Delimiting Electoral Districts

The delimitation of electoral districts is a fairly recent phenomenon. Prior to the nineteenth century, the composition of legislatures reflected the view that distinct categories of society (i.e., towns, the clergy, and the nobility) should be represented and not individual citizens. This view of representation led to legislatures based on subdivisions that varied greatly with regard to the size of population being represented.

In the latter part of the eighteenth century, and throughout the nineteenth century, citizens began to demand a broadening of their franchise. These demands were accompanied by the belief that "fair" representation entailed an equalisation of population per representative. The response to this quest for the equalisation of representation was either to vary the number of legislators elected from a territory or to subdivide territories into electoral districts of more equal population. Single-member districts for the election of legislators were first adopted in the British colonies that later became the United States. Many European countries gradually followed suit and adopted single-member electoral districts during the nineteenth century.

The trend towards single-member districts in Europe ebbed with the advent of proportional representation in the late nineteenth century. Because multimember districts are generally used with systems of proportional representation, countries that adopted such systems no longer needed to delimit electoral districts. Instead, equality of population could be achieved by varying the numbers of legislators from a territory. The use of administrative divisions such as states, provinces, or counties as multimember districts also provided the additional benefit of community representation.

The tradition of single-member electoral districts was retained in other countries, however, in the belief that distinct benefits are derived from their use. These benefits include:

• a strong geographic link between constituents and their representatives;
• the ability of constituents to hold individual representatives accountable;
• the tendency of an electoral system using single-member districts to produce strong single-party governments, and, by extension, a stable political system.

A major drawback to the use of single-member districts is that electoral district boundaries must be adjusted periodically to maintain populations of relatively equal size. Of course, in some countries, multimember districts must also be redrawn. Not only is the district delimitation process expensive and time consuming, but there is also the possibility that drawing new district boundaries could favour, intentionally or unintentionally, one particular interest or political party over others.

In some countries, multimember districts are also redrawn. How electoral districts are drawn, whether the districts are single-member or multimember, and whether they follow existing administrative boundaries or not can influence the nature of representation by elected legislators. This section considers the various types of electoral systems that delimit electoral districts (see Electoral Systems that Delimit Electoral Districts). It also considers electoral districting alternatives, such as the magnitude of the districts and whether or not the district boundaries should be aligned with pre-existing administrative boundaries (see Electoral District Alternatives).

Electoral Systems that Delimit Electoral Districts

Traditionally, three broad categories of electoral systems have been described: plurality systems, majority systems, and proportional representation systems. The most important element that differentiates these electoral systems from one another is the means by which seats in the legislature are allocated:  

• to candidates receiving a plurality of the vote
• to candidates obtaining a majority of the vote
• proportionally on the basis of votes cast for political parties or candidates

A recent addition to these three broad categories of electoral systems is the mixed electoral system, which combines elements of both proportional representation and plurality or majority voting systems.

Delimiting Districts: Plurality or Majority Systems

The delimitation of electoral districts is most commonly associated with plurality or majority electoral systems. Both systems tend to rely heavily, if not exclusively, on single-member electoral districts. These districts must be redrawn periodically to reflect shifts in the population. Both systems also share one fundamental element because of their reliance on single-member districts--the number of seats that a political party receives depends not only on the proportion of the votes it received, but also on where those votes were cast. Under plurality and majority systems, minority political parties whose supporters are not geographically concentrated usually obtain fewer seats than their proportion of the vote would suggest they are entitled. The multimember districts of proportional systems can rectify this distortion in the transfer of votes to seats because the larger the magnitude of the electoral districts, the more proportional the results.

