Comparing Systems

The following description is copied from the BC Citizens’ Assembly: Fact Sheet #2 – Assessing Electoral Systems

Assessing Electoral Systems

Choosing among electoral systems involves deciding what sort of politics we want and then trying to determine what kind of electoral system will help give it to us – understanding that the same system can work differently and produce different results in different places.

As we assess the workings of various electoral systems we want to keep in mind not only their individual characteristics but some of the trade-offs that might be involved in choosing one over another. A system which satisfies one of our goals may work counter to another goal.

The following criteria and questions may be interesting to consider when assessing electoral systems. Which of these characteristics are most important to you? And why is this?

Various electoral systems have different impacts on:

The system of government
  • Stable and effective government
  • Electoral accountability
  • Parliamentary check on government
  • Fair representation for parties and groups
  • Democratic political parties

“Stable” government

Government stability refers to how secure the governing party is in power. The more tenuous a government’s hold on power, the more difficult it may be for it to make hard decisions and move quickly when necessary – for fear of losing support in the legislature and losing its hold on power. Generally, majority governments tend to be more secure and, at least in this sense, more stable. But such governments can become arrogant and insensitive to public opinion, unwilling to compromise and too easily dominated by autocratic leaders.

How important is the trade-off between government stability (which may mean a majority government) and a legislature that more closely reflects society’s social and political divisions?

Electoral Accountability – for parties and individual representatives

Elections are about choosing representatives and governments. In order to make elections about a choice of governments, it is necessary that:

  • Voters can identify which parties were responsible for government decisions in the past
  • Political parties and candidates clearly signal their intentions with respect to possible future coalition partners
  • Representatives can be held accountable

What kind of accountability does a particular electoral system provide? How does it do so?

Parliamentary Check on Governments

One of the key tasks of a legislature is to scrutinize the work of government. The ability of a legislature to do this will depend largely on the rules and procedures it adopts, and the degree and kind of discipline that exists within the political parties.

Effective parliamentary checks on government are likely to be found in multi-party legislatures where the government does not command an easy majority. But such minority governments tend to be less stable and accountability is more difficult to determine.

What is the best balance between parliamentary checks and stable, accountable government?

Voters
  • Degree of choice
  • Identifiable/local representative
  • Encouragement to participate
  • Equality of the vote

Fair Representation for Parties and Groups

  • “Wasted” votes – Under some electoral systems, the vote of someone who supports a losing candidate does not contribute to any candidate being elected. Is that vote wasted? Is this a concern?
  • Proportionality and representation of minority groups – The share of seats a political party wins more closely mirrors its share of votes under some electoral systems. Similarly, minority parties are more likely to win seats under certain electoral systems. How important is proportionality and the representation of minority parties?
  • Some electoral systems seem to produce more diverse legislatures than others, with better representation of all sectors of society including minorities and women. Does the electoral system disadvantage some members of society?

Democratic Political Parties

Given the central position parties have in electoral competition, their basic features have a direct impact on the nature of a community’s politics. An important aspect of assessing an electoral system is how it affects the number and nature of the parties.

How would a change in electoral system influence the competitive relationships among parties, and what would this mean for the character of the legislature and government?

Voter Choice

Different electoral systems create different choices for voters, such as: choosing among candidates from different parties, choosing among parties, or choosing among candidates from the same party. Voters may also be able to rank candidates or weight their vote.

How much and what kind of choice should an electoral system offer voters?

Identifiable Representative

Elections allow voters to choose how they will be represented in the legislature. Under some systems, they choose an individual (as in BC); under others, they choose a party.

How important is it to British Columbians to have our own MLA? Is this more important in rural areas than in urban areas?

Encourage Participation

Voter turnout rates are falling in most western democracies. Aspects of an electoral system that could affect voter participation are: clarity, simplicity and choice.

Do some electoral systems encourage participation in the political process?

Equality of the Vote

Because of how electoral boundaries are drawn, some representatives can be elected from ridings with few voters, while others represent more populated ridings.

Does this mean voters are not treated equally? Are there counterbalancing arguments?

The following description is copied [with slight modifications] from the BC Citizens’ Assembly: Fact Sheet #1 – Politics in BC: What do we want?

What do we want?

At the heart of democratic politics is a system of regular elections that allows citizens to make choices about their government and the people who control it.  Electoral systems are designed to turn our individual choices into collective choices.  Our vote is combined with many others to determine our political representatives.  In different electoral systems, that process of combining votes works differently – with different political consequences.

