Original question:

This question was posed by a member of the Practitioners' Network

When designing an electoral system it is good practice to take the
social and political context into account. According to the ACE Encyclopaedia:

“Electoral systems do not work in a vacuum. Their success depends on a happy marriage of political institutions and cultural traditions. […]. When designing any political institution, the bottom line is that, even if it does not help to reduce tensions within society, it should, at the very least, not make matters worse.”

Although there are well-known examples where the electoral system has worked well with the political and social situation (such as South Africa’s adoption of a proportional system in 1994), there is also value in looking at cases where the electoral system proved to be inappropriate – and the lessons that could be learned from such cases.

1. Are you aware of any cases where the choice of electoral system might have been unsuitable in terms of political and social context? Why was it unsuitable?
   
   2. What might have been the reasoning behind choosing such a system?
   
   3. Are there any lessons to be learned from this case?

Summary of responses:

Posted on 7 August, 2008

There are indeed several examples of countries which have chosen an electoral system that has partially or completely failed in terms of the objective prescribed for it. Electoral systems have also been deemed flawed if the objective behind them is revealed to be politically biased or no longer relevant. Some of the many cases, which are discussed in detail below, include Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Kenya, Fiji and Lesotho. This is not to say that one or several electoral systems are in themselves worse than the others, rather that while one electoral system may be considered very appropriate for one country, the same system may be equally inappropriate for another, and that one must always take context into account.

There a few things to look out for when identifying an electoral system that has failed or seriously faltered. An electoral system may be deemed “inappropriate” if it inherently tends to favour one group at the expense of another. This is an especially acute issue in ethnically, culturally, or socially divided societies. Moreover, symptoms endemic to troublesome electoral systems are the polarization of power in one single political party, or the fragmentation and excessive fluidity within the national political party culture, where many parties are small and weak and lack nationally viable platforms and strong membership ties. Similarly, significant distortions between the amount of votes a party gets and the number of seats it is designated, and formulas that are not understood by the wide majority, may be seen as unfair, undemocratic, or a sign of fraud, and may in turn lead to political unrest in the country.

Reasons for adopting electoral systems that may lead to these negative consequences are varied. Sometimes inappropriate electoral systems may be inherited from a country’s colonial regime, or borrowed from influential and/or powerful neighbours. Moreover, the selection of an inappropriate electoral system may just be the result of biased political consideration of a particular ruling party or the political elite who may stand to benefit in its application.

The primary lesson to be learned from the cases explored below is that objectives for the electoral system should be identified (keeping the country specific variables in mind), prioritized and kept in mind when designing the electoral system. At the same time, there should be room for flexibility and reform so that when such a system fails to meet those objectives, it can be changed in a peaceful and transparent manner. It must be understood that true democracy is not achieved by the mere implementation of an electoral system and multi-party elections and as such, if democratic entrenchment is the stated goal, then electoral systems should be reviewed and reformed when they no longer serve this end.

Replies were received, with thanks, from:  

• Vladimir Pran
  
• Michael Hendrickse 
• Koki Muli
  
• Paul Graham
  
• Carl Dundas
• Andrew Ellis
  

Links to related resources:

ACE: Context of Electoral Systems

ACE: Criteria for Design 

ACE: The Process of Change

ACE: The Systems and their Consequences 

International IDEA’s Handbook on “Principles of Electoral System Choice”

Project on Designing Better Electoral Systems for Emerging Democracies 

Democracy Resource Centre’s “Engineering Electoral Systems: Possibilities and Pitfalls”

Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook

1) Elections for Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006 and local councils in 2005 were held under so called Block Vote system that is inappropriate in multiparty environments. To quote NDI report: "The plurality block voting system, a variant of the First Past the Post (FPTP) system has the capacity to produce significant distortions between the level of popular support for a particular party and the number of seats it receives. Under the system there is no requirement to win an absolute majority of the votes. Political parties that are able to limit their number of candidates and to effectively organize and mobilize supporters do particularly well. For instance, because only a plurality is required to win a seat, a small but cohesive group of voters can overpower larger but less organized groups of voters who do not choose their candidates tactically. A party that fails to limit its candidates risks splitting the votes of its supporters among various candidates, diluting the overall chances for that party to secure seats. Every electoral system has the capacity to produce distortions. In this case, while the system can produce more cohesive legislatures, it can also generate results that are somewhat unrepresentative of voters’ intentions.
Only a handful of countries use the system."

2) The Block Vote system was used in 1996 when Palestinian political environment was not quite multipartisan. Palestinians simply used the same system as it was used in Jordan (Jordan changed it since then so that voters vote only for 1 candidate on the ballot)

3) NDI extensively analyzed results of Palestinian elections and could prove how better organized "blocks of candidates" can win overwhelmingly, even when the opposite faction has stronger popular support. Feel free to contact me for detailed analysis.

On Palestinian side  - it is quite certain that Palestinians will switch to some type of proportional system for future elections, because of the discontent created by discrepancy in popular support and elections results.

You have referred to the South African electoral system. I wish to add the following comments.

The choice of an electoral system must be informed by the historical context of the country at the time it is chosen. It was against the background of  an emergent democracy and a deeply divided society, fragmented and deeply hurt by the system of Apartheid, that the overall need for inclusivity was the overriding consideration for "an electoral system that results in general, in proportional representation." ( section 46 of the Constitution of the RSA). An electoral system  is measured against core values of Fairness; Inclusivity; Simplicity; and Accountability.