Delimiting Districts: Proportional Representation

There are two major types of proportional representation systems: the party list system and the single transferable vote. (The mixed member proportional system also produces proportional results, but this system will be discussed under the "mixed system" category.) The party list system is the far more common of the two. Under the party list system, electoral districts rarely, if ever, require delimitation. If electoral districts are employed, they are relatively large multimember districts whose boundaries generally correspond to administrative divisions. To accommodate shifts in population, the number of seats allocated to individual multimember districts is adjusted, rather than redrawing the boundaries of the districts. The single transferable vote, used in Ireland and Malta, is the other type of proportional representation. Because voting is on the basis of candidates, not parties, these countries employ small multimember districts with only three to five members elected per district. Electoral district boundaries must therefore be redrawn periodically in these two countries.

Delimiting Districts: Mixed Electoral Systems

Mixed electoral systems are becoming increasingly popular. They employ both party list proportional representation and single-member electoral districts with plurality or majority vote requirements. The German electoral system is the prototypical mixed electoral system.

Because mixed systems incorporate single-member districts, the delimitation of electoral districts must occur periodically to adjust for shifts in the population. The importance of the delimitation process and the influence that district configurations have on the outcome of elections is dependent on whether party list seats are used to correct any distortions in the relationship between seats to votes produced by the single-member districts. In countries such as Germany, seats allocated under the party list system are used to compensate for any distortions in the seats-to-votes ratio produced at the electoral district level. Mixed systems that use party list seats in a compensatory manner are sometimes called "mixed member proportional" systems because the election results are proportional.

In countries such as Russia, party list seats are not used to compensate for any disproportionality arising from elections in single-member districts. Rather, seats allocated to the parties under the party list component of the election are simply added to the seats won at the electoral district level. The partisan seats-to-votes ratio may therefore be distorted. In this type of mixed system, sometimes called a "parallel" system, the district delimitation process is more important because it can have a more pronounced effect on the partisan composition of the legislature.

Plurality Electoral Systems

The plurality electoral system is the oldest and the most frequently used voting system. It is used for legislative elections in the United States and India, the world's two largest liberal democracies, as well as the United Kingdom and many former British colonies. Most of these countries also employ single-member districts, which must be redrawn periodically to remain relatively equal in population.

Proponents of plurality electoral systems cite three main advantages: simplicity, stability, and constituency representation. The plurality system is easy to understand--voters simply place a mark next to their preferred candidate. The result of an election under the plurality system is also easy to understand--the candidate receiving the highest number of votes wins. This allocation rule is referred to as "first past the post."

Because of their tendency to produce a disproportionately large number of seats for the majority party, plurality systems usually produce strong single-party governments. This, in turn, produces a stable political system because there is no need to form coalition governments.

Plurality Systems and Single-Member Districts

Plurality electoral systems are most commonly associated with single-member districts and "first past the post" allocation rules. The use of single-member districts creates a strong link between representatives and their constituencies. Because each representative is beholden to a specific geographically defined constituency, legislative accountability and constituency services are both facilitated. Click here for more information on plurality first past the post systems.

Plurality Systems and Multimember Districts

A few plurality systems use multimember districts and different rules for allocating seats in the legislature. The allocation rules for multimember districts under plurality systems include the following:

Block Vote This voting system gives each elector as many votes as there are seats to be filled. The winners of an election are the candidates receiving the highest numbers of votes. Because the block vote allows the party with the majority of the votes to win all of the seats in a district, the use of the block vote system frequently results in an even greater distortion of seats to votes than does "first past the post" voting in single-member districts. Click here for more information on the block vote.

Limited Vote Under this voting scheme, each elector is given fewer votes than the number of seats to be filled. The expectation under the limited vote is that the majority party will not be able to carry all of the seats in an electoral district if the minority party presents a limited number of candidates and minority party supporters concentrate their votes on those candidates. This voting scheme is used in Spain to elect the upper house of the national parliament. Click here for more information on the limited vote.

Single Non-Transferable Vote This voting system is a variant of the limited vote--each elector is given only one vote. The single non-transferable vote was used in Japan to elect the lower house of the national parliament until 1994. It is still used in Japan to elect 152 of the 252 members of the upper house. Click here for more information on the single non-transferable vote.

