Electoral SystemsElectoral Systems

Pippa Norris ~ Harvardwww.pippanorris.com

Policy OptionsPolicy OptionsMap of Map of

Program Options

Constitutions IDEA

Human rights, justice,

rule_lawAmnesty

Democratic governance

ElectionsACE/UNDP

Media freedom

governance UNDPIFES

Parlt, parties, Ci i i t

CPJ

Parlt, parties, womenQuotas ProjectPAR,

decentralization, anti-

corruptionTI

Civic society, soc cap

CIVICUS

TI

StructureStructure

I. Claims about electoral engineeringII The choice of electoral systemsII. The choice of electoral systemsIII. The effects of electoral systems IV C l i d i li ti IV. Conclusions and implications

www.pippanorris.com

Recap:Normative debatesRecap:Normative debatesAdversarial democracy

Based on majoritarian electionsElections should promote…

Consensus democracyBased on PR electionsElections should promote…

– ACCOUNTABILITY: decisive elections, transparency of decision-making

– EFFECTIVENESS: single-party executives responsible parties

– CONSENSUS: decision-making, bargaining and compromise

– PLURALISM: multiple parliamentary parties diversityexecutives, responsible parties,

unitary states– SCRUTINY: effective

opposition parties and vigorous parliamentary debate, andY t d f l ti

parliamentary parties, diversity in legislature

– DECENTRALIZATION: dispersed decision-making processes.Y t d f i ff ti– Yet dangers of elective

dictatorship, permanent majorities, lack of checks.

– Yet dangers of ineffective governance, extreme multiparty fragmentation, lack of accountability etc.

www.pippanorris.com

Discussion QuestionsDiscussion Questions

What are the pros and cons of alternative electoral systems?yWhat would you recommend if asked to advise about designing the electoral system in either (a) about designing the electoral system in either (a) Afghanistan (b) Iraq (c ) Ukraine (d) Brazil or (e) Indonesia? And why?Indonesia? And why?

www.pippanorris.com

ResourcesResources1 Required readings 1. Required readings

• Norris Driving democracy Ch 5• Haerpfer Democratization Ch 15

2 O li 2. Online resources• IFES

– www.ifes.org/eguide/elecguide.htm• ACE

– http://www.aceproject.org/ • International IDEA

– www.EPICproject.int

www.pippanorris.com

Electoral & party aidElectoral & party aid

1990s rapid growth in international aid by USAID, NED, IDEA, IFES, OAS, OSCE:

1. Design of constitutions and electoral law 2. Electoral administration and procedures3. Voter education4. Election observing5. Election dispute mediation6. Party building

www.pippanorris.com

Agenda‐setting stageAgenda‐setting stage Policy‐making stagePolicy‐making stage Implementation stageImplementation stage

Figure 1: The policy‐cycle model of the origins, maintenance and reform of electoral institutions 

Public policy agenda

Public’s agenda

Referendum process

Regulatory framework

Election

Media agenda

P

Courts and judiciary

Public policy agendaLegislature and executive

Constitutional,legal & 

administrative rules governing 

electoral institution

ElectionManagementBodies

Election outcome

Party agenda

NGO

International diffusion

Feedback loopFeedback loop

NGO agenda

Environmental contextHistorical traditions Regime type

Economic development

p

www.pippanorris.com

II: Types of electoral systemsII: Types of electoral systems

The most basic features involve:1.The electoral formula

– how votes are counted to allocate seats,

2. The district magnitudethe number of seats per district– the number of seats per district,

3. The ballot structure– how voters can express their choices, and

The electoral threshold– the minimum votes needed by a party to secure

representation

www.pippanorris.com

representation.

Classification of systemsClassification of systemsNation StatesNation States

191

Majoritarian93

Combined27

PR64

No direct elections7

Majority27

Plurality66

Independent14

Dependent13

STV2

Party List62

AV2

2nd Ballot25

FPTP54

Bloc Vote10

STNV2

Closed Open

www.pippanorris.comAdversarial Consensual

Nation  Type of electoral system, 1993 Type of electoral system, 2004 Freedom House, 1993 Freedom House, 2004

Table 3: Electoral system change, 1993‐2004Note: N. 46 out of 191 independent nation states worldwide (24.1%). Sources: see text.

