Study Notes on Elections and Electoral Systems

Judicial Intervention in Electoral Systems

  • In various democracies, disputes regarding election rules may ultimately be resolved in the courts, particularly by constitutional or supreme courts which interpret electoral law against constitutional principles.

  • Example of Judicial Intervention:

    • The election law enacted for the first parliamentary election in newly unified Germany in 1990 was declared unconstitutional by the German Constitutional Court. This declaration necessitated a rewrite of the law to address the court's concerns, specifically regarding the proportionality and equal weight of votes.

    • Additional rulings by the German Constitutional Court invalidated parliamentary attempts to amend certain electoral system provisions in 2008 and 2012, demonstrating the court's active role in upholding constitutional electoral principles.

  • Compared to the United States, such judicial interventions are relatively infrequent in other nations, often due to differing legal traditions, the role of their constitutional courts, and the specifics of their electoral legislative processes. While courts in other countries may rule on election disputes, overturning entire electoral laws is less common.

Characteristics of the American Electoral System

  • The American electoral system features a highly decentralized approach to elections, meaning that authority over election administration and rules is fragmented rather than centralized at a single national level.

  • Election rules and decisions regarding elections are disseminated across various governmental levels, including:

    • Federal Government: Sets broad guidelines and constitutional amendments (e.g., voting rights acts, campaign finance regulations).

    • State Governments: Hold primary responsibility for most election laws, including voter registration, ballot access, district drawing, and the types of voting machines used.

    • Local Governments: (counties, cities, towns) Administer elections, manage polling places, tabulate votes, and verify eligibility, often based on specific state mandates.

    • Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Authorities: Each branch plays a distinct role, with legislatures creating laws, executive agencies enforcing them, and courts resolving disputes or interpreting legality.

Importance of Elections and Electoral Systems for Democracy

  • Elections play a vital role in democratic governance, serving as a critical link in the delegation chain between voters and their elected representatives. Through elections, citizens delegate authority to representatives, who are then held accountable for their actions.

  • There exists significant variability in electoral systems globally, particularly among the thirty-one democracies under review, reflecting diverse political cultures, historical contexts, and goals for representation.

  • Most democracies employ some form of proportional representation, often based on party lists, which aims to ensure that the distribution of seats in the legislature closely mirrors the distribution of votes for political parties.

  • The reliance on plurality elections in single-seat districts, characteristic of the U.S. electoral system, links back to early American democratic institution establishment. This system, often called "first-past-the-post," means the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether they achieve a majority.

  • The absence of debate regarding electoral systems during the Philadelphia Convention indicates that the selection of candidate-based electoral rules was not a deliberate choice but a prevailing assumption at that time, rooted in the British parliamentary tradition.

Factors Influencing Differences in Electoral Systems

  • Several of the disparities between U.S. elections and those in other democracies can be traced back to:

    • Federalism and Presidentialism: The unique combination of these systems leads to a long ballot (meaning voters elect a multitude of officials from various levels of government simultaneously) and frequent elections (due to staggered terms and local/state elections taking place off-cycle).

    • State Constitutions: Variations across state constitutions lead to distinct electoral provisions, such as the emergence of recall elections (allowing citizens to remove elected officials before their term ends) and direct democracy mechanisms like initiatives and referendums.

    • Electoral Calendar: Established as a direct consequence of presidentialism, with fixed terms for the president and Congress, influencing the timing and frequency of elections.

    • Political Culture: Influences issues like felon disenfranchisement (varying state laws on voting rights for individuals with felony convictions) and turnout disparities related to socio-economic class (with lower-income and minority groups often exhibiting lower turnout rates compared to affluent populations).

  • Noteworthy is the lack of substantial public interest in electoral reform in the U.S., which often results in minimal innovation in electoral systems occurring outside local jurisdictions. This inertia can be attributed to the entrenched two-party system, the difficulty of amending state and federal election laws, and a general public focus on specific candidates or issues rather than systemic reforms.

Commentary on Public Discourse Regarding Electoral Systems

  • Public discussions on electoral rules are largely absent in the U.S., limited primarily to contentious issues like redistricting.

  • Redistricting discussions are driven by the relatively uncommon use of candidate-based elections in single-seat districts, which makes the drawing of district boundaries a zero-sum political battle with significant implications for partisan control and representation.

APPENDIX: EXAMPLES OF VARIOUS ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

  • This section presents an overview of various electoral systems to better illustrate their functionality and application, providing diverse models for democratic representation.

1. Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV)

  • Definition: A system that extends candidate-based rules to multi-seat districts, where individuals cast a single vote for one candidate. Despite being used in multi-member districts, it does not guarantee proportional representation.

  • Mechanics: Like plurality voting, candidates do not share votes across the same party, meaning each candidate, even from the same party, competes independently. This encourages personalized campaigns rather than party-centric ones.

    • Candidates must compete individually within their party for limited seats, complicating strategies for parties with multiple candidates. Parties must carefully allocate their votes among their candidates to avoid splitting the vote too widely, which could lead to multiple candidates from the same party losing, or concentrating votes too heavily on one, leaving others vulnerable.

  • Real-World Example: Japan utilized SNTV from 1947 to 1993 for its House of Representatives, which often led to significant intra-party competition, factionalism, and malapportionment.

  • Case Studies from the 1990 Election in Japan:

    • District 4, Aichi: A four-seat district where vote distribution proved challenging for parties.

      • Candidates and Results:

        • Kawashima Minoru (CGP) - 151,968 votes (22.9% - Won)

        • Ito Eisei (DSP) - 134,793 votes (20.3% - Won)

        • Nakanishi Keisuke (LDP) - 109,964 votes (30.3% - Won) (Note: There might be a typo in the original note, as the sum of percentages would exceed 100% with these figures. Assuming the percentages are for individual candidate's share of total votes from winning candidates, not district total percentage directly)

        • Sakai Hiroichi (CGP) - 71,652 votes (19.7% - Won)

        • Sugiura Seiken (LDP) - 125,688 votes (19.0% - Won)

        • Kishi Hachiro (JSP) - 68,976 votes (19.0% - Won)

        • Urano Yauoki (LDP) - 116,470 votes (17.6% - Won)

        • Noma Tomoichi (JCP) - 64,699 votes (17.8% - Lost)

        • Inagaki Jitsuo (LDP) - 112,537 votes (Lost)

        • Tamaoki (LDP) - 48,117 votes (Lost)

        • Omura Yoshinori (JCP) - 21,054 votes (3.2% - Lost)

    • District Characteristic: In District 4, the combined voting for three LDP candidates (53.5%) did not lead to winning three out of the four available seats due to inefficient vote distribution among their candidates. This illustrates how vote splitting can deny a party seats even if it collectively receives a majority of the votes, unlike proportional systems.

2. Alternative Vote (AV) / Instant Runoff

  • Definition: An electoral system that keeps single-seat districts but encourages the election of a majority-supported candidate through ranked-choice voting. It aims to reduce the