The Impact of Electoral Design on the Legislature

The Impact of Electoral Design on the Legislature

The way that chief executives and legislators are elected in two-party and multiparty systems has an impact on various aspects of legislators’ primary roles and responsibilities. A major feature of political systems concerns the formula by which the seats are attributed to the winning legislative candidates (assuming the citizens can vote). Certain types of electoral systems may provide for greater stability and/or fewer opportunities for executive or government turnover when combined with other political factors. Changes in a system may reduce or increase political conflict. There are three broad categories of electoral design that are examined below (1) plurality-majority; (2) proportional representation; and (3) semi-proportional. Chart I provides a comparative analysis of the potential advantages of each type of system.

Electoral design influences legislative behavior by shaping circumstances under which a member wins election or re-election. Other important influences on those circumstances include: the perceived value of legislative seats, the degree of electoral competition, the system for nominating candidates, and the size of the district.

An additional variable to consider is constituency size. Constituency size varies considerably; from fairly discrete geographical units to whole countries (as in the Netherlands). Typically, the smaller the unit, the more homogeneous the interests and more likely it is that there is a single dominant interest or group. Conversely, greater size is associated with greater diversity and higher levels of electoral competition. Plurality-majority systems are often associated with smaller electoral districts, while proportional representation systems can range into the very large.

Plurality-Majority

Over half of the countries that conduct elections use this system. The most popular method that falls into this category is "First Past the Post" (FPTP), sometimes referred to as "winner-take-all." Elections are held in single-member districts (meaning there is one candidate running for one electoral seat for each party in a given geographic district). The candidate receiving the most votes wins the given legislative seat. Countries that use this system include the UK, Canada, US, Uganda and some Latin American countries. Another variant on the plurality-majority method (such as that used in France) is referred to as a "run-off election". This occurs when a candidate who does not receive an absolute majority in the electoral district is forced to compete again for votes against the other top candidate.

The main rational for this system is that it is less complicated and that it tends to produce elected representatives who are more closely linked to specific districts or regions. The representatives are therefore more likely to be oriented toward constituent service.

Proportional Representation (PR)

The most popular variant of this system is the "list" method, where parties devise a list of electoral candidates ranked in order. Elections are then held on either a national or regional basis with people voting directly for a party -- rather than a particular candidate (in some cases the party’s list of candidates is published in advance). The number of legislative seats per party are then determined according to the proportion of the vote won by each party. For example, a party winning 60 percent of the vote wins approximately 60 percent of the legislative seats; a party earning 30 percent of the vote, earns approximately 30 percent of the seats, and so on. There is typically a threshold of the vote (often around five percent) for a given party to obtain legislative seats. (The existence of a threshold may skew slightly the percentage of the vote vs. the percentage of seats obtained for each party.)

Most continental European countries use PR methods, as do many of the emerging democracies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The rational for this system is that it reduces the disparity between a party’s share of the national vote and number of seats in parliament. For example, in a plurality-majoritarian system, a party’s candidates could theoretically win 51 percent of the votes in each regional election, resulting in that party obtaining all of the legislative seats at the national level despite nearly half of the voters not supporting the winners. With a PR system, the winning party in this scenario would obtain close to 51 percent of the seats, while the other successful parties who met a given threshold would share the remaining percentage.

Semi-Proportional

Semi-proportional electoral systems combine aspects of both plurality-majority and PR systems. The most common method of this system is termed "parallel," because it uses both the first-past-the-post and list systems simultaneously to elect legislators. For example, in a bicameral legislature, members of one house may be chosen by plurality-majority methods while members of the other are selected based on proportional representation. Alternatively, a certain number of legislative members in a given chamber may be chosen one way, with a percentage chosen by the other. For example, in Russia’s 1993 parliamentary elections, half of the Duma's (lower house of parliament) 450 seats were single-seat constituencies elected on a first-past-the-post basis; the other 225 were filled by proportional representation, with parties and blocs receiving seats according to the proportion of votes they won nationally. In those constituencies, voters cast two votes: one for a local candidate and another vote for one of the 13 blocs or parties registered to run in the election. A party needed at least five percent of the vote to enter the Duma.

The rational behind a semi-proportional system reflects an attempt to combine the positive elements of both the purely proportional and majoritarian systems: to have member representatives at a regional level while at the same time allowing for some representation of minority groups that would likely be left out of power in a majoritarian system. Other countries using this system and its variations include Germany, New Zealand, Lithuania, Hungary, Mexico and Bolivia.

Chart 1: Electoral Systems in Comparison: Common Advantages of Each System

Plurality-Majoritarian (PM) Proportional Representation (PR) Semi-Proportional

A simple method that also links representatives with particular geographic areas.

Reduces the disparity between a party’s share of the national vote and number of seats in parliament.

Combines the positive elements of both the purely proportional and majoritarian systems

Tends to encourage the existence of two or three major parties with ideologies that lean left and right. It is argued that this creates a clearer choice for voters. (Whereas in a PR system, voters may be confused by a multitude of parties with narrow interests.) Facilitates the participation of many political parties, representing a broad spectrum of interests and a variety of views. The argument is that this allows for greater voter choice (than in the PM system). The PM elements allow for direct representation, while the PR elements allow for some minority representation, more voter choice and party accountability (as described below).