Bolivia List PR Combined dependent Free Partly free

Ecuador Combined independent List PR Free Partly free

Italy List PR Combined dependent Free Free

Japan SNTV Combined independent Free Free

Marshall Islands FPTP Combined independent Free Free

Monaco Two round Combined independent Free Free

Mongolia FPTP Two‐round Free Free

New Zealand FPTP Combined dependent Free Free

Papua New Guinea FPTP AV Free Partly free

l l kTuvalu FPTP Block vote Free Free

Albania Combined independent Combined dependent Partly free Partly free

Croatia Combined independent List PR Partly free Free

Fiji FPTP AV Partly free Partly free

Guatemala Combined independent List PR Partly free Partly free

Jordan Block vote SNTV Partly free Partly free

Kazakhstan FPTP Combined independent Partly free Not free

Lesotho FPTP Combined dependent Partly free Free

Liberia List PR No elected legislature Partly free Partly free

Macedonia Two round List PR Partly free Partly freeMacedonia Two round List PR Partly free Partly free

Madagascar List PR Combined independent Partly free Partly free

Mexico Combined independent Combined dependent Partly free Free

Moldova, Republic Of Two round List PR Partly free Partly free

Morocco FPTP List PR Partly free Partly free

www.pippanorris.com

Pakistan FPTP Combined independent Partly free Not free

Panama List PR Combined independent Partly free Free

Philippines Block vote Combined independent Partly free Free

Russian Federation Two round Combined independent Partly free Not free

South Africa FPTP List PR Partly free Free

Table 2: Net change matrix in the distribution of electoral systems, 1993 and 2004 

      Type of electoral system 2004 

Total 1993 

     

FPTP Block vote  AV  SNTV 

Two‐round 

Combined independe

nt 

Combined 

dependent 

List PR  STV 

No elected legislatur

e FPTP  36  3  2 1 3 3  2 4 1 55 

65.5% 

5.5%  3.6% 1.8% 5.5% 5.5%  3.6% 7.3% 1.8% 100.0% 

Block vote     6  0 1 2  9 

   66.7% 

.0% 11.1% 

22.2%  100.0% 

AV 2 2

em 1993 

AV        2    2 

      100.0% 

   100.0% 

SNTV        1 1  2 

      50.0% 

50.0%  100.0% 

Two round        18 5  3 26 

Type of electoral syste

      69.2% 

19.2%  11.5% 

100.0% 

Combined independent 

      16  2 3 22 

      72.7%  9.1% 13.6% 

100.0% 

Combined d d

         2 2 

Ty dependent           100.0% 100.0% 

List PR        2  3 55 3 63 

      3.2%  4.8% 87.3% 

4.8% 100.0% 

STV           2 2 

100 0 100 0         100.0% 

100.0% 

No elected legislature 

1        7 8 

12.5% 

      87.5% 100.0% 

Total 2004  37  9  4 3 21 29  9 65 2 12 191 

19.4 4.7% 2.1% 1.6% 11.0 15.2% 4.7% 34.0 1.0% 6.3% 100.0

www.pippanorris.com

19.4% 

4.7%  2.1% 1.6% 11.0% 

15.2%  4.7% 34.0% 

1.0% 6.3% 100.0% 

Notes: The table lists the number (and row% ) of independent nation states worldwide using each type of electoral system for the lower house of the national parliament in 1993 and 2004. The highlighted diagonal shows those countries which have not changed their electoral system during these years. FPTP First Past the Post; 2nd Ballot; Block Vote; AV Alternative Vote; SNTV Single Non‐Transferable Vote; STV Single Transferable Vote. For the typology, see Figure 2.  

