Elections & Electoral Systems

Electoral System Components

Electoral formula, ballot structure, and district magnitude.

Three Main Families of Electoral Systems

Majoritarian, proportional, and mixed systems.

Electoral Integrity (Pre-Campaign)

Concerns electoral laws, procedures, district boundaries, voter registration, and party registration.

Electoral Integrity (Campaign Period)

Media coverage and campaign finance regulations.

Electoral Integrity (Election Day)

Voting process and quality of election administration.

Electoral Integrity (Post-Election)

Counting process, reactions to results, and performance of electoral authorities.

Determinants of Electoral Integrity

Domestic capacity (economic development, resources, conflict legacies, geography), international observers, and election forensics such as Benford’s Law.

Single-Member District Plurality System (SMDP)

Candidate with the most votes wins.

SMDP Strengths

Simple system; promotes accountability by reducing principal–agent problems.

SMDP Weaknesses

Unrepresentative outcomes, harms small parties and dispersed minorities, encourages strategic voting, drives two-party competition toward the center.

Single Nontransferable Vote (SNTV)

Voters cast one vote for a single candidate and the top vote-getters win seats.

SNTV Strengths

More representative; allows small parties or independents to win seats.

SNTV Weaknesses

Candidates can win with minimal votes; encourages narrow campaigning; easy to calculate minimum votes needed.

Alternative Vote (AV)

Requires a majority; voters rank candidates (ranked-choice voting).

AV Strengths

Reveals detailed voter preferences; incentivizes cross-group appeals; may reduce polarization.

AV Weaknesses

Complex for voters; parties often provide voting instructions; used in Australia.

Two-Round System (TRS)

Initial election narrows field; top candidates face off in a second round.

TRS Features

Creates agenda-setting dynamics; can consolidate majorities (e.g., France, US historical South).

List Proportional Representation (List PR)

Seats allocated using quotas or divisors based on party vote shares (e.g., Germany).

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Uses a quota; voters rank individuals rather than parties; candidates elected by meeting the quota and transferring surplus votes.

STV Weaknesses

Highly complex; fosters intra-party competition; difficult with large district magnitudes; used in Ireland.

Independent Mixed Electoral Systems

Majoritarian and proportional components operate separately and do not affect each other.

Dependent Mixed Electoral Systems

One tier depends on the other in allocating seats; often more proportional overall.

Dependent Mixed Strengths

More representative outcomes.

Dependent Mixed Weaknesses

Complex; candidates may run in multiple tiers; some parties win more constituency seats than proportional share; used in New Zealand.

Choosing Electoral Systems (Functionalist Approach)

Assumption: systems are set up with the intent of creating stability

Choosing Electoral Systems (Structuralist Approach)

No an intentional creation, pre-existing causal/structural factors and using that to explain what comes about

Boix’s Theory (1999)

Incumbents design or modify systems that protect their power; may adjust rules to manage new challengers; two-party systems perpetuate themselves.

Functionalist Trade-Offs: Comprehensiveness vs. Simplicity

More comprehensive systems (e.g., ranked-choice) capture more voter information but are harder for citizens to understand.

Functionalist Trade-Off: Reflect Diversity vs. Encourage Majority Government

Systems that reflect diversity increase representation but risk fragmented, unstable coalitions.

Functionalist Trade-Off: Low Barrier to Entry vs. Better Vetting

Low barriers improve representation but risk corruption; vetting via parties acts as an ex-ante filtration mechanism.

Choosing Electoral Systems in Dictatorships

Electoral rules serve to legitimize the regime, manage constituencies, and protect elite power.

elections in dictatorships

Elections collect information while preserving control; system type reflects regime interests.

Lust-Okar & Jamal (2002) Framework

Regime type shapes electoral system choice:

iliberalizing a one party regime, its likely to become a majoritarian system,

monarchies are likely to become PR bc lot of in-fighting and they regulate it

Liberalizing One-Party States

Prefer majoritarian systems to maintain maximum control and agenda-setting advantages.

Liberalizing Monarchies

Prefer proportional systems to balance diverse constituencies and provide multiple groups with partial inclusion.

Constituencies (Dictatorships)

Groups whose support determines regime survival (interest groups, voters, winning coalition).

Electoral Systems & Median Voter in Dictatorships

System choice affects who gets elected and which groups matter politically.

Majoritarian Systems

most votes wins

ex: single-member district plurality (SMDP), single nontransferable vote (SNTV), alternative vote (AV), majority-runoff two-round system (TRS)

proportional systems

party recieves seats in proportion to number of votes recieved

ex: list PR systems, single transferable vote (STV)

mixed systems

mix of majoritarian + proportional systems operating independently or dependently

ex: independent mixed electoral system, dependent mixed electoral systems