Conclusion

The process of electoral district delimitation in a plurality system is important because the configuration of districts can affect the partisan, and possibly even the racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic composition of the legislature. The effect may be intentional, as in a partisan "gerrymander," or it may be unintentional. Even district boundaries drawn by a neutral boundary commission may unintentionally favour one party over others.

Majority Electoral Systems

Proponents of majority electoral systems claim that these systems have all of the advantages of a plurality system, i.e., simplicity, stability, and constituency representation. A majority system is relatively easy for the voter to understand. It tends to produce strong and stable governments, and each territorial constituency is represented by a single legislator. An additional benefit of a majority system is that each representative has the support of a majority of his or her constituents.

Under a plurality system, a candidate may be elected with less than a majority of the vote. In fact, the percentage of the vote necessary to win can be quite low, depending on the number of candidates competing for office and the spread of votes among candidates on the ballot. To prevent a candidate from winning a seat with less than 50 percent of the vote, allocation rules under a majority electoral system stipulate that the winning candidate must receive an "absolute majority" of the vote, i.e., 50 percent of the vote plus one more vote. Simply requiring a majority of the vote, with no further stipulations, creates the possibility of an election with more than two candidates producing no winner at all. Countries with majority electoral systems have adopted one of two solutions for this problem--a second round election or the alternative vote.

Two Round System

The central feature of the two round system is a requirement for a second election if the first election does not produce a candidate with an absolute majority of the vote. Under a two round system, voting occurs on two separate days, often a week or so apart. The first election is conducted in the same manner as a plurality "first past the post" election. However, if this election does not produce a candidate with more than 50 percent of the vote, a second election is held. The rules on who can participate in the second contest vary depending on the country and whether the election is a legislative or presidential election.

Under a "majority runoff" system, for example, if no candidate receives a majority on the first ballot, a second election is held. The only candidates in the second election are the two candidates who received the highest number of votes in the first election. This system is often used in presidential elections. It is also used in the United States for congressional elections in some southern states.

Under a "majority plurality" system, on the other hand, there is no drastic reduction in the number of candidates on the second ballot. The winner of second ballot in a majority plurality system is the candidate who receives the most votes, whether or not a majority of the votes is obtained. Some threshold may be imposed for candidates to stand at the second ballot.

The two, or second, round system is most commonly associated with France, where the majority plurality system is used for the election of representatives to the National Assembly. Electoral rules for the National Assembly stipulate that only candidates receiving the support of at least 12.5 percent of the registered electorate are entitled to compete in the second ballot the following week. The candidate who receives the highest number of votes in this second election is declared the winner. For more information on the two round system, click here.

Alternative Vote

The alternative vote is more accurately referred to as a "majority preferential" system. Under this system, voters not only indicate their first preference among the candidates, but also rank in order alternative preferences. To win, a candidate must receive a majority of the vote. To determine the winner, the number of first preference votes is tallied. If a candidate wins a majority of first preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate receives a majority of first preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated. The second preferences of voters who made this candidate their first choice are then distributed among the other candidates. If this redistribution does not produce a majority for one of the remaining candidates, the process of elimination and transfers continues until a majority is produced for one of the candidates. The alternative vote is used in Australia for elections to the House of Representatives. For more information on the alternative vote, click here.

Conclusion

Majority electoral systems can, and do, produce election outcomes that are just as disproportional as plurality electoral systems with regard to the ratio of seats to votes. This is not surprising, given that both systems rely almost exclusively on single-member districts. The district delimitation process in a majority system is, therefore, just as important as it is in a plurality electoral system.

Mixed Electoral Systems

Under a mixed electoral system, different formulas are used simultaneously to allocate seats from a single election. One feature all mixed electoral systems have in common is that an elector casts two votes, one for a candidate to serve as an electoral district representative and one for a party list of candidates. Among countries with mixed electoral systems, there are variations in the proportion of seats elected by district and the proportion elected by party list. There are also variations in the voting scheme (i.e., majority or plurality) adopted for district elections. And most importantly, there are variations in the relationship between district seats and party list seats.

