Understand Politics
Page 9
* * *
THE ELECTION PRODUCES AN UNCLEAR OUTCOME
Some liberal democracies have parliamentary systems of government. The UK is an example of this whereby general elections are concerned with returning local representatives for individual parliamentary constituencies. Normally, the party with the largest number of MPs forms the government. However, if no single party possesses an overall majority of seats in the new House of Commons (a situation know as a ‘hung parliament’) it can be argued that no one party can claim the right to pursue the policies set out in its election manifesto.
THE EMERGENCE OF ISSUES FOLLOWING AN ELECTION
It would be unrealistic for us to expect that a party could include every item of policy which it intended to carry out over a period of several years in a single document prepared for a specific election. Issues emerge, unforeseen when the manifesto was prepared, which have to be responded to even though the public lack the opportunity to express their views on them. People in the United Kingdom, for example, were not invited to vote on their country’s involvement in the attacks mounted against Yugoslavia by NATO in 1999 or in the invasion of Iraq by USA-spearheaded coalition forces in 2003.
We accept, therefore, that once installed into office governments need to exercise a certain amount of discretion to respond to pressing problems when they arise. This capacity to act without consulting the general public is referred to as trusteeship.
VOTERS ENDORSE PARTIES RATHER THAN THEIR POLICIES
A party’s right to carry out all its promises on the grounds that the public expressed support for them is also a flawed argument. Electors are unable to pick and choose between those policies in a manifesto which they like and those of which they disapprove. It is a question of supporting all or nothing. It is also the case that voters support a party for reasons other than the policies which it advances. Factors such as social class may determine a voter’s political allegiance. In extreme circumstances this may mean that parties secure support in spite of, rather than because of, the policies they put forward.
VOTING MAY BE INFLUENCED BY NEGATIVE FACTORS
A party or its candidates may secure support for negative rather than positive reasons.
It was argued that the outcomes of both the 1992 American presidential election and the 1997 UK general election were heavily influenced by public disillusionment with the record of the previous administrations. Parties may use smear tactics during a campaign to attack their opponents at the expense of projecting their own policies. Support obtained for negative reasons makes it difficult for parties to claim they have a mandate to carry out their election manifesto promises.
Question
‘Governments should only pursue policies for which they obtained a mandate at the previous national election.’
List points for and against this statement.
Voting behaviour
* * *
Insight
Psephology is the name given to social scientific examinations that seek to provide an understanding as to why people support a particular political party.
* * *
The study of voting behaviour is termed psephology. Models of voting behaviour which were developed after 1945 drew heavily on American political science. The aim of a model is to provide an explanation for voting behaviour which holds good for a significant proportion of the electorate and, additionally, applies from one generation to the next when a large number of citizens become eligible to vote for the first time, replacing former voters who have died. The Michigan model was influential and suggested that the basis of voting behaviour was an attachment formed between voters and political parties. It was perceived that an individual’s association with a political party was determined by the influences encountered in his or her social relationships. Of these, the major factor was the family. This helped to explain constant attachment to a political party across the generations regardless of factors such as upward or downward social mobility.
Social class is often regarded as a key influence on a voter’s choice of political party. This dominated explanations of voting behaviour in the United Kingdom from 1945 until 1970 when partisan and class dealignment gave rise to new models of voting behaviour. These included issue voting, which suggested that specific topical events or policies influenced a person’s political behaviour. A further model, the consumer model of voting behaviour built upon the concept of issue-based voting, suggested that a person’s choice of political party was similar to a shopper’s choice of goods in a supermarket.
There are a number of other factors which may explain a voter’s attachment to a political party. These include religious, local and regional influences. Examples of the latter include the Italian Lega Nord, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru in Wales, the Parti Québécois in Quebec, Canada, and the Catalan Republican Left and Basque National parties in Spain. Gender and race may also influence party affiliation. The African–Caribbean vote is an important constituent of the support enjoyed by the United Kingdom Labour Party, and the American Democratic Party has also historically enjoyed considerable support from this segment of American society and also from Hispanic (especially Catholic Hispanic) voters.
Electoral systems
There is no one voting system used by all liberal democracies to elect candidates to a public office. Several different electoral systems are found across the world, all of which possess strengths and weaknesses which we consider below in more detail.
