sometimes present in PR systems. The Two-Ballot System B. New Zealand B. Majoritarian Systems In majoritarian electoral systems, winning candidates are those having attracted the most votes in a given electoral district.