Voting systems differ, and differ in their ability to protect election integrity. Each country has
developed its own voting system resulting from its political history and culture. Every system has
its merits (usually the reason why that system was adopted in the first place), but each system also
has its problems.
Integrity, and the type of voting system used, becomes an issue when a particular system is used
as a mechanism to exclude a portion of the eligible population, or to deny the winner of the
popular vote his/her seat. Integrity issues could also result from a system that was not changed to
respond to changing social or political conditions. 119 Even if the result was unintentional, denying representation to a portion of
the population, or not awarding the office to the candidate who won the popular vote (if that is the electoral system used), raises
integrity questions.
How votes are counted affects the election results
Votes can be counted in different ways, and the way they are counted determines who wins the
elections. There are several different systems and variations of the systems in use. One system
is the plurality vote count where the votes are counted and the candidate who received the most
votes wins.
Another system is a majority vote count system where the winner must receive more than 50% of
the vote. The 50% threshold is to ensure that the winner polls more votes than all of the other
candidates combined. In most majority vote systems, if no candidate received 50% of the votes in
the first round, a second run-off election is required. This system has several variations which use
different formulas to eliminate the weaker candidates for the second round, and to determine the
number of run-off elections.
Both the plurality and majority formulas favour the stronger parties at the expense of the weaker
parties, or parties without a regionally concentrated base. Proportional representation divides the
seats up for election among the candidates and parties according to the proportion of the votes
they received in the elections. This avoids the winner-take all results of a single member district
system and allows for a wider range of parties to win office and form a coalition government.
The outcome of proportional representation also depends on the formula used to divide the seats
(for more on this see PR Systems)
Thresholds and Representation
Thresholds can also be established that require each party to receive a minimum percentage of
votes in order to win a seat. Setting the threshold level varies according to the system. For
example, New Zealand has a threshold that a political party must pass before it is entitled to
receive a share of all the seats based on its total number of Party Votes. It must win at least 5%
of all the Party votes, or it must win at least one General or Mäori electorate seat. 120
Most thresholds are set to ensure an equal representation of political parties according to the
votes received during the election. The formula used can also help increase representation of
traditionally under-represented sectors of society. Other mechanisms can also be used for this,
such as reserved seats, and candidate quotas.
In India, a single transferable vote system is used
for members of the State parliaments to elect the upper house (Council of States, Rajya Sabha).
This system is:
designed to ensure more diverse representation, by reducing the opportunity for blocks of voters
to dominate minorities. The ballot paper lists all candidates standing for election and the voters
list them in order of preference. A threshold number of votes, known as the 'quota' is set, which
candidates have to achieve to be elected. For presidential elections the quota is set at one more
than half the number of votes, ensuring that the winner is the candidate with the clear majority.
For the Rajya Sabha, the quota is set at the number of votes that can be attained by just enough
MPs to fill all the seats but no more. Votes that are deemed surplus, those given to candidates
who have already got a full quota of votes, or votes given to candidates who are deemed to be
losing candidates, are transferred according to the voter's listed preferences, until the right number
of candidates have been elected. 121
The use of a threshold raises integrity issues if the threshold is used as a means to prevent smaller
parties from winning office. In the 1994 parliamentary elections in Mozambique, a five percent
national threshold was required to win a seat in parliament. The result was that even if a party
won a large percentage of the votes in one region, it could not get any seats in Parliament unless
its national average was 5%. This effectively eliminated all of the smaller parties but one.
This was also true in Kenya, where a constitutional amendment 'required any presidential
candidate to win not only a plurality or majority of the popular vote, but also at least 25 percent in
no fewer than five of Kenya's eight provinces. This was meant to wreck the presidential prospects
of popular opposition figures.. who drew the bulk of their support from their ethnic homelands. '
122
However, some systems deliberately use the threshold in an effort to increase the chances of
having a stable government by reducing the number of parties required to form or support a
government. 123 This was the
purpose of New Zealand's adoption of the MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) system. (see
New Zealand's Change to MMP) as well as Denmark's system as described below.
To balance the two issues, some proportional representation systems allow small parties to
combine their votes for threshold purposes, known as 'apparentement', but then allocate seats to
parties individually. 124
Denmark has three different electoral thresholds- winning a seat directly, vote/seat ratio in two of
the three electoral regions and a two percent national threshold. Their experience has shown that
the national threshold is an issue of contention among the smaller parties which have had difficulty
reaching the threshold. The discussion in Denmark:
The argument is that a threshold rule is undemocratic as it leaves some voters without
representation, which is not in accordance with the constitutional principle of equal representation
of different political opinions and attitudes. Bills to either eliminate or lower the threshold are
from time to time submitted to the Folketing, but they are never passed. Conversely, other voices
- especially from the larger parties speak in favour of raising the barrier to, for instance, five
percent as in Germany. The main argument in support of such a change is that it would lead to
fewer parties in parliament, which would in turn produce stable governments, greater political
decision-making power, fewer elections, and the like. However, a bill to raise the threshold has
not been submitted to the Folketing since 1953.125
Problems in Mixed Systems
Sometimes countries mix the different ways to count, creating other integrity issues. For example, the U.S.
electoral system uses a plurality vote count system to determine electoral winners, except for its
presidential elections. The way Americans vote for president is an archaic relic of its political
history. In each state, voters vote for a presidential candidate. However, in reality, they are
voting for a slate of electors who have pledged to vote for that candidate in the Electoral College.
The candidate who wins the most votes in each state, wins all of the electoral votes for that state. (The number of electors is based on each state's number of representatives in Congress.)
To win the presidential
election, a candidate must receive the majority of votes in the Electoral College. If a candidate
does not win a majority, the elections are decided by the U.S. Congress which chooses among the
top three candidates. The end result is a system that can, and has in the past, elected presidents
who did not receive the most popular votes. This system has become an issue in the close 2000 presidential election race.
Systems must be decided before candidates register
For the process to be fair and transparent, the rules for counting, and any formulas adopted, must
be decided before candidate and party registration. There needs to be easy access to clear, neutral
and accurate information on the procedures, so that candidates, political parties and monitors can
understand the technicalities of the count. This includes issues such as whether blank votes will
be taken into account in the calculation of an absolute majority.
These rules should be followed by election authorities during the count and allocation of seats. In
the 1998 Cambodian elections, the issue of which formula to use for proportional representation
arose during the count, when several political parties questioned the division of seats. They
charged that the formula being used was not the one adopted by the National Elections
Committee. Lax record keeping by the electoral management body made the charge hard to
disprove and the formula issue was used as justification for several parties to question the validity
of the election results. (see Dispute Resolution Mechanisms)