Because there are fewer and more distinctly different parties, this system discourages coalition governments, allowing for a stronger and more coherent parliamentary opposition. Some argue that such a system is more efficient than broad based coalitions in terms of decision making, both within the legislature and between the executive and the legislature. Because there are more participating parties than in the PM system, the likelihood of coalition governments is greater. This is considered a favorable development in some cases, because broad coalition governments must achieve consensus and therefore can foster stability in policy making. In theory, a this system should lead to a less fragmented party system than a pure system of proportional representation, but possibly a broader based government than in a PM system.

It benefits broadly-based political parties, who must try to attract a majority of votes in a given race by acting as umbrellas to different interests -- rather than encouraging smaller parties that might exacerbate ethnic, religious or regional differences. Facilitates minority party representation. (Cited as potentially important in divided societies, whereby certain ethnic, regional or religious interests would otherwise be completely locked out of the political process by a dominant party or parties.) Small minority parties who have been unsuccessful in the plurality-majority elections may still be rewarded for their votes received by winning seats in the proportional allocation. Further, in highly divided societies a semi-proportional system would likely lead to less polarisation than in a PR system.

It provides for a stronger link between legislators and their constituents, since legislators represent particular geographic areas rather than just parties. This is a way to hold the members more directly accountable to their constituents. If candidates are elected based on the appeal of a party platform, rather than the popularity of a given candidate, the entire party can be held accountable for adhering to the platform. The PM elements allow for direct representation, while the PR elements allow for some minority representation and party accountability.

It provides an opportunity for popular independent candidates to be elected, particularly important in developing countries where parties are weak and candidates may be selected based on kinship or patronage. Can encourage the election of women (and minorities). If a party puts a woman on the electoral list, she may get elected based on the party’s overall popularity. Women are less likely to get elected in some countries if they are directly facing a male candidate in election. PR lists also allow parties to establish gender quotas for nominations.

The system can allow for more women or minorities on the list portion of the system, while also allowing for independent candidates.

Further Reading

Katz, Richard S., Democracy and Elections, New York, Oxford University Press, 1997.
Cox, Gary W., Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Reynolds, Andrew, Electoral Systems and Democratization in Southern Africa, New York, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 1999.
Rule, Wilma & Joseph F. Zimmerman, Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1994.

Web Sites

www.aceproject.com -- Sponsored by the United Nations, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, this is a most comprehensive description of electoral systems and their impact on political systems. It also includes developing country case studies.
www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/vote.html -- provides a link to a number of sites related to voting systems.
www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.html – primarily advocates PR system for the U.S., but contains links to scholarly articles on electoral systems in different countries.

Consultants or Firms Specialised in this Field

International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). Website: www.ifes.com

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Website: www.idea.int

Plurality-Majoritarian (PM)	Proportional Representation (PR)	Semi-Proportional
A simple method that also links representatives with particular geographic areas.	Reduces the disparity between a party’s share of the national vote and number of seats in parliament.	Combines the positive elements of both the purely proportional and majoritarian systems
Tends to encourage the existence of two or three major parties with ideologies that lean left and right. It is argued that this creates a clearer choice for voters. (Whereas in a PR system, voters may be confused by a multitude of parties with narrow interests.)	Facilitates the participation of many political parties, representing a broad spectrum of interests and a variety of views. The argument is that this allows for greater voter choice (than in the PM system).	The PM elements allow for direct representation, while the PR elements allow for some minority representation, more voter choice and party accountability (as described below).
Because there are fewer and more distinctly different parties, this system discourages coalition governments, allowing for a stronger and more coherent parliamentary opposition. Some argue that such a system is more efficient than broad based coalitions in terms of decision making, both within the legislature and between the executive and the legislature.	Because there are more participating parties than in the PM system, the likelihood of coalition governments is greater. This is considered a favorable development in some cases, because broad coalition governments must achieve consensus and therefore can foster stability in policy making.	In theory, a this system should lead to a less fragmented party system than a pure system of proportional representation, but possibly a broader based government than in a PM system.
It benefits broadly-based political parties, who must try to attract a majority of votes in a given race by acting as umbrellas to different interests -- rather than encouraging smaller parties that might exacerbate ethnic, religious or regional differences.	Facilitates minority party representation. (Cited as potentially important in divided societies, whereby certain ethnic, regional or religious interests would otherwise be completely locked out of the political process by a dominant party or parties.)	Small minority parties who have been unsuccessful in the plurality-majority elections may still be rewarded for their votes received by winning seats in the proportional allocation. Further, in highly divided societies a semi-proportional system would likely lead to less polarisation than in a PR system.
It provides for a stronger link between legislators and their constituents, since legislators represent particular geographic areas rather than just parties. This is a way to hold the members more directly accountable to their constituents.	If candidates are elected based on the appeal of a party platform, rather than the popularity of a given candidate, the entire party can be held accountable for adhering to the platform.	The PM elements allow for direct representation, while the PR elements allow for some minority representation and party accountability.
It provides an opportunity for popular independent candidates to be elected, particularly important in developing countries where parties are weak and candidates may be selected based on kinship or patronage.	Can encourage the election of women (and minorities). If a party puts a woman on the electoral list, she may get elected based on the party’s overall popularity. Women are less likely to get elected in some countries if they are directly facing a male candidate in election. PR lists also allow parties to establish gender quotas for nominations.	The system can allow for more women or minorities on the list portion of the system, while also allowing for independent candidates.