The Effect of Electoral System on Parties and Candidates

There are several elements of electoral systems that may influence political parties in their magnitude, organisation, and campaigning and the opportunities for independent candidates in a political system.

One of the most important factors is the electoral system’s ability to translate votes cast into seats won proportionally. Determining this is to a large extent the district magnitude, which is the number of members to be elected in each electoral district.

Under a Plurality/Majority system such as FPTP, AV, or the Two-Round System, there is a district magnitude of one; voters are electing a single representative.

By contrast, all PR systems, some plurality/majority systems such as Block Vote and PBV, and some other systems such as Limited Vote and SNTV, require electoral districts which elect more than one member. Under any proportional system, the number of members to be chosen in each district determines, to a significant extent, how proportional the election results will be.

There is generally a strong positive correlation between average district magnitude and average party magnitude. The party magnitude is an important factor in determining who will be elected. If only one candidate from a party is elected in a district, that candidate is likely to be male and a member of the majority ethnic or social group in the district. If two or more are elected, balanced tickets may have more effect, making it likely that more women and more candidates from minorities will be successful.

Different kinds of electoral system are likely to encourage different kinds of party organisation and party system.

Highly centralized political systems using closed-list PR are the most likely to encourage strong party organisations; conversely, decentralized, district-based systems like FPTP may have the opposite effect. The type of electoral system may influence the type of party system that evolves. The FPTP system, for instance, mostly sustains a party system that consists of two major parties, often gravitating towards a party on the left and one on the right, alternating in power. Proportional Representation Systems, on the other hand, encourage the formation of several political parties, thereby better reflecting the policy, ideology, or leadership differences within society.

The electoral system design is crucial for the understanding of the position of individual candidates in the political system as a whole. Different kinds of electoral systems result in different relationships between individual candidates and their supporters. In general, systems which make use of single-member electoral districts are seen as encouraging individual candidates to see themselves as the delegates of particular geographical areas and beholden to the interests of their local electorate. By contrast, systems which use large multi-member districts, such as most PR systems, are more likely to deliver representatives whose primary loyalty lies with their party on national issues.

The electoral system design can influence the way a party campaigns and the way political elites behave. Proportional representation list systems, where voters choose between parties and policy programmes, are said to foster campaign centralization. Proportional representation systems also encourage parties to campaign beyond the districts in which they are strong, because the political parties aim to increase their overall votes regardless where the votes come from. In Plurality/Majority Systems, on the other hand, voters tend to choose between candidates rather than among political parties and programmes. In a single-member-district system, the campaigning would focus on that particular candidate.

Additionally, under a Plurality/Majority system, a party may practically abandon its campaign in a district where it sees no chance of winning.

District Magnitude and Political Parties

The district magnitude refers to the number of legislative seats assigned to a district, ranging anywhere from the exclusive use of single-member districts to a system where the entire country functions as a single district. District magnitude is the primary determinant of an electoral system’s ability to translate votes cast into seats won proportionally.

The district magnitude also has an impact on political parties, candidates, and campaigning. Small district magnitude, for example, fosters stronger links between individual candidates and their local constituencies. On the other hand, large districts give a stronger proportionality, and when more persons are elected from one district, they are more likely to represent various points of view, so more voters will feel that their opinion is represented in the legislature. District magnitude thus has an effect on the extent to which voters feel that their views are represented.

Large districts (together with a relatively small number of parties) increase party magnitude, the number of representatives from one political party elected from the district. This tends to affect candidate selection by political parties, since if the party magnitude is large, it is more likely that the legislature will consist of members from different ethnic and social groups, both sexes, etc. since parties will feel that they can win the most seats by presenting a wider variety of candidates.

The district magnitude also has implications for campaigning. If the district is small and the party magnitude less than one, political parties may decide to spend their campaign resources elsewhere instead of “wasting” them in districts where they are not likely to win any seat.

Because of this, there has been a lively debate about the best district magnitude. The systems which want to achieve the greatest degree of proportionality will use very large districts, because such districts are able to ensure that even very small parties are represented in the legislature. In smaller districts, the effective threshold is higher.

The problem is that as districts are made larger—both in terms of the number of seats and often, as a consequence, in terms of their geographic size as well—the linkage between an elected member and his or her constituency grows weaker.

Large districts can have serious consequences in societies where local factors play a strong role in politics or where voters expect their members to maintain strong links with the electorate and act as their ‘delegate’ in the legislature. Accountability can be diminished and people can become disengaged from politics if they cannot clearly see who represents their region or district in the legislature.

Party Magnitude and Candidate Selection

Party magnitude can be defined as the number of seats a party wins in a specific electoral district.

The party magnitude is an important factor in determining who will be elected. If only one candidate from a party is elected in a district, political parties will seek to field a candidate that they are relatively certain will win. This often means that the candidates fielded in electoral districts where the party magnitude is one will often be from the dominant ethnic and social group of the district, and will in most cases be a man since their chances of winning the seat are perceived to be greater. If, on the other hand, the political party believes that more than one of their candidates will be elected from the district (i.e. that the party magnitude is greater than one), they have the opportunity to put together what they think will be a “winning team” or a “balanced ticket”. Women, youth, and persons from other ethic and social groups than the majority are more likely to get a place on such a candidate list. The further down the party goes on their candidate list in the specific district, the more likely it is that the elected candidates will be a diverse group, more representative of the overall population of the district.

