Electoral system - Wikipedia
In particular, there is an inbuilt tension between electoral systems which maximize the potential for one-party government (e.g. plurality/majority systems) and those This has an important impact on relations between the president and the. ence Association, Washington, D. C, August , would like to thank Joel Ostrow, Frank 1 Arend Lijphart, Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of .. percent for the United States and 8 percent for Great Britain It is dif . of electoral systems on party systems and the implications for the role of elections in relationships, and features an overview of related International IDEA From Hungary and Poland to the United States, populists from the 'nationalist right'.
Note that he still received support from outside of Gjellerup and from ethnic Danes. Togeby then explores the interrelation of votes and parties. In Denmark, the Social Democrats engage the highest number of minority candidates.
Togeby argues that this is not only for electoral reasons, but also because Social Democrats represent the labour movement migrant workers inclusivethey operate more openly in urban areas, which have a higher proportion of migrants than rural areas where the Liberals more openly operateand Social Democratic candidates are more likely to be elected, providing incentive for ethnic minority candidates to be involved with the party and vice versa.
The best-represented minority group on local councils is the Turkish, who are also the largest immigrant group in Denmark. Other minority groups fare worse than the Turkish, but are still represented to a better extent than in many other democratic countries. Togeby argues that this is due to the nature of PR in relation to party politics and population distribution — for example, Iranian candidates more often run with smaller left-wing parties, and the Iranian population is more thinly dispersed - and their candidates are less frequently elected.
Briefly, a note on the electoral rule that allows foreign citizens to participate in local elections: Noteworthy, too, is that they are usually well educated and from a higher socio-economic bracket than statistically typical migrant worker ethnic groups.
Togeby reports this, and then explains how the Danish electoral system has still allowed for the political and social mobilisation of minority groups in Denmark: Moser examines the political representation of ethnic minorities in Russia, which is a post-communist democracy that, in the period between andemployed a mixed electoral system wherein citizens voted once for a party list under a PR system, and once for an individual candidate in an SMD system.
Moser argues that there is little evidence that PR systems are inherently better than SMD systems in regard to minority representation, and rather that the variety of demographic and political factors present in a nation-state are instrumental to the degree of political representation for minority groups. He points out that ethnic minority groups will be variously affected by changes between PR and SMD systems dependent on their own particular characteristics particularly cultural assimilation, population size and geographic concentration.
Moser begins this discussion by breaking Russian ethnic minorities into two primary groups: The first group is considered more assimilated into majority Russian culture, and the second less so. This generally means that federal minorities are more geographically concentrated, which, Moser argues, would give the impression that federal minorities would have the lead in terms of electoral representation, but this has not always been the case.
Further, the success of particular candidates can vary depending on their own success in politics, as well as their education, partisan affiliation and membership of other powerful organisations. One of the clearest distinctions between the two systems was that federal minorities had better representation under SMD than under PR, despite the fact that the overall number of representatives increased.
The change in voting rules at the election which altered the way that votes were distributed also allowed for better representation for ethnic groups that were geographically focused in their own federal areas, where support was more concentrated.
More clearly — while minorities technically gained better representation statistically under an SMD system, it is likely that the particular ethnic makeup of Russia contributed to this significantly namely, that it has numerous very small minorities as opposed to a few larger onesas did its ethnic federalization. In addition, some groups namely, more assimilated, geographically dispersed minorities had better representation over time under both systems.
The scholars in question here had varying views on this talking point, as well as on the link itself. Togeby presented his ideas on the assumption of a link, claiming that while minorities are often underrepresented in government, PR was inarguably the better system in this regard and that Denmark was an ideal case in favour of this fact. His analysis saw the main influences of the link on minority representation as list type, propensity for minorities to vote for their own candidate, party membership, and relative political mobility.
FPTP's tendency toward fewer parties and more frequent one-party rules can also produce government that may not consider as wide a range of perspectives and concerns.
It is entirely possible that a voter finds all major parties to have similar views on issues and that a voter does not have a meaningful way of expressing a dissenting opinion through his vote.
The Effect of Electoral System on Parties and Candidates —
As fewer choices are offered to voters, voters may vote for a candidate although they disagree with him, because they disagree even more with his opponents. Consequently, candidates will less closely reflect the viewpoints of those who vote for them. Furthermore, one-party rule is more likely to lead to radical changes in government policy even though the changes are favoured only by a plurality or a bare majority of the voters, whereas a multi-party system usually require greater consensus in order to make dramatic changes in policy.
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. June Learn how and when to remove this template message Wasted votes are votes cast for losing candidates or votes cast for winning candidates in excess of the number required for victory.
This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. Alternative electoral systems attempt to ensure that almost all votes are effective in influencing the result and the number of wasted votes is consequently minimised.
In gerrymanderingconstituencies are deliberately designed to unfairly increase the number of seats won by one party at the expense of another.
In brief, suppose that governing party G wishes to reduce the seats that will be won by opposition party O in the next election. It creates a number of constituencies in each of which O has an overwhelming majority of votes.
O will win these seats, but a large number of its voters will waste their votes. Then the rest of the constituencies are designed to have small majorities for G. Few G votes are wasted, and G will win a large number of seats by small margins. As a result of the gerrymander, O's seats have cost it more votes than G's seats. Manipulation charges[ edit ] The presence of spoilers often gives rise to suspicions that manipulation of the slate has taken place.