Different electoral systems can have a significant impact on important features of our political landscape.

The people of British Columbia now have the opportunity to decide what kind of politics they want in this province – and choose an electoral system accordingly.  There are no guarantees, but knowing what kind of politics we want – how we want political parties and BC’s Legislative Assembly to operate – will clarify our thinking about electoral systems.  And how we answer some key questions will shape our thinking about what kind of politics we want.

How adversarial or consensual do we want BC politics to be?

Politics in Canada (and in BC) is modeled on the law courts, with two opposing sides – the government and the opposition – vigorously arguing their positions and challenging their opponent’s.  The result tends toward adversarial politics.  Accountability is clear and, on election day, the voter pronounces judgment.

Other political systems do not draw the line between government and opposition as clearly.  They favour consensual politics, with multiple views represented in government.  The result is often coalition governments and blurred accountability.

No political system is completely adversarial or completely consensual; it will have features of each.  But different electoral systems will push our politics in one direction or the other.

Where should the balance of power lie between cabinet and the legislature?

In a parliamentary system, we elect members to a legislature who, in turn, choose the premier and cabinet, make the laws, and decide on taxes and spending.  So, in effect, the premier and cabinet are accountable to the legislature.  When, however, an electoral system has a tendency to produce majority governments, and that is combined with strict party discipline, the premier and cabinet are able to more easily dominate and the legislature is less able to hold the government accountable.

In order for the balance of power to shift back toward the legislature, changes must be made that weaken party discipline or that lessen the likelihood of majority governments, or both.

Changing electoral systems can address the likelihood of majority governments – although party discipline is only loosely affected by electoral system changes.

Do we need local representatives?

In our current system, we elect local people to represent the interests of a region – which we call a constituency or riding.  This gives voters an identifiable political representative, and it gives representatives a clear, geographically-based constituency of voters.  Yet party discipline may hamper an MLA’s ability to vote the way his or her constituents wish.

Some electoral systems dispense with local representatives.  Voters may, for example, elect representatives on a basis other than geography, or they may simply vote for a party and allow the party to designate all the representatives.

Should parties hold seats in the legislature in proportion to their share of the popular vote?

In our system, electoral contests are held simultaneously in a number of ridings around the province.  Often, because there are a number of candidates (and parties) running in each riding, a representative is elected with less than 50 per cent of voter support.  Frequently, the party that wins the election achieves less than 50 per cent of the popular vote across the province.  Occasionally, as happened in BC in 1996, a party can win the election with fewer votes province-wide than the opposition party.

This system tends to exaggerate majorities in the legislature while under-representing smaller parties that achieved a significant percentage of the vote province-wide, but insufficient votes in any one riding to win a seat.

Some electoral systems ensure a party’s strength in the legislature is directly proportional to its share of the vote; that is, its share of votes determines its share of seats.  To achieve this proportional representation, these systems abandon exclusive use of single-member constituencies and shift the focus to parties and away from individual representatives.

Do voters get to make the kinds of choices they want?

Under our current system, BC voters are given a short list of names, together with the party affiliation of each, and are simply asked to choose one.  The candidates on the list are determined by the respective political parties without voter input.  Sometimes this simple choice creates hard decisions.  What do we do if we like the candidate for Party X but prefer Party Z?

Other electoral systems allow the ballot to be organized in different ways, allowing the voter a wider range of choices, including:

  • Choice among candidates.
  • Choice among candidates, including those from the same party.
  • Choice among parties.
  • Ranking of candidates and/or parties.

Is increasing or changing the kind of choices on the ballot a good thing, or does it simply create more confusion and complication?

The following description is copied from the BC Citizens’ Assembly: Fact Sheet #3 – Legislatures, elections, representation and parties ?

Legislatures, Elections, Representation and Parties

In a democracy, we expect government to be responsive to citizens and accountable for its activities.  Periodic elections give citizens an opportunity to select their political representatives and hold them accountable.

Legislative Assembly

In Canada, governments are accountable to the legislative assembly, because the premier and ministers – the cabinet – are, technically, chosen by the members of the legislative assembly from among those elected to the assembly.

