The term “electoral systems” is hereby used to refer to a very specific catalogue of norms and procedures used in an election to decide how to choose those who will hold the positions in dispute.
Elections can be set apart from two distinct perspectives: the first one is related to the different levels of government in which a country is divided (national, state or local level). At these levels, various authorities are elected under different systems. When two additional elements are considered —the nature of the State (unitary or federal) and the legislative system (unicameral or bicameral)—, the number of options increases. A second essential difference is the one related to the fact that positions in dispute may be single- or multi-member.
This distinction is vital to analyze the functioning and the performance of the systems of government where the connection between the effects produced by the presidential and legislative elections is of crucial importance. Unfortunately, it tends to be minimized to such an extent that the most commonly used definition of electoral systems is the most basic one: the translation of votes into seats.
On this basis, the catalogue of systems to integrate a single member position is limited; only one winner can be selected among the contenders, or two in some cases, when a vice president is elected along with the president as part of the same ticket.
When the election entails the creation or renewal of a collegiate entity, the range of options is broaden, and its integration can be guided by different political objectives not necessarily reconcilable in practice. On the one hand, ensuring greater proportionality; and on the other, striving for the political party with the greater number of votes to be rewarded with the necessary seats to get a parliamentary majority that might allow it to govern without having to seek no agreement or support from other political forces (in opposition).
These two goals are the ones that have captured the most attention of scholars, politicians and the public in general, and have guided the debates and initiatives in the field, but they are not the only ones that have been encouraged or ensured in the design and operation of the electoral systems. While the purpose of creating an electoral system with roughly proportional results is not a really complex task, that of delivering a majority government may pose serious challenges that could end up imposing big restrictions for achieving the desired objective, not because of the lack of regulatory or procedural instruments, but because its realization may require complicated political arrangements.
Therefore, the process of designing and evaluating electoral systems to integrate collegiate entities is not only open to a wider range of possibilities, but has more instruments with additional variants that can make more complex its arrangement and operation.
What Electoral Systems Are
At the most basic level, electoral systems translate the votes cast in an election into results – the offices/seats - won by parties and candidates. The key variables are the electoral formula used (i.e. whether a plurality/majority, proportional, mixed or other system is used, and what mathematical formula is used to calculate the seat allocation), the ballot structure (i.e. whether the voter votes for a candidate or a party and whether the voter makes a single choice or expresses a series of preferences) and the district magnitude (not how many voters live in a district, but how many representatives to the legislature that district elects).
It must also be stressed that, although this topic area does not focus on the administrative aspects of elections (such as the distribution of polling places, the nomination of candidates, the registration of voters, who runs the elections and so on), these issues are of critical importance, and the possible advantages of any given electoral system choice can sometimes be undermined unless due attention is paid to them. Electoral system design also affects other areas of electoral laws: the choice of electoral system has an influence on the way in which district boundaries are drawn, how voters are registered, the design of ballot papers, how votes are counted, and numerous other aspects of the electoral process.
The choice of Electoral System is one of the most important institutional decisions for any democracy. The choice of a particular electoral system has a profound effect on the future political life of the country concerned, and electoral systems, once chosen, often remain fairly constant as political interests solidify around and respond to the incentives presented by them. However, while conscious design has become far more prevalent recently, traditionally it has been rare for electoral systems to be consciously and deliberately selected. Often the choice was essentially accidental, the result of an unusual combination of circumstances, of a passing trend, or of a quirk of history, with the impact of colonialism and the effects of influential neighbours often being especially strong.
Any new democracy must choose (or inherit) an electoral system to elect its legislature. Equally, political crisis within an established democracy may lead to momentum for electoral system change, and even without political crisis, campaigners for political reform may attempt to put electoral system change onto the political agenda. Decisions to change, or indeed to keep in place, an electoral system are often affected by one of two circumstances:
- either political actors lack basic knowledge and information so that the choices and consequences of different electoral systems are not fully recognized;
- or, conversely, political actors use their knowledge of electoral systems to promote designs which they think will work to their own partisan advantage.
The choices that are made may have consequences that were unforeseen when they are introduced, as well as effects which were predicted. These choices may not always be the best ones for the long-term political health of the country concerned, and at times they can have disastrous consequences for its democratic prospects.
The background to a choice of electoral system can thus be as important as the choice itself. Electoral system choice is a fundamentally political process, rather than a question to which independent technical experts can produce a single ‘correct answer’. In fact, the consideration of political advantage is almost always a factor in the choice of electoral systems—sometimes it is the only consideration—while the menu of available electoral system choices is often, in reality, a relatively constrained one. Equally, however, calculations of short-term political interest can often obscure the longer-term consequences of a particular electoral system and the interests of the wider political system. Consequently, while recognizing the practical constraints, this text attempts to approach the issue of electoral system choices in as broad and comprehensive a manner as possible.
As the crafting of political institutions is a critical task not only for new democracies but also for those established democracies that are seeking to adapt their systems to better reflect new political realities, this topic area also seeks to address the likely concerns of those persons in established democracies who may be redesigning electoral systems as well as those involved in debate on political institutions in new, fledgling and transitional democracies. Given this target audience, much of the academic literature on the subject is necessarily simplified, while at the same time this text attempts to address some of the more complex issues inherent in the area. If the text appears to be sometimes overly simplistic and at other times unduly complex, the explanation will usually lie in the attempt to balance the two objectives of clarity and comprehensiveness.
While the contexts in which emerging and established democracies make institutional choices can vary enormously, their long-term purposes are usually the same: to develop institutions which are strong enough to promote stable democracy but flexible enough to react to changing circumstances. Each type of democracy has much to learn from the experiences of the other. Institutional design is an evolving process, and this text seeks to distil the lessons learnt from the many actual examples of institutional design around the world.
The global movement towards democratic governance in the 1980s and 1990s, which stimulated a new urgency in the search for enduring models of appropriate representative institutions and a fresh re-evaluation of electoral systems, has increased dramatically in the early years of this century. This process was encouraged by the realization that the choice of political institutions can have a significant impact on the wider political system. For example, it is increasingly being recognized that an electoral system can be designed both to provide local geographic representation and to promote the principle of proportionality; can promote the development of strong and viable national political parties, and ensure the representation of women and regional minorities; and can help to ‘engineer’ cooperation and accommodation in a divided society by the creative use of particular incentives and constraints. Electoral systems are today viewed as one of the most influential of all political institutions, and of crucial importance to broader issues of governance.
