Applying criteria for allocating direct access broadcasts is primarily an issue when some consideration of equitability is applied, rather than simply allocating slots on an equal basis. 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 some 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 UK, for example, the threshold is 50 contested seats - roughly seven per cent of the total.
Once the threshold has been established, the other two criteria that are usually taken into account in allocating direct access broadcasting are:
- 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 per cent 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 higher not only than its number of parliamentary seats, but also than its vote.
An interesting recent approach is that developed in South Africa, a new democracy where the media regulatory body has devised a formula that:
- Gives all parties some access
- Allocates time on the basis of seats contested and presumed popular support
- Takes into account the fact that national and provincial elections are held simultaneously.
See A Formula for Allocating Direct Access Slots - South Africa.
