Electoral Systems - Assignment PDF

Preview

Summary

Electoral Systems: Debates & Controversies INTRODUCTION: The Significance of Electoral Systems. Often electoral systems subsume the central concern of any democratic system of government. Elections, despite not being a sufficient condition for political representation in themselves, ...

Description

Electoral Systems: Debates & Controversies INTRODUCTION: The Significance of Electoral Systems. Often electoral systems subsume the central concern of any democratic system of government. Elections, despite not being a sufficient condition for political representation in themselves, are a defining feature of such systems. Not only do they confer authorisation on those chosen to represent, they also hold representatives accountable for their actions during incumbency. Electoral systems, the means to formally structure elections, are thus vital to the achievement of these goals. Electoral systems denote mechanisms that translate voter’s preferences into seats in representative institutions. Their impact on the political culture of any society is hence, of considerable importance. How they convert votes into seats is also a determinant of how people perceive their political systems and the degree of their support for the same. Often elections mark the only formal method for any political participation for many, which is why the continuing significance of electoral systems is hardly deniable.

Electoral System: Variants: There exists a unique set of rules that governs the conduct of elections per se, which demarcates the differences in electoral systems. Although several variants exist, the two broad categorisations are the majoritarian and proportional representation systems. In the former,

the winning candidates are those having attracted the most votes in a given region. However, there’s an element of disproportionality that governs the link between votes and the corresponding seats. For instance, in a Single-member Plurality system, with single-member constituencies, candidates with the maximum votes win an even greater percentage of seats. For this very reason, such systems are also called first past the post system. India, UK, Canada etc. follow this system. Proportional representation systems, like the name itself suggests, are designed to allocate seats in direct proportion to votes. Consider the single transferable vote system. Electoral districts are divided into multi-member constituencies while parties put forth their respective lists of electoral candidates. Electors vote preferentially and candidates are required to acquire a quota to win the election. The quota is calculated by the Droop formula i.e. Quota= total no. of votes cast/ (no. of seats to be filled+1) + 1 Initially the first preferences are counted. If not all seats are filled, the second preferences are taken into consideration after eliminating the bottom candidate. The process continues till all seats are filled. Unlike the former, this system ensures proportionality to its largest extent, even if it is as nominal as, say, 5%.

Refuting the existence of one “best” electoral system: The debates about electoral systems often revolve around the idea of what necessarily constitutes a “desirable” government. Diverse criteria exist that judge the credibility of such systems. While proponents of the microcosm model would consider legislatures as miniatures of the society they represent as desirable, for principal agent proponents effectiveness would reign supreme. Whether or not governments reflect the main trends of opinion of the electorate, foster respect for differences or even achieve fair representation of minorities, two general but fundamental criteria for measurement of

electoral systems have garnered a major consensus: quality of representation & the effectiveness of government. These provide an objective scale which facilitates comparison and evaluation of electoral systems. As far as quality of representation is concerned, majoritarian systems score a major low. Because they awfully distort electoral outcomes by favouring strong parties and under-representing weaker ones. Parties may not even have a legitimate majority, but their share of seats in the parliament would hardly reflect that. Consider the FPTP system again, for instance. Not only does it distort voter preferences it also wastes a vast amount of votes, something quite clearly absent from PR systems. Citizens can become disinterested in political involvement. Also, since only strong and geographically concentrated parties get to win, it suffers from duopolistic tendencies, thereby limiting voter choices. Minority representation is completely severed in such a system, which could also mean smaller parties taking extremist stands. Not only does it cause vote splitting, it also reduces voting to a mere act of tactics, whereby people often vote against the candidate they dislike least. Nevertheless, benefits abound as well. Since majoritarian systems are prone to producing single party governments, effectiveness becomes a consequent characteristic. Under the FPTP, for that matter, stability becomes the hallmark. It also allows the voters to assess the actual performances of individual candidates. Policy making becomes a conflict free process. This could also breed executive excess but its benefits cannot be negated entirely. The principal advantage of PR systems is their ability to accurately reflect voter’s choices in terms of seats in the parliament. The promise of their votes producing tangible results reinforces the sense of being citizens, thereby increasing voters’ willingness to vote. Besides, the inherent proportionality ensures that smaller parties get their rightful due, thus guaranteeing representation of a wider spectrum of people. In a single-transferable vote system, for ex, voters enjoy a lot of power in choosing who rules them. One unique quality of a single-

transferable vote system is its emphasis on candidates and not parties unlike the other variants of PR systems. Representatives then, could be more attentive to constituency needs. The choices available are in plenty too. Unlike FPTP, fewer votes get wasted. Moreover, in such a system, the most disliked can never win. Also, by facilitating minority parties’ access to representation, it fulfils the principle of inclusion which is crucial to democratic societies. For marginalised groups like that of women, for instance, it provides several opportunities for legislative representation. Therefore, political discourse and participation are enlivened. One indicator of this is the huge level of voter turnout in such systems. Nevertheless, the arguments against PR systems are equally weighty. Often the complexity of their balloting process and the way votes are tallied are largely questioned. In a single-transferable system itself, the process is not only complex but time consuming as well, which might make formation of governments a prolonged struggle. Multiplicity of choice could render electors confused. Furthermore, strong and stable single-party governments are highly unlikely. Coalitions are the natural products of such a system. In this sense, voters aren’t really electing a government since government formation is a post-electoral process, which is why, the electorate does not get a direct say regarding the complexion of the government. The problem with coalitions is their inherent instability. Often governance processes are reduced to mere reconciliation of differences within the coalition members themselves. The threat of collapse is always imminent. As far as effectiveness is concerned, such systems prove highly unsatisfactory. Italy, for example had no fewer than 59 governments since 1945 up to 2001. Advocates of PR systems, would argue how effectiveness shouldn’t be the sole determinant of a strong government. That strength of a government also emanates from popular legitimacy. No electoral system then proves to be adequate in itself which reinvigorates the fact that there really does not exist one best electoral system. Nevertheless, while they are a vital component of

democracies, providing people the most direct and tangible experience of what it means to be a democratic citizen, their importance cannot be overstated. Even the best of them would fail if other conditions aren’t met. Political cultures, nature of the party system etc. socio-economic contexts etc. are factors that matter too. Coalitions in Germany, for instance, have thrived unlike those in Italy. Several majoritarian systems, like UK, have also produces stable, consistent policies. Therefore, any concrete analysis of political processes would have to be cognizant of the overall picture than just focusing one single aspect.

Conclusion: Although, overstating the importance of electoral systems is prone to errors, their centrality to democracies cannot be entirely denied. Electoral systems do largely impact government formation, voting behaviour, party-system format, modify party competition and even impact party ideologies. They act as the major intermediary force between the citizens and governments....