The first-past-the-post electoral system and its variants
* * *
Insight
The first-past-the-post electoral system is sometimes referred to as the ‘winner takes all’ system.
* * *
The first-past-the-post system is used in countries including the UK, the United States, Canada and India.
Under this system, to be elected to a public office it is necessary for a candidate to secure more votes than the person who comes second. But there is no requirement that the winning candidate should secure an overall majority of the votes cast in an election. It is thus possible for a candidate to be victorious under this system despite having secured a minority of the votes cast in an election.
Elsewhere systems of election have been devised that seek to adjust the workings of the first-past-the-post system. These are the second ballot and the alternative vote. Neither of these constitutes a system of proportional representation although they do attempt to put right some of the injustices which may arise under the first-past-the-post system.
* * *
The first-past-the-post system – an example
Let us look at an example of the problems arising from the operation of the first-past-the-post electoral system.
In the UK parliamentary constituency of Norwich South at the 2010 general election the following result was obtained:
Lib Dem
13,960
Labour
13,650
Conservative
10,902
Green
7,095
Others
1,944
The Liberal Democrat candidate was elected to parliament for this constituency, although he obtained only 29.3 per cent of the votes that were cast by the local electors.
* * *
THE SECOND BALLOT
The second ballot is used in France, both for legislative and presidential elections. The process is a two-stage affair. It is necessary for a candidate to obtain an overall majority of votes cast in the first-round election in order to secure election to public office. In other words, if 50,000 people voted in a constituency, it would be necessary for a candidate to secure 25,001 votes to be elected. If no candidate obtains this required figure, a second-round election is held and the candidate who wins most votes is elected. This system seeks to ensure that the winning candidate gets the endorsement of a majority of the electors who cast their votes in the second election.
For presidential contests the second
ballot is between the top two candidates from the first round. For elections to the National Assembly, any candidate who obtains 12.5 per cent of the vote in the first round may enter the second ballot. In practice, however, parties of the left and right have often agreed in advance to rally behind one candidate for the second ballot.
A variant of the second ballot is the supplementary vote system, which is used to elect the Mayor of London (provided that there are more than three candidates contesting the election). Under this system voters select candidates in order of preference. If no candidate obtains an overall majority (50 per cent + 1 of the vote cast) there is no second ballot. Instead, the top two candidates remain in the contest and the votes of those who are eliminated are redistributed to determine the outcome of the contest.
THE ALTERNATIVE VOTE
The alternative vote is used in Ireland for presidential elections and for by-elections to the lower house, the Daíl. It is also used to select members for the Australian House of Representatives. As with the second ballot a candidate cannot be elected without obtaining majority support from the electorate (namely 50 per cent + 1 of the votes cast). Unlike the second ballot, however, there is no second election.
Voters number candidates in order of preference. If, when these votes are counted, no candidate possesses an overall majority, the candidate with least first-preference votes is eliminated and these are redistributed to the candidate placed second on that candidate’s ballot paper. This process is repeated until a candidate has an overall majority composed of his or her first preference votes coupled with the redistributed votes of candidates who have been eliminated.
Proportional representation
* * *
Insight
Proportional representation seeks to ensure that the proportion of candidates elected to a body such as the UK House of Commons at a general election corresponds to the proportion of votes each party obtained in the election.
* * *
Proportional representation indicates an objective rather than a specific method of election. It seeks to guarantee that the wishes of the electorate are arithmetically reflected in the composition of public bodies such as legislatures and local authorities. This is achieved by ensuring that parties are represented according to the level of popular support they enjoy at an election contest. Various forms of proportional representation are used widely in countries within the European Union. This section will consider two of these – the single transferable vote and the party list system.
THE SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE
When used for elections to legislatures, the single transferable vote requires a country to be divided into a number of multi-member constituencies (that is, constituencies which return more than one member to the legislative body). When electors cast their votes, they are required to number candidates in order of preference. They may indicate a preference for as many, or as few, candidates as they wish. To be elected a candidate has to secure a quota of votes.
The single transferable vote system ensures that each successful candidate is elected by the same number of votes. It is used in Ireland for elections to the Daíl and for the majority of seats in the upper chamber (the Seanad). Of the 60 members, 49 are elected in this fashion. This system is employed in Northern Ireland for the election of members to the European Parliament and the Northern Irish Assembly. It may also be used for elections to the Australian Senate.