Within the proportional system, variations can be made that suit the particular country. In South Africa, we have three spheres of Government and the requirement for an "electoral system that results in general, in proportional representation" serves as a framework for the particular system in each of these spheres. South Africa has 9 provinces and 284 local municpalities.

National Parliament consists of the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. For the National Assembly, we have a two tier multi member constituency compensatory system based on a combination of  multi member regional lists representation with a compensatory national list representation. The National Council of Provinces are made up of delegates from the 9 provincial legislatures.

At provincial level, there is a single tier provincial list representation for each provincial legislature.

At municipal (local) level,  there is a two tier system consisting of single member constituencies ( a.k.a. wards) and a compensatory municipal closed PR list.

An electoral system must be reviewed periodically, to ensure that it continues to meet the requirements and challenges of the country and its citizens, taking into account the needs of a dynamic and evolving society; the entrenchment of human rights and democratic constitutional principles, the supremacy of the Constitution of the country; and the assesment against the core values of an electoral system.

In 2002, the legislative provisions that  prohibited an elected representative to change party affiliation was amended to allow members of legislatures to change such affiliation during a fixed window period. This is also known as "floor crossing".

The floor crossing exception was primarily motivated by what was termed a means to respond to the need for political realignment at the time within certain parties. The floor crossing provisons were unpopular amongst voters, as it in effect nullified election results; allowed  parties could gain seats in legislatures without contesting seats; and there were allegations made of fraud and bribery. It also saw many smaller parties lose their sole or few elected representatives to larger parties, and also led to instability in coalition governments at local level. 

Thankfully, there are current Bills to be considered by Parliament to do away with the floor crossing provisions.

Michael Hendrickse

South Africa

Many countries in Africa have had to re-evaluate and change their electoral systems to address some social and political imbalances. Countries such as Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo, and many others indeed had initially adopted electoral systems succeeded at independence. These systems had to be changed in order to ensure fairer and equitable representation of communities/tribes and certain categories of the society such as women and other disadvantaged communities, for example after adopting a form of proportional representatiion there are more women representatives in Rwanda, Tanzania etc.

In Kenya following the political arising from the contested presidential elections results in December 2007 and the subsequent establishement of a Coalition Government an Independent Commission of Inquiry was established with a mandate which includes review and proposals for a new electoral system.

It has been established that the first-past-the -post majoritarian electoral system does not serve Kenya and Kenyans well; that it is unfair, unequitable and enables gerry mandering to thrive. For example there are constituencies which have more than 200,000 registered voters while others have only 25,000 registered voters and the weight of representation is the same! Many of these constituencies have been altered and bits and pieces of administrative boundaries superimposed onto them meading some constituencies to fall in to two administrative districts etc.

Lack a fairer and equitable electoral system was established as one of the factors that led to the political and social crises on last year in Kenya.  

At independence in 1963, Kenya had two houses of Parliament which included a Senate and a combined electoral system; we also had a position of a Prime Minister. This was changed in 1964 when Kenya became a Republic with only a President. With the Grand Coalition Government and re-introduction of the post of the Prime Minister, Kenya is now going to change its electoral system to ensure the political and social problems of 2007 are not repeated and to enhance fairer and equitable representation. The likely system to be chosen as has been suggested by all political parties will be most likely Mixed Member Proportiional Representation. This is because many believe that there is still a need for representation based on constituencies but also a greater need to ensure women (52% of the national population), people with disability; youth; minorities; marginalised communities etc are fairly represented in order to address current and past imbalances and injustices. 

A key lesson to be learnt derives from the electoral manipulation and subsequent violence that can ensue from an unfair and unequitable electoral system which in a way ties the hands of an EMB. Another is that the electoral system of a country determines in a big way whether that country can be democratic or not; meaning that the democratic will of the people can be subotaged by an unfair electoral system.

One could argue that unreflective adoption of the "westminster" system by a number of British colonies at the point of independence has proven problematic; and in a number of constitutional reform processes discussion of the electoral system has ensued. But the FPTP system has been very resilient and impervious to change. Recently Lesotho's electoral crisis - in which the FPTP system delivered total dominance for one party - was resolved in part by the introduction of a mixed member proportional system. In its latest election, the parties in Lesotho proved that even this system was open to abuse. So while it is true that electoral systems do form the base for a particular political culture, it is also true that one must work on creating a democratic culture through means other than reform of the electoral system

Quite a few countries have reviewed their electoral systems in recent years for a variety of reasons, but mainly to reflect better proportionality of the allocation of seats to votes received. In this category fell Lesotho who introduced the mixed proportional after the 1998 belections. In the early 1990s New Zealand had intrduced a similar system to better reflect minorities representation. Fiji Islands introduced the Alternative Vote in 1996 to improve multi-ethnic representation. Papua New Guinea introduced the limited preferential voting system in place of the first past the post system in order to achieve greater proportional allocation of seats.

There are many cases over the years!  One in particular to mention: the Alternative Vote chosen in Fiji after an exercise in which there was substantial international input and advice turned out to be highly unsuitable.  In quick summary: AV in some scenarios produces less proportional results even than first-past-the-post: an option was included in which voters could choose to give their lower preferences in line with the preferences expressed by the party of their first choice: and there was no understanding that the preference choices of parties are not driven by the same dynamic as those of voters (voters rationally express a second choice for a party close to their own party in policy terms: parties may express a second choice for extreme opponents, in order to reduce the strength of neighbouring parties in policy terms and give themselves room to expand their support base).  This is expanded in my paper from 2006.