Chapter 11: Elections and Electoral Systems

William Roberts Clark, Matt Golder, Sona Nadenichek Golder

Elections are important events in both democracies and dictatorships, often used to fill political offices.
The integrity of these elections is crucial as flawed elections lead to negative consequences, including social instability and undermining democratic consolidation.

Role of Nonpartisan International Organizations:
- Many countries deploy international election observer missions to ensure electoral integrity (Hyde, 2011).
- Examples of organizations include:
- Carter Center
- Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
- African Union (AU)
- Organization of American States (OAS)
- European Union (EU)
- Use of these observers is increasingly common, with very few elections occurring without their presence.
Effectiveness Debates:
- Some studies suggest that irregularities decrease in polling stations with observers (Hyde 2007a, b).
- Other studies argue monitoring may displace fraud to unchecked areas (Ichino and Schiundeln, 2012).
- Example of conflicting reports:
- OSCE cited significant irregularities in Azerbaijan's 2013 presidential election.
- A US delegation, however, deemed the elections free and fair (Norris, 2014).
Incentives and consequences:
- Observer groups may understate fraud to ensure future assignments or to prevent violence.

Power-sharing institutions may increase electoral integrity as they create checks and balances, limit power abuse, and encourage participation from minority groups (Lijphart, 2004; Norris, 2015).
Critics claim power-sharing makes accountability difficult and maintains social divisions.

Definition: Institutions responsible for administering elections.
Independence and functional capacity (expertise, budget) are crucial for high-quality elections.
Often, those with a vested interest in strengthening these bodies (minorities and opposition) lack the power to do so (incumbent majority).

Variability in Electoral Rules:
- Some systems allow voting for candidates; others only for parties.
- Voting may include one vote or multiple votes; some systems involve multiple rounds of elections.
Political scientists categorize electoral systems into two main types: majoritarian and proportional.

Defined as systems where the highest vote recipients win (i.e., most votes lead to winning).
The label 'majoritarian' is misleading as not all require an absolute majority to win.

Definition: Voters cast one candidate-focused vote in single-member districts (often termed 'first-past-the-post').
Example: 2015 UK election in Bath constituency:
- Ben Howlett (Conservative) received 17,833 votes (37.8%). Other candidates received fewer, with significant portion of voters (62.2%) preferring others.
Strengths:
- Simplicity, accountability, and improved constituency service.
Weaknesses:
- May produce unrepresentative outcomes and encourage strategic voting, where voters choose candidates likely to win over their preferred candidate.

Similar to SMDP but operates in multi-member districts.
Voting Process: Voters choose one candidate; top candidates win based on total votes.
Advantages: Better representation for smaller parties.
Criticism: Weakens political parties leading to intraparty competition, confusion, and clientelism.

Description: Candidates must achieve an absolute majority of votes, ranking preferences for candidates.
- Example: 1990 elections in Richmond, Australia.
- Successful candidate must maintain majority across reallocations of eliminated candidates' votes.
Strengths:
- Avoids wasted votes, encourages broader constituency appeal, direct accountability in districts.
Weaknesses:
- Complexity in the voting process and potential for confusion.

Candidates achieve an absolute majority in the first round or move to a second round if no majority is achieved.
Usage: Common in presidential elections worldwide, with evidence of increased participation.
Strengths:
- Offers voters second chances to elect their preferred candidates, less strategic voting.
Weaknesses:
- Costly to administer, potential drops in voter turnout between rounds, and possible disproportional outcomes.

Definition: Aims to reduce disparities between a party's vote share and its seat share.

Offers more accurate translations of votes to seats.
Encourages representation of minorities and reduces strategic voting incentives.
Seen as stabilizers in ethnically diverse societies (Lijphart, 1991).

May produce weaker accountability as it’s hard to track responsibility.
Risks giving undeserved power to extremist parties and may lead to unstable coalition governments.

Closed List: Voters choose parties with predetermined candidate lists.
Open List: Voters can select candidates within party lists.
- Increases internal competition and personal voting.
Free List: Voters can distribute multiple votes among candidates across parties, enhancing representation for minorities.

Combination of majoritarian and proportional systems, often involving multiple electoral tiers.
Examples include Ukraine and New Zealand.
Creates challenges such as dual accountability and complexity in representation.

Variability in the use of electoral systems across the globe (majoritarian, proportional, mixed).
- For instance, democracies use various systems while dictatorships primarily favor majoritarian.

Reflection on Electoral Systems: No single electoral system is perfect; each has strengths and weaknesses. Reform discussions must consider political feasibility and interests of various actors.

Electoral System: Regulates electoral competition between candidates/parties.
Electoral Formula: Determines how votes translate into seats.
Electoral Integrity: Conformance to international standards and norms.
District Magnitude: Number of representatives elected per district.
Electoral Threshold: Minimum support required for representation.
Closed/Open/Free Lists: Types of party candidate lists that dictate voter choices.
Mixed Electoral Systems: Combine majoritarian and proportional strategies for legislative elections.