* * *
The ‘Droop quota’
Under the single transferable vote, a candidate is required to secure a quota of votes in order to be elected. This quota (which is termed the ‘Droop quota’, after its nineteenth-century ‘inventor’, Henry Droop) is calculated by the following formula:
Thus in a constituency in which 100,000 electors voted and in which there were four seats to be filled, the quota would be 20,001. Any candidate who obtains the necessary number of first-preference votes is declared elected. Further first-preference votes cast for that candidate are then redistributed to the candidates listed second on that candidate’s ballot paper.
If, when the count is complete, no candidate obtains the necessary number of first-preference votes, the candidate with fewest is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the candidates listed as second choice on the eliminated candidate’s ballot paper. This process of eliminating candidates with fewest first-preference votes is continued until the requisite number of seats is filled.
* * *
THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM
The other main system of proportional representation is the party list system. Its main objective is to ensure that parties are represented in legislative bodies in proportion to the votes which were cast for them. Political parties are responsible for drawing up lists of candidates which may be compiled on a national or on a regional basis.
There are several versions of the party list system. In a very simplistic form (in what is termed a ‘closed party list’) candidates are ranked in order of preference by political parties. When the votes are counted a party’s representation in the legislative body arithmetically reflects the proportion of votes which it obtained. Thus a party which obtained 20 per cent of the total national poll would be entitled to 20 per cent of the seats in the legislative chamber. If the chamber contained 300 members, this party would be entitled to fill 60 places. The actual nominees would be those numbered 1–60 on that party’s list. In an ‘open party list’, which is used in Finland, voters determine the ranking of candidates put forward by the individual parties. The panachage or ‘free party list system’ is used for elections in Luxembourg and Switzerland. A particular feature of this system is the ‘mix-in’, whereby voters are not confined to selecting candidates from one party’s list but may support candidates nominated by different parties. This is termed a ‘free party list’.
A number of formulas exist to determine the electoral quotas used in party list systems. A popular one in Europe is the D’Hondt system which is used for national elections in Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, for electing members of the European Parliament representing England, Scotland and Wales and for selecting the 11 ‘top-up’ members to the Greater London Assembly (the other 14 being chosen by the first-past-the-post system). D’Hondt uses the ‘highest average’ formula which seeks to ensure that the number of votes required to win a seat is the same for each party. An alternative formula is the Hagenbach–Bischoff quota which divides the total vote by the number of seats to be filled plus one. This system is used for elections to the Greek parliament.
THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER SYSTEM
The additional (or mixed-) member system of election blends the first-past-the-post system with proportional representation. This mixed system is used in Germany, for example, in order that minority parties that fare badly under the former system can be compensated under the latter. Under this country’s additional member system, electors have two votes in parliamentary elections. The first (Erststimme) is for a constituency candidate, elected under the first-past-the-post system for each of the country’s 299 single-member constituencies. The second (Zweitstimme) is for a party list drawn up in each state (or Land). The Hare–Niemeyer system (which replaced the D’Hondt system in 1985) is used to allocate additional members according to the following formula:
This formula provides for the proportional allocation of seats in the Bundestag: the seats won through the first-past-the-post system are subtracted from the figure obtained by this method and the shortfall is made up from candidates nominated by the states’ party lists. This system also gives electors the opportunity of ‘split-ticket’ voting: that is, they can support a constituency candidate of one party and the party list of another. This is a growing feature in German elections.
In 1993 a referendum in New Zealand narrowly supported changing the electoral system from first-past-the-post to a mixed-member system, whose main features are similar to the electoral system used in Germany. This was first used in the 1996 general election. E
lections to the Scottish parliament, the Welsh Assembly and Greater London Assembly also use the additional member system. In Scotland and Wales the additional members are selected from regional party lists drawn up by the political parties and in London from one London-wide party list.
The first-past-the-post electoral system analysed
* * *
Insight
The operation of the first-past-the-post system is easy to understand but it is accused of producing unfair outcomes.
* * *
STRENGTHS
The main strengths of this system are considered below.
Easy to understand
The system is relatively easy to understand. Voting is a simple process and it is easy to see how the result is arrived at. The winner takes all.