Figure 5.3: Trends in types of electoral g ypsystems used worldwide, 1973-2003

100

120

60

80

20

40

0

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

www.pippanorris.com

Majoritarian Combined Proportional No competative elections

Source: Coded from Arthur S. Banks Cross-national Time-series Data Archive, Andrew Reynolds and Ben Reilly. Eds. 2005. The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design. 2nd ed. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and related sources

1 Plurality1. Plurality

Single member plurality elections (First-Past-The-Post)Used in 54 countries Eg US, UK, India, Canadag , , ,Single seat districts, equal size, ‘X’ voteSimple plurality of votes determines winnerp p yCreate ‘manufactured majority’ in votes:seats ratioGeographical dispersion of support is critical Geographical dispersion of support is critical High threshold for non-spatially concentrated minor parties and ethnic groups

www.pippanorris.com

pa t es a d et c g oups

FPTP Ballot Eg UKFPTP Ballot Eg UK%%

30 Advantages and disadvantages?

X 20

g

15

35Elected w.

www.pippanorris.com

w. plurality

2005 UK election result2005 UK election resultJune 2005 % of Votes % of seats Ratio Number of

seatsLabour 35.2 54.9 1.56 355

Conservative 32.3 30.4 0.94 197

Lib Dem 22.0 9.5 0.43 62

SNP 1.5 0.9 0.60 6

PC 0 6 0 5 0 83 3PC 0.6 0.5 0.83 3

Other 8.4 3.4 0.40 23

Labour Maj. 2.9 24.5 66

www.pippanorris.com

Total 100 100 659

Source: Pippa Norris & Chris Wlezien Ed. Britain Votes 2005 (OUP 2005)

Simulated seats GB June 2005Simulated seats GB June 2005355400

239300

350 LabConLd239

197 207

140150

200

250 LdemUKIPNat

62

119 1850

100

150 GreenBNPOther

0 119 180 50 44 30

50

Actual results FPTP List PR

www.pippanorris.comSource: Dunleavy and Margetts in Pippa Norris (Ed) Britain Votes 2005 OUP

Majoritarian VariantsMajoritarian Variants

Single Non-Transferable Vote– Japan 1948-1993, Jordan, Vanuatu, Afghanistan

S ll lti b di t i t– Small multimember districts– Multiple candidates from same party– Single vote cast & plurality vote requiredSingle vote cast & plurality vote required– Advantages and disadvantages?

Cumulative vote – Dual member seats eg Illinois until 1980

Limited vote eg Spanish senate

www.pippanorris.com

2 Second ballot majority2. Second ballot majority

Eg Presidential elections France, Russia, DRCUsed in 14/25 presidential contests + some

li t l ti parliamentary elections Majority required (50%+) 1st round – winnerO ‘ ff’ 2nd d t t did tOr ‘run off’ 2nd round w. top two candidatesAims to produce party coalitions on left and right and popular legitimacy of the winnerpopular legitimacy of the winner‘Heart’ and ‘head’ votingAdvantages and disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

Advantages and disadvantages?

3 Alternative Vote (AV)3. Alternative Vote (AV)

Eg Australian House of RepresentativesSingle member districtsSingle member districtsPriority ranked voting (1st,2nd,3rd,etc.)M j it i d (50% ) 1st dMajority required (50%+) 1st roundOr 2nd round bottom votes 2nd preferences redistributed etc. and results recalculated until majority achieved

www.pippanorris.com

Eg AV AustraliaEg AV Australia

Vote ticket or…

V t 1 tVote 1 to 10 among candidates

www.pippanorris.com

Advantages and disadvantages?

4 Single Transferable Vote4. Single Transferable Vote

Used in Ireland, Australian Senate, MaltaMultimember constituencies (4/5 members)Multimember constituencies (4/5 members)Priority voting (1,2,3,..)Q t f l ti Quota for election eg100,000 voters/4 seats=25000+1Redistribution in successive counts from candidate with least votes

www.pippanorris.com

5 PR Party Lists5. PR – Party Lists

National or regional districtClosed or open listClosed or open listUsed 62/191 nations eg Israel, NetherlandsO t f t (X)One vote for party (X)Minimum threshold of votes

www.pippanorris.com

Eg Party List S AfricaEg Party List S.Africa

Advantages and disadvantages?disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

PR List formulaPR List formula

Votes proportional to seats allocated by different formula

Hi h t – Highest averages• Total votes per party divided by divisors, seats allocated to highest

quotient up to total seats availableD’H dt f l di i i 1 2 3 t P l d S i (l t )– D’Hondt formula divisions 1,2,3 etc eg Poland, Spain (least prop.)