In some countries, the total allocation of seats is based on the number of party list seats minus the number of district seats. In other countries, the allocation of seats is based on the number of party list seats plus the number of district seats. This distinction is crucial for the proportionality of seats to votes.

Mixed Member Proportional Systems

In countries such as Germany and New Zealand, the final seat tally for each party is calculated by subtracting the number of district seats that each party wins from the total number of party list seats to which it is entitled. The party list seats, therefore, are used to correct any disproportionality produced in the single-member plurality or majority seats. This is sometimes called the "mixed member proportional" system because the results are proportional, provided that a party exceeds any threshold vote percentage that may have been established. For more information on mixed member proportional systems, click here.

Parallel Systems

Countries such as Russia do not subtract district seats from party list seats, but rather add the two sets of seats together. Because the district seats and party list seats are independent of the one another, the party list seats do not correct for any seats-to-votes distortions created by the single-member district seats. The results in these mixed systems, sometimes referred to as "parallel" electoral systems, have tended to be disproportional. For more information about parallel electoral systems, click here.

Conclusion

One advantage of a mixed electoral system is that it uses single-member districts and, therefore, retains a strong link between representatives and their constituencies. At the same time, however, a high level of proportionality may be achieved, although the degree of proportionality is dependent on whether or not party list seats are used to correct for distortions produced by the electoral district seats.

The significance attached to the delimitation of electoral districts in a mixed system depends on whether or not party seats are used to rectify any distortions in the seats-to-votes ratio. If party seats are used to correct imbalances, then the process of delimiting districts is not much of an issue. If, however, party seats are not used as a corrective measure and disproportionate results are possible, the delimitation process becomes more important. In fact, the delimitation process may be as important as in a plurality or majority electoral system.

Proportional Systems

Most countries with proportional representation systems do not delimit electoral districts. However, two countries that use the single transferable vote, namely Ireland and Malta, do periodically delimit electoral districts [1].

Districts are redrawn in Ireland and Malta because the single transferable vote operates best with uniformly small multimember constituencies. Votes are cast by ranking candidates in order of preference, and if there are a large number of seats to fill, the number of candidates on the ballot may be overwhelming so the number of seats assigned to each constituency is usually relatively small. Malta employs only five-member electoral districts. In Ireland, electoral districts range in magnitude from three to five members.

Under a proportional system using the single transferable vote, electors rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate has so many votes that an elector's first preference is not needed, or if the candidate has so few votes that there is no chance he or she can win office, the elector's first preference is transferred to a second or subsequent choice. To be elected, a candidate must obtain a quota of the votes. The quota is computed by dividing the total number of votes cast by one more than the number of seats to be filled, plus one additional vote. Only the prescribed number of candidates to be elected can reach the quota. For more information about the single transferable vote, click here.

The single transferable vote system differs from majority and plurality electoral systems in that election outcomes are more proportional. The single transferable vote shares two features in common with majority and plurality systems: voters choose among candidates, rather than between political parties; and the country is divided into relatively small territorial constituencies. These electoral constituencies, or districts, must be redrawn on occasion to accommodate shifts in the population. For example, in Ireland the constitution stipulates that constituencies be revised at least once every twelve years. Prior to 1980 and the establishment of an independent electoral commission, boundary changes and the allocations of seats in the legislature in Ireland were thought likely to benefit the political party in power.

Notes:

[1] The single-transferable vote is also used in Australia to elect members to its upper house, but each state is considered a district for election purposes, and therefore districts are not redrawn.

Electoral District Alternatives

Two important factors to be considered when contemplating electoral districting alternatives are: (1) district magnitude and (2) the alignment of electoral district boundaries with existing administrative and/or political boundaries. District magnitude refers to the number of legislative seats assigned to a district[1]. A district can be either a single-member district or a multimember district, where the number of seats may range from two to one hundred or more. Electoral districts can be aligned with administrative divisions—that is, administrative divisions can be used as electoral districts—or electoral districts can be specially drawn with little regard for administrative divisions, usually to meet equal population criteria.

