Applying
criteria for allocating direct access broadcasts is primarily an issue for
countries wanting to provide equitable (rather than equal) access,. However, in
systems of "modified equality", such as in the Netherlands, the
regulatory body may have some discretion to allocate additional time to the
major parties.
In any
system, the first criterion to be established is whether there is a
qualification threshold. Even some equality-based systems (such as Denmark,
Norway, and Japan) require a form of qualification - such as number of seats
contested or a minimum of public signatures.
Equity
systems will also have to decide on a qualification threshold. In new
democracies, it is more likely that the threshold will be set low, because of
the difficulty of knowing what level of popular support each party enjoys. Thus
in South Africa, for example, all parties receive a minimum allocation. In long
established democracies, the threshold is often higher. The threshold should
usually be determined by the number of seats contested, rather than the number
previously held, since the latter would be a great obstacle to the emergence of
new parties. Hence in the 2010 General Elections in England, for example, the
threshold was 89 contested seats, or about a sixth of the total. Allowance was
also made for a party that did not fulfil these criteria, but which could ‘demonstrate that it has significant
levels of current electoral support.’[1]
Once
the threshold has been established, there are two other criteria that are
usually taken into account in allocating time:
- How many seats are the
parties contesting (or how many candidates are they fielding)?
- How much popular support
have they enjoyed in the past?
In
answering the first question, it is immediately clear that this will be
determined to a considerable extent by the nature of the election and the
electoral system. Presidential elections, for example, are likely to be far
more equal in the allocation of broadcasting because they are generally based
on a more individual competition than simply a difference of parties. Hence
France allocates broadcast time in its presidential elections on a purely equal
basis, although Brazil has done so on the basis of the level of parliamentary
support for the candidates' parties.
In
parliamentary elections, the nature of the voting system clearly determines how
significant smaller parties are likely to be to the outcome, which may in turn
determine what time allocation they receive. In a first-past-the-post system, a
party that wins 10 % of the vote nationwide is likely to be completely marginal
(and possibly unrepresented in parliament), while the same party in most
proportional representation systems could be an important player. Thus the
allocation of broadcasting time under the latter system is likely to tend
towards greater equality, or at least a lower threshold for qualification.
But
strangely, the classic first-past-the-post model, the United Kingdom, makes a
conscious effort to compensate for the inequities of the electoral system in
its allocation of time. Thus the third national party, the Liberal Democrats,
which consistently receives parliamentary representation much lower than its
share of the popular vote, nevertheless receives a time allocation that is
actually proportionally higher not only than its number of parliamentary seats,
but also than its vote.
[1] http://www.broadcastersliaisongroup.org.uk/criteria_genelect.html