– Pure Saint-Laguë divisor 1,3,5,7 etc eg New Zealand– Modified Saint-Laguë 1.4, 3,5,7 etc eg Norway (most proportional)

Largest remainder– Largest remainder• Minimum quota (total votes/total seats)

– Hare quota total votes/total seats eg Benin, Costa RicaD t i di i b 1 S Af i C h R

www.pippanorris.com

– Droop quota raises divisor by 1 eg S.Africa, Czech Rep.

Eg D’Hondt formulagHighest averages

PartySeats

Blues6

Whites3

Reds2

Green1

Yellow0

Pinks0

1 57000* 26000* 25950* 12000* 6100 30502 28500* 13000* 12975* 60002 28500 13000 12975 60003 19000* 8667* 86504 14250* 65005 11400*

www.pippanorris.com6 9500*

Eg Largest remainders HareEg Largest remainders HareQuota=(130,010 total votes/12 seats=10,384)

Votes Quota Dividend SeatsBlues 57000 10834 5260 5Blues 57000 10834 5260 5Whites 26000 10834 2400 3R d 25590 10834 2395 2Reds 25590 10834 2395 2Greens 12000 10834 1110 1Yellows 6010 10834 550 1Pinks 3050 10834 280 0

www.pippanorris.com

Pinks 3050 10834 280 0

6 Combined systems6. Combined systems

Aka ‘Mixed’, ‘hybrid’, ‘side-by-side’‘Combined-independent’– eg Taiwan and Ukraine– Ukraine half FPTP, half nation-wide lists, 4% thresholds

‘Combined dependent’Combined-dependent– eg Germany, New Zealand, – Germany half seats by party list, half by FPTP.y y p y , y– Seats allocated by FPTP– Total seats proportional to 2nd party vote

www.pippanorris.com

Eg Combined system GermanyEg Combined system Germany

X

xAdvantages and disadvantages?x disadvantages?

www.pippanorris.com

III Effects of electoral systemsIII. Effects of electoral systems

1. On democracy2 Proportionality of votes to seats (fair outcomes)2. Proportionality of votes to seats (fair outcomes)3. Party competition4 El t l t t4. Electoral turnout5. Parliamentary representation

– Women & ethno-political minorities6. Strength of cleavage politics

www.pippanorris.com

g g p7. Constituency service

On democracy

Figure 5.4: Levels of democracy by type of electoral system, 2000

On democracy

65 67

7771

78

70

80

90

h

58

49

65

57

4250

60

70

ocra

cy >

> Hi

gh

35

25

32

20

30

40

Low <

< De

mo

0

10

20

FH Polity Vanhanen Cheibub

www.pippanorris.com

FH Polity Vanhanen Cheibub

Majoritarian Combined PR

In plural societiesIn plural societies90

69

59

7075

5964

7983

74

81

70

80

90

Hig

h

59

5046

59

40

50

60

moc

racy

>>

H

20

30

40

Low

<<

Dem

0

10

FH Polity FH Polity

www.pippanorris.com

y y

Homogeneous Heterogeneous

Majoritarian Combined PR

Table 5.2: Electoral systems and democracy, y y,all societies worldwide

Liberal democracy Constitutional democracy Participatory democracyy y p y y

Freedom House Polity IV Vanhanen

b (pcse) p b (pcse) p b (pcse) pINSTITUTIONAL RULES

Majoritarian -2.33 (.454) *** -7.64 (.949) *** -3.18 (.533) ***

Proportional representation .904 (.619) N/s 3.85 (.561) *** 1.95 (.344) ***

Positive action strategies 4.13 (.466) *** 11.41 (.777) *** 5.76 (.284) ***Positive action strategies 4.13 (.466) 11.41 (.777) 5.76 (.284)

CONTROLS

Log GDP/Capita 13.90 (.832) *** 11.91 (1.01) *** 14.05 (.663) ***Ex-British colony 12.35 (.962) *** 12.36 (1.36) *** 2.05 (.803) **