These two factors form a matrix [2]. The first dimension, district magnitude, relates to the issue of single-member versus multimember districts. The second dimension refers to the alignment or nonalignment of electoral districts with administrative or political boundaries.

Most single-member districts fall into the nonalignment category. The districts tend to be artificial pieces of geography that have no meaning outside the electoral context. Some single-member districts, however, particularly those in proportional representation countries, are small, highly distinctive communities. For example, a few small cantons in Switzerland form single-member districts.

Countries with multimember districts often use existing administrative divisions as electoral districts. Each district is assigned the appropriate number of legislative seats for its population, with individual districts having as few as two representatives and most districts having far more than two representatives. These countries usually employ some form of proportional representation. The more artificially constructed multimember districts are found in countries such as Ireland and Malta, which use districts that are uniformly small in magnitude because elections are conducted using the single transferable vote.

Notes:

[1] According to Taagepera and Shugart, the term "magnitude" is preferable to "size," because size usually refers to the number of voters in an electoral district or the geographic extent of a district. See Rein Taagerpera and Matthew Soberg Shugart, Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989)

[2] Michael Steed, "The Constituency," in Representative of the People? Parliamentarians and Constituencies in Western Democracies, ed. Vernon Bogdanor (Grower Publishing, 1985)

District Magnitude

District magnitude refers to the number of legislative seats assigned to a district. Countries have adopted electoral rules that range anywhere from the exclusive use of single-member districts to a system where the entire country, in effect, functions as a single district. The United States and the United Kingdom are at one end of the spectrum, in which each and every legislator represents a single district. At the other end of the spectrum are countries such as Israel and the Netherlands, in which the district magnitude is equal to the total number of members of the legislature. Most countries are somewhere in the middle of this range; and within a country there is often a wide variation in the magnitude of districts.

Some countries set all their electoral districts at the same magnitude or within some narrow range of magnitudes. District boundaries are then usually drawn according to some voters-per-representative formula. This approach has been adopted in the United States and most other countries with plurality or majority electoral systems, where the district magnitude is set at one. This procedure is also used in Ireland and Malta, both of which employ small multimember districts and the single transferable vote. In Malta, all districts have a magnitude of five. In Ireland, the range in magnitude is from three to five.

Alternatively, some countries use existing regional, administrative or political divisions as electoral districts. Each electoral district is then assigned a specific number of seats according to its population. Most countries with electoral systems based on proportional representation use this procedure. The larger the district magnitude, the more proportional the outcome of the election--that is, the more seats per district, the closer the approximation between a political party's percentage of the vote and the number of seats that party receives in the legislature.

Single-member electoral districts must be redrawn periodically to ensure relatively equal populations. Some countries with uniformly small multimember districts must also redistrict periodically in order to comply with equal population standards. Electoral districts with large magnitudes, however, do not need to be redrawn; seats are simply reassigned from one district to another to meet equal population standards.

Single-Member Districts

The debate about the advantages and disadvantages of single-member and multimember districts overlaps, to a large extent, with the debate over plurality or majority systems and proportional representation systems. This is because plurality and majority systems usually employ single-member districts, and proportional representation systems use multimember districts. This discussion will focus solely on the strengths and weaknesses of single-member districts.

Advantages of Single-Member Districts

Supporters cite several advantages, namely that single-member districts:

• provide voters with strong constituency representation because each voter has a single, easily identifiable, district representative;
• encourage constituency service by providing voters with an easily identifiable "ombudsman";
• maximise accountability because a single representative can be held responsible and can be re-elected or defeated in the next election;
• ensure geographic representation.

Disadvantages of Single-Member Districts

In citing disadvantages, critics point out that single-member districts:

• must be redrawn on a regular basis to maintain populations of relatively equal size;
• are usually artificial geographic entities whose boundaries do not delineate clearly identifiable communities, and as a consequence, the entities have no particular relevance to citizens;
• because of their tendency to over-represent the majority party and under-represent other parties, cannot produce proportional representation for political parties.