The spoiler may have received incentives to run. First preference votes are counted as whole numbers; the second preference votes divided by two, third preferences by three; this continues to the lowest possible ranking.
There are two main forms of majoritarian systems, one using a single round of ranked voting and the other using two or more rounds. Both are primarily used for single-member constituencies.
Majoritarian voting can take place in a single round using instant-runoff voting IRVwhereby voters rank candidates in order of preference; this system is used for parliamentary elections in Australia and Papua New Guinea. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote in the first round, the second preferences of the lowest-ranked candidate are then added to the totals.
If not all voters use all their preference votes, then the count may continue until two candidates remain, at which point the winner is the one with the most votes.
A modified form of IRV is the contingent vote where voters do not rank all candidates, but have a limited number of preference votes. If no candidate has a majority in the first round, all candidates are excluded except the top two, with the highest remaining preference votes from the votes for the excluded candidates then added to the totals to determine the winner. This system is used in Sri Lankan presidential elections, with voters allowed to give three preferences.
It is also used in 20 countries for electing the legislature. In most cases the second round is limited to the top two candidates from the first round, although in some elections more than two candidates may choose to contest the second round; in these cases the second round is decided by plurality voting. An exhaustive ballot is not limited to two rounds, but sees the last-placed candidate eliminated in the round of voting.
Due to the large potential number of rounds, this system is not used in any major popular elections, but is used to elect the Speakers of parliament in several countries and members of the Swiss Federal Council. In some formats there may be multiple rounds held without any candidates being removed until a candidate achieves a majority, a system used in the United States Electoral College.
Plurality voting - Wikipedia
Proportional systems[ edit ] Countries by type of proportional system Proportional representation is the most widely used electoral system for national legislatures, with the parliaments of over eighty countries elected by various forms of the system.
Party-list proportional representation is the single most common electoral system and is used by 80 countries, and involves voters voting for a list of candidates proposed by a party. In closed list systems voters do not have any influence over the candidates put forward by the party, but in open list systems voters are able to both vote for the party list and influence the order in which candidates will be assigned seats.
In some countries, notably Israel and the Netherlandselections are carried out using 'pure' proportional representation, with the votes tallied on a national level before assigning seats to parties.
However, in most cases several multi-member constituencies are used rather than a single nationwide constituency, giving an element of geographical representation. However, this can result in the distribution of seats not reflecting the national vote totals.
As a result, some countries have leveling seats to award to parties whose seat totals are lower than their proportion of the national vote. In addition to the electoral thresholdthe minimum percentage of the vote that a party must obtain to win seats, there are several different methods for calculating seat allocation in proportional systems, typically broken down into the two main types; highest average and largest remainder.
Under largest remainder systems, party's vote shares are divided by the quota obtained by dividing the number of votes by the number of seats available. This usually leaves some seats unallocated, which are awarded to parties based on the largest fractions of seats that they have remaining. Examples of largest remainder systems include the Hare quotaDroop quotathe Imperiali quota and the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota. Single transferable vote STV is another form of proportional representation, but is achieved by voters ranking candidates in a multi-member constituency by preference rather than voting for a party list; it is used in Malta and the Republic of Ireland.
To be elected, candidates must pass a quota the Droop quota being the most common. Candidates that pass the quota on the first count are elected. Votes are then reallocated from the least successful candidates until the number of candidates that have passed the quota is equal to the number of seats to be filled.
These include parallel voting and mixed-member proportional representation. In parallel voting systems, which are used in 20 countries,  there are two methods by which members of a legislature are elected; part of the membership is elected by a plurality or majority vote in single-member constituencies and the other part by proportional representation. The results of the constituency vote has no effect on the outcome of the proportional vote. Variations of this include the Additional Member System and Alternative Vote Plusin which voters rank candidates, and the other from multi-member constituencies elected on a proportional party list basis.
A form of mixed-member proportional representation, Scorporowas used in Italy from until Additional features[ edit ] Some electoral systems feature a majority bonus system to either ensure one party or coalition gains a majority in the legislature, or to give the party receiving the most votes a clear advantage in terms of the number of seats. In Greece the party receiving the most votes is given an additional 50 seats,  San Marino has a modified two-round system, which sees a second round of voting featuring the top two parties or coalitions if there is no majority in the first round.
The winner of the second round is guaranteed 35 seats in the seat Grand and General Council. Voters cast a single vote, voting for the presidential, Senatorial and Chamber of Deputies candidates of that party.Party Systems: Crash Course Government and Politics #41
This system was also previously used in Bolivia and the Dominican Republic. Primary elections[ edit ] Primary elections are a feature of some electoral systems, either as a formal part of the electoral system or informally by choice of individual political parties as a method of selecting candidates, as is the case in Italy.
Primary elections limit the risk of vote splitting by ensuring a single party candidate. In Argentina they are a formal part of the electoral system and take place two months before the main elections; any party receiving less than 1.
In the United States, there are both partisan and non-partisan primary elections. Indirect elections[ edit ] Some elections feature an indirect electoral system, whereby there is either no popular vote, or the popular vote is only one stage of the election; in these systems the final vote is usually taken by an electoral college.
In several countries, such as Mauritius or Trinidad and Tobagothe post of President is elected by the legislature.
In others like Indiathe vote is taken by an electoral college consisting of the national legislature and state legislatures.