-10.99 (1.16) *** -16.79 (1.40) *** -5.87 (.809) ***

Regional diffusion .632 (.036) *** .883 (.049) *** .481 (.029) ***Ethnic fractionalization -8.45 (.878) *** -1.98 (1.56) N/s -10.05 (.694) ***

Population size .001 (.001) N/s .000 (.001) *** .001 (.001) ***Area size .001 (.001) *** .001 (.001) *** .001 (.001) ***

www.pippanorris.com

Constant -21.96 -38.45 -46.6

N. observations 4768 3946 4128N. of countries 174 145 167Adjusted R2 .487 .533 .624

2 Impact on proportionality2. Impact on proportionalityProportionality of votes to seatsProportionality of votes to seats

Winning partyPerfect proportionality

Seat20%

2nd party, 3rd etc

Perfect proportionality

Seat share

V t h20%

www.pippanorris.com

Vote share

ProportionalityProportionalityStandardized Loosemore-Hanby Index

Proportionalityp y

8083

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

MAJORITARIAN UK

Canada 8384

94

84868686

CanadaAustralia

USACOMBINED

Korea, Republic ofJapan

UkraineHungary

8889

9294

9596

g yThailand

RussiaMexico

GermanyTaiwan

New ZealandPROPORTIONAL

8282

8489

9393

95

PolandRomaniaSlovenia

Czech RepublicSpain

SwitzerlandNetherlands

www.pippanorris.com

959696

9798

NorwayBelgium

IsraelSweden

DenmarkPeru

Proportionality influenced by:Proportionality influenced by:

1. Number of parties in the electorate2 Geographical distribution of the vote2. Geographical distribution of the vote3. District magnitude4 L l t th h ld4. Legal vote thresholds5. The type of electoral formulae eg d’Hondt etc

www.pippanorris.com

3. Impact on parties:p pDuverger’s laws

(1) “The plurality single-ballot rule tends to party dualism.” p y

(2)“The double-ballot system and proportional representation tend toproportional representation tend to multipartyism.”

Maurice Duverger. 1954. Political Parties, Their Organization and Activity in the

Modern State. New York: Wiley.

www.pippanorris.com

Effect on partiesEffect on partiesMean N of parl parties (1 seat)

Mean N of relevant parl parties (3%+

% Vote for party 1st

% Seats for party 1st

Number of countriesparties (1 seat) parl parties (3%+

seats)party 1st party 1st countries

All Majoritarian 5.22 3.33 54.5 56.8 83

Alternative Vote 9.00 3.00 40.3 45.3 1

Block vote 5.60 4.57 52.9 56.2 10

2nd Ballot 6.00 3.20 54.8 57.8 23

FPTP 4.78 3.09 55.1 57.8 49

All C bi d 8 85 4 52 46 8 49 5 26All Combined 8.85 4.52 46.8 49.5 26

Independent 8.89 3.94 51.7 53.9 19

Dependent 8.71 6.17 33.9 36.9 7

ALL Proportional 9.52 4.74 45.3 43.8 61

STV 5.00 2.50 45.3 50.1 2

Party List 9.68 4.82 44.5 43.6 59

www.pippanorris.com

TOTAL 7.05 4.12 48.7 50.0 143

Ref: Pippa Norris ‘Institutions Matter’ CUP 2003

ENPP by Electoral SystemENPP by Electoral SystemEffective Number of Parliamentary Parties