Conclusion

The strengths of single-member districts rest in the close ties between representatives and constituents, the accountability of representatives to the voters, and constituency service. Because single-member districts are used in conjunction with plurality or majority voting rules, they are also said to foster strong and stable government.

Multimember Districts

The advantages and disadvantages of multimember districts mirror those of single-member districts and overlap with the debate over plurality or majority systems and proportional representation systems. The focus in this section will be solely on the advantages and disadvantages of multimember districts as compared to single-member districts.

Advantages of Multimember Districts

The most often cited advantages of multimember districts are that they:

• can more easily reflect administrative divisions or communities of interest within the country because there is flexibility with regard to the numbers of representatives per district and, therefore, the size and geographic composition of the district;
• need not change boundaries, even if the population of a district increases or decreases, because the number of representatives elected from the district can be altered;
• are essential for achieving proportional representation, although not all multimember district systems produce proportional representation for political parties;
• tend to produce more balanced representation by encouraging the nomination of a diverse roster of candidates.

On the last point, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that women are more likely to be elected from multimember districts. Ethnic, religious and different language groups also tend to be better represented in multimember districts because political parties strive for an overall balance when selecting candidates. The consequences of multimember districts are less certain, however, for groups that are concentrated within a given territory. In the United States, in particular, blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be elected from single-member districts, in large part because the U.S. Voting Rights Act encourages the creation of districts where these racial or ethnic minorities predominate. For a more detailed discussion of the issue of single-member districts and minority representation in the United States, see this link. 

Disadvantages of Multimember Districts

The primary disadvantages are that multimember districts

• dilute the relationship between representatives and voters;
• dilute the accountability of individual representatives.
  
  

Conclusion

The strength of multimember districts rests in their ability to generate more balanced representation, both for certain groups traditionally under-represented, such as women and ethnic minorities, and for political parties. The degree to which multimember districts are able to do this, however, depends on both the magnitude of the districts and the voting rules employed. The larger the district magnitude, the more proportional the election outcome for political parties. But voting rules also matter. For example, block voting within multimember districts will actually produce more electoral distortion than plurality first-past-the-post voting in single-member districts. Only multimember districts with large magnitudes and some form of proportional voting will consistently produce proportional election outcomes.

Alignment of Districts with Administrative Boundaries

In many countries, especially those that employ multimember districts, the boundaries of electoral districts follow the boundaries of existing administrative divisions--usually states or provinces. Often these administrative divisions have some historical significance. Some administrative divisions, however, may be of recent vintage and of little relevance to citizens.

There are certain advantages to aligning electoral districts with administrative divisions, in that the districts will then

• correspond to the entities that administer local governmental functions;
• correspond to social, political, and other non-governmental organisations arranged by administrative areas;
• be more meaningful to constituents if the districts correspond to well-recognised administrative divisions;
• reflect geographic communities of interest when the administrative divisions themselves reflect distinct communities of interest.

Correspondence with Governmental Functions

Administrative divisions may be assigned important governmental functions. For example, local government entities may have responsibilities for levying taxes or administering justice, education or public health. Constituents of local government entities can benefit from being able to identify and relate to the elected representatives from districts that correspond to these administrative divisions, especially if constituents need help in dealing with these governmental agencies.

In addition, a country's election machinery may be organised around administrative divisions. If so, it may be easier to conduct elections if electoral district boundaries correspond to administrative boundaries.

Correspondence with Non-Governmental Organisations

Governmental agencies are not the only organisations that operate within specific administrative divisions. Many social, cultural, and political organisations are also arranged according to administrative areas. Such organisations may include political parties, trade unions, professional associations and many other occupational, social, and cultural organisations. Members of these organisations may benefit by being able to identify and relate to elected representatives from the same administrative division. Elected representatives, too, may find it easier to work with and communicate with members of these non-governmental organisations.

