Voting systems differ in type
and ability to safeguard electoral integrity. Each country develops its
own electoral system, based on its distinctive political history and culture. Every
system has advantages and disadvantages.[1]
Concerns about electoral
integrity and the type of voting system chosen may arise when a system is used
to exclude a portion of the eligible population, or to deny a seat to a
candidate who has won a large share of the vote. Integrity issues may also
arise in a system that remains static when changing social or political
conditions make reform essential to ensure that the population is better
represented.
The
Voting System Affects Election Results
There are a number of
different voting systems, each with its own formula for translating votes into
seats in the legislature. The choice of voting system may have an impact on
government stability, the representation of various social interests and the
level of accountability of elected representatives. Although government
stability is beyond the scope of election integrity, it is an important issue
to consider when selecting a voting system. Representation and accountability
have a direct impact on electoral integrity. Representation implies that each vote counts and political parties win a number of seats proportionate to the number of votes they
receive. Accountability is crucial for ensuring
voter confidence in the electoral process.
Equality
of Votes, Government Stability and Confidence in the Electoral Process
In plurality-majority (or,
“majoritarian”) systems, the candidate who receives the most votes in an
electoral district wins a seat in the legislature. This formula benefits bigger
parties at the expense of smaller ones lacking a strong regional presence. The
principle of one person, one vote is compromised if voters who support the
smallest parties are less likely to be represented. Also, a party with a
relatively low percentage of the national vote may obtain a large majority of
seats. At the same time,
plurality-majority systems have the advantage of fostering stable governments
that are less likely to be forced to depend on a coalition of parties.
In proportional representation
(PR) systems, the seats are allocated to the parties based on the percentage of
votes each won in the election. This approach promotes the quality of representation of
the electoral outcome over subsequent government stability. More parties may be
able to have their candidates elected, a situation that can encourage a proliferation
of parties. Coalition government is more common, and this can have a negative
impact on stability of government. On the positive side, in countries that have
opted for proportional representation there is greater voter confidence in the
electoral process since the election outcome is more uniform, transparent and
fair to the participants.[2] PR
systems use different mathematical formulas (“algorithms”) to allocate seats,
and the choice of formula may have a significant impact on representation. For
example, one formula may ensure a balance between urban and rural areas;
another may guarantee representation for a minority or a traditionally
under-represented sector of society.[3]
Proportional representation
systems may impose electoral thresholds, requiring each party to receive a
minimum percentage of votes in order to win a seat. The threshold intentionally
seeks to increase the chances of electing a stable and effective government by
reducing the number of parties needed to form or support a government. However,
integrity becomes an issue if the threshold is used to prevent smaller parties
from winning seats so as to restrict the representation of certain minority
groups.
The voting system adopted is
the result of a political evolution more often than a conscious legislative
decision. Proportional representation is quite common, and several
plurality-majority systems are considering adopting PR or an improved version
known as “mixed member proportional” (MMP). Such a system offers the benefits
of both better representation and stable government. New Zealand, for instance, has
abandoned its majority system in favour of an MMP system.
[1] See,
e.g., OSCE/ODIHR, “Existing Commitments …”, op.
cit., Part One, para. 2.4: “[T]he
system for direct election of legislators and other public officials is a
matter for national determination, provide the system operates transparently,
is based on universal and equal suffrage of voters, and does not discriminate
among candidates and political parties.
In choosing an electoral system, states should take into account to what
extent it gives effect to the will of the voters, preserved political
pluralism, and protests the interests of minorities and other groups in
society.”
[2] Birch, Sarah, “Explaining Confidence in the Conduct of
Elections,” paper presented to the Public Opinion and Political Parties
Conference, University of Essex, U.K., September 9–11, 2005
[3] Goodwin-Gill, Guy S., Free and Fair Elections:
International Law and Practice, Geneva:
Inter Parliamentary Union, 1994, pp. 32–33