There is generally a strong positive correlation between average district magnitude (i.e. the total number of seats distributed to all parties in an electoral district) and average party magnitude. As the number of seats per district increases, parties will go further down their lists (that is, win more seats), and more parties will have multi-member delegations. Larger districts (seven or more seats in size) and a relatively small number of parties will increase the party magnitude.

The Effect of Electoral System on Party System

Some electoral systems encourage the evolution of political parties more than others. Also, the type of party system that evolves is greatly influenced by the electoral system in place.

The FPTP (First-Past-the Post) system, as the simplest example of Plurality/Majority systems, generally provides voters in a district a clear choice between two parties, often gravitating towards a party on the left and one on the right, alternating in power. This can be explained by the inherent disadvantages faced by smaller parties under FPTP. Typically, FPTP gives rise to a single-party government and to a coherent opposition party. The FPTP system advantages broadly based political parties that try to encompass many elements of the society and thus disadvantages extremist parties and those that focus on a single issue. On the other hand, the FPTP system excludes smaller parties and minorities from fair representation.

Proportional Representation Systems, on the other hand, encourage the formation of several political parties that generally reflect policy, ideology, or leadership differences within society. Also, minority parties gain easier access to representation. Under certain conditions, PR Systems can result in stability and continuity in government and public policy decision-making. Having said that, the greater number of parties that PR systems tend to give rise to may, at the worst, lead to a destabilizing of the political system in general.

For instance, in an extreme pluralistic system, the need for coalition governments sometimes forces parties to cooperate with tiny extremist parties in order to form a majority. PR systems can also offer an opening to extremist parties, because they, as all small parties, get a disproportionately large amount of power when larger parties need their support in order to form a government.

Other impacts of different types of electoral systems on political parties and party systems in democratic societies can be summarized as follows:

• Highly centralized political systems using closed-list PR are the most likely to encourage strong party organisations; conversely, decentralized, district-based systems like FPTP may have the opposite effect.
• Not only the shape of a party system but also the internal cohesion and discipline of parties may be affected by the electoral system design. Some electoral systems encourage more factionalism than others. This often leads to internal party disputes where one wing is constantly at odds with another wing. Other systems, in contrast, tend to foster the unity of a party, e.g. to speak with one voice.
• Besides the electoral system design, there are many other electoral variables that can be used to influence the development of party systems. For example, new democracies like Russia and Indonesia have attempted to shape the development of their nascent party systems by providing institutional incentives for the formation of national rather than regional political parties. Other countries, such as Ecuador and Papua New Guinea, have used party registration and funding requirements to achieve similar objectives.
• Access to public and/or private funding is a key issue that cuts across electoral system design, and is often the single biggest constraint on the emergence of viable new parties.

Just as electoral system choice will affect the way in which the political party system develops, the political party system in place affects the evolution of the electoral system. Existing parties are unlikely to support changes that are likely to seriously disadvantage them, or changes that open the possibility of new, rival parties gaining entry to the political party system, unless there is a strong political imperative. The range of options for electoral system change may thus be constrained in practice.

The Effect of Electoral System on Candidates

One should keep in mind that the different kinds of electoral systems result in different relationships between candidates and their supporters.

In general, systems which make use of single-member electoral districts, such as most plurality/majority systems, especially the FPTP system, are seen as encouraging individual candidates to consider themselves as the delegates of particular geographical areas and beholden to the interests of their local electorate.

The FPTP System tends to encourage voters to make their choice rather among the individual candidates than between the different political parties and programmes. A popular independent candidate has therefore much better chances to gain support than in PR systems. This may be particularly important in developing party systems, where politics still revolve more around extended ties of family, clan, or kinship and is not based on strong political party organisation. Additionally, plurality/majority systems are said to maximize the ability of the electorate to throw out unsatisfactory individual representatives.

By contrast, systems which use large multi-member districts, such as most PR systems, are more likely to deliver representatives whose primary loyalty lies with their party on national issues. Both approaches have their merits, which is one of the reasons for the rise in popularity of mixed systems that combine both local and national-level representatives.

Holding individual representatives accountable The question of accountability is often raised in discussions of political parties and electoral systems, especially in relation to individual elected members. Accountability at the individual level is the ability of the electorate to effectively check on those who, once elected, betray the promises they made during the campaign or demonstrate incompetence or idleness in office and to ‘throw the rascals out’.

The relationships between electors, elected members, and political parties are affected not only by the electoral system but also by other provisions of the political legislative framework such as term limits, provisions regulating the relationship between parties and their members who are also elected representatives, or provisions barring elected members from changing parties without resigning from the legislature. The freedom for voters to choose between candidates as opposed to parties is another aspect of accountability.