Recognition of Electoral Districts

Long-standing state or provincial boundaries engender a corporate identity that voters can relate to more easily than artificially created electoral districts. Voters may be able to distinguish between their district and other districts and identify their elected representative more easily if electoral districts are defined by administrative boundaries.

Reflection of Communities of Interest

Electoral districts that are composed of long-standing state or provincial territories may reflect geographically concentrated communities of interest based on a common heritage or on shared racial, ethnic, religious or language characteristics. Some of the more modern administrative entities that form the basis of electoral districts, however, may have little in the way of common roots. Consequently, these districts do not bring together constituents with common interests.

Drawbacks to Using Administrative Divisions

Administrative divisions do not have the same level of importance throughout the world. Although they reflect important regional differences in some countries, administrative divisions in other countries have been created very recently. In these countries, the boundaries are artificial and of little significance to citizens. In fact, the boundaries may divide natural communities of interest such as long-standing racial, ethnic, religious, or spoken language communities. Using administrative entities to form electoral districts in this instance may actually conflict with the creation of electoral districts that reflect strong communities of interest.

Single-Member Districts and Administrative Divisions

Aligning electoral districts with administrative boundaries is a very common practice in countries with multimember electoral districts. However, correspondence with administrative divisions is more problematic in countries that employ single-member districts exclusively. This is because there is often a conflict between drawing single-member districts that follow existing administrative lines and drawing single-member districts that are relatively equal in population.

This is not to suggest that single-member districts can never correspond to administrative divisions within a country. Many countries that use single-member districts do emphasise the need to respect administrative boundaries. But the weight given to this consideration varies, depending on the importance placed on equality of population and other redistricting criteria that may conflict with respect for administrative divisions. For example, in the United Kingdom, large numerical deviations in population are tolerated in order to accommodate local administrative areas. In the United States, congressional district boundaries never cross state lines; the strict enforcement of equality of numbers, however, is far more important than respect for local administrative boundaries.

Country Survey of Delimitation Practices

Information on the delimitation practices of 87 countries (or territories) was assembled and summarized for the Delimitation Equity Project conducted by IFES from 2004-2005.

Data was collected through a variety of means:

(1) the compilation of constitutional and election law provisions on constituency delimitation;

(2) information gathered during a series of election missions undertaken by the author on behalf of IFES and other organizations; and

(3) three surveys conducted over the last few years:

• A delimitation survey sent to election administrations around the world in the Fall of 2004.
• Comparative Data section of the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, which includes a series of questions on delimitation practices.
• A comparative redistricting project that included a conference, a survey, and a series of case studies, funded in large part by the National Science Foundation. (The Comparative Redistricting Project, which included a conference entitled "Redistricting from a Comparative Perspective" held December 7-9, 2001, was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation and the Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of California, Irvine.)

Countries that Delimit Electoral Districts

The 87 countries (or territories) for which information was collected represent a broad geographic array: 21 of the countries are located in the Americas, 34 in Europe, 15 in Africa, 2 in the Middle East, 11 in Asia and 4 in Oceania (Australia/South Pacific Islands).

Of these 87 countries, 60 (69 percent of the total number of countries) reported delimiting electoral districts. The breakdown by region of the countries that delimit electoral districts is as follows:

The majority of countries in every region represented in the survey delimited electoral districts. Countries in the Americas were the least likely to have specifically delimited electoral districts: although every country in North America (Canada, Mexico and the United States) and most countries in the Caribbean delimit constituencies, very few in Central and South America do so. Countries in Oceania – Australia, New Zealand, and most of the South Pacific Island countries – are the most likely to have specifically delimited electoral districts.

Almost without exception, the countries that do not specifically delimit districts are countries that have List Proportional Representation (List PR) electoral systems (Georgia and Panama are the only countries surveyed that do not have a List Proportional Representation electoral system and do not periodically delimit electoral districts). Every other type of electoral system included in this study requires some delimitation of electoral districts: First Past the Post (FPTP) Systems, Two Round Systems (TRS), Alternative Vote (AV) and Block Vote (BV) Systems, and Parallel and Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) Systems.