2.02.1

2 6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MAJORITARIAN USA

UKA t li 2.6

3.0

2.42.5

2.92.9

AustraliaCanada

COMBINEDKorea, Republic of

TaiwanMexico

Thailand2.9

3.33.5

3.85.4

6.0

JapanGermanyHungary

New ZealandRussia

UkrainePROPORTIONAL

2.73.0

3.44.2

4.34.4

4 8

PROPORTIONALSpain

PolandRomania

Czech RepublicSwedenNorway

Netherlands

Ref: Pippa Norris ‘Institutions Matter’ CUP

www.pippanorris.com

4.84.9

5.15.55.6

9.1

NetherlandsDenmark

SwitzerlandSlovenia

IsraelBelgium

2003

4 Effect on Turnout4. Effect on TurnoutRef: Pippa Norris 2002. Democratic Phoenix Ch 4.

Type of Electoral System Mean Vote/VAP 1990

N.1990s

MAJORITARIAN

Alternative Vote 65.5 2

2nd Ballot 58.5 21

Fi t P t Th P t 61 2 43First-Past-The-Post 61.2 43

Single Non-Transferable Vote 52.6 2

Block Vote 56.5 9

All majoritarian 60.4 77j

COMBINED

Combined-Dependent 66.6 7

Combined-Independent 63.5 19

All combined 64.0 26

PROPORTIONAL

List PR 70.0 59

Single Transferable Vote 83 4 2

www.pippanorris.com

Single Transferable Vote 83.4 2

All PR Systems 70.0 68

All 65.0 164

Effect on TurnoutEffect on TurnoutRef: Pippa Norris 2002. Democratic Phoenix Ch 4.

Type of Electoral System Mean Vote/VAP 1990

N.1990s

MAJORITARIAN

Alternative Vote 65.5 2

2nd Ballot 58.5 21

Fi t P t Th P t 61 2 43First-Past-The-Post 61.2 43

Single Non-Transferable Vote 52.6 2

Block Vote 56.5 9

All majoritarian 60.4 77j

COMBINED

Combined-Dependent 66.6 7

Combined-Independent 63.5 19

All combined 64.0 26

PROPORTIONAL

List PR 70.0 59

Single Transferable Vote 83 4 2

www.pippanorris.com

Single Transferable Vote 83.4 2

All PR Systems 70.0 68

All 65.0 164

Impact of compulsory votingImpact of compulsory votingVote/VAP Vote/Reg N. of Nationsg

Older democracies Compulsory 79.4 86.9 7Non-Compulsory 71.7 72.7 32Difference +7.7 +14.2 39

Newer democracies Compulsory 67.7 75.8 9Non-Compulsory 69.3 73.9 31Difference -1.6 +1.9 40

Semi-democracies Compulsory 53.9 60.6 5Non-Compulsory 56.6 67.0 40Difference -2.7 -6.4 45

Non-democracies Compulsory 40.9 70.6 2Non-Compulsory 61.8 67.8 38Difference -20.9 +2.8 40

All Compulsory 65 9 75 4 23

www.pippanorris.com

All Compulsory 65.9 75.4 23Non-Compulsory 64.2 70.0 140Difference +1.9 +5.4 163

5 Impact on women5. Impact on women

“As a simple rule, women proved twice as likely to be elected under PR than majoritarian electoral systemselectoral systems.

Women were 10.8 percent of MPs in majoritarian systems, 15.1 percent in mixedmajoritarian systems, 15.1 percent in mixed or semi-proportional systems, and 19.8 percent of members in PR systems.”

P.Norris in R.Rose Encyclopedia of Elections (CQ 2001)

www.pippanorris.com

(CQ 2001)

South KoreaPakistan

MaliNepal

UkraineMalawi

ThailandFranceZambia

IndiaChile

PhilippinesAustralia

UKBangladesh

USA

FPTP

USACanadaTaiwanJapan

EcuadorVenezuela

HungaryIrelandRussiaMexico

Italy MixedItalyBolivia

New ZealandGermany

TurkeyMadagasgar

GreeceBrazil

Czech RepUraguayPortugal

TRY

PortugalIsrael

ColombiaBelgiumPoland

BulgariaCosta Rica

SpainSwitzerland

ArgentinaAustria

PR

CO

UN

T AustriaNetherlandsSouth Africa

MozambiqueFinland

DenmarkNorwaySweden

50403020100

www.pippanorris.com%Women MPs mid 1990s

50403020100

ConclusionsConclusions

Therefore no single ‘best’ system Depends upon priorities –choice of governability Depends upon priorities choice of governability v. diversityCritical for many other democratic institutionsCritical for many other democratic institutionsWhat are the consequences of electoral

t ?systems?

www.pippanorris.com