The functions of the Legislative Assembly are:

  1. Make laws.
  2. Raise and spend funds.
  3. Oversee the work of government.
  4. Discuss matters of public concern.

In order to remain in office, the cabinet – or “government of the day” – must keep the support of a majority of representatives in the legislative assembly.  Ministers, who are responsible for policy and the administration of their departments, are open to questions and scrutiny in the assembly.  The assembly can force a government to resign by withdrawing its support. If this happens, the opposition members may be called on to form an alternative government – or a general election may be called.

Types of Governments Based on Election Results

Depending on election results, governments may be formed in different ways:

Majority Government
  • The party with a majority of representatives in the legislature forms the government.
  • Voting is normally by party blocs.
  • The governing party controls the business of the assembly.
Coalition Government
  • Coalitions can be arranged between two parties when no party possesses a majority of seats.
  • In coalition governments, two (or more) parties agree to share government and divide ministerial positions between them.
  • Because of the nature of a coalition, compromise over policy may be necessary.
  • Coalition governments can collapse and fall when policy differences arise between coalition parties.
Minority Government
  • When no party has a majority of seats in the legislative assembly.
  • The party with the largest number of seats in the assembly forms a government and is supported in the assembly by another party (or parties).
  • The supporting party supports the government in office but not necessarily its legislative program.

Representatives – Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs)

Current activities of MLAs:

  • Attend meetings of the assembly and vote to support the party.
  • Participate in caucus (party) meetings.
  • Prepare for debates and committee activity.
  • Lobby on behalf of constituents.
  • Respond to concerns of residents within the MLA’s riding and participate in community functions, etc.

Political Parties and Party Competition

In most world democracies, political parties have arisen to articulate and package ideas and interests, recruit candidates, campaign on identifiable platforms, and organize and operate governments and oppositions.  Party discipline means that party members agree to campaign on the same issues, vote together and defend the party’s position on issues.  In Canada, political parties generally strive to balance national party discipline with local organizational autonomy.

Some electoral systems tend toward two-party competition, while others engender multi-party competition.  In systems dominated by two large parties, these parties tend to be centre-of the-road with minor policy differences and much of the policy debate takes place within the parties.  In multi-party systems, voters generally have wide choice between ideologically distinct parties, and debate over government policies takes place between parties in the legislature.

Questions to Consider

When examining the different electoral systems, a number of key questions are important in order to determine the priorities and values of British Columbians when it comes to electoral reform.  Ask yourself:

  • What are the costs and benefits of majority, coalition and minority governments?
  • What should be expected from members of the legislative assembly? 
  • How important is local representation?
  •  Does it matter how many political parties we have?  How many should there be?
  • Do we want an electoral system that makes it easy for new parties to grow?
  • Is multi-party or two-party competition better for BC?
  • How should candidates be chosen and by whom?

The following description is copied [with slight modifications] from the BC Citizens’ Assembly: Fact Sheet #5 – Why Electoral Reform?

Why Electoral Reform?

For most of the last century (and more), BC has employed the plurality, “first-past-the-post” electoral system with few complaints.  This system has generally produced stable majority governments with clear electoral accountability and identifiable local representatives.  In recent years, however, some British Columbians have expressed concerns about several aspects of our current system.

1) Should all votes count equally?

In our electoral system, the size of electoral districts – or constituencies – is crucial.  When there are big differences in constituency size, votes do not count equally.

For example, in 1983, the MLA from Atlin, a community in northern BC, represented 4,195 voters, whereas a Surrey MLA represented 56,576 voters – 12 times as many. Although he won more than 34,000 votes, MLA Ernie Hall lost his seat in Surrey, while in Atlin, Al Passarell won his seat with fewer than 1,600 votes.  These differences in constituency size allowed the NDP to win the Atlin seat with 1,587 votes; the Social Credit party needed 38,081 to win the Surrey riding. This led to the argument that votes in Atlin were worth 12 times as much as those in Surrey.

BC has since reorganized its electoral map to make districts more similar in size.  Today, BC constituencies can vary by up to plus or minus 25 per cent from the provincial average.

2) Artificial Majorities

A party needs a plurality of votes (not a majority) to win a seat in a district.  For example, in a constituency with five candidates, the winner could take the seat with 20 per cent + 1 of the votes, a far cry from a true majority of 50 per cent +1.  This means that a party could win a majority of seats without a majority of votes, creating an “artificial majority.”

3) Wrong Winners

When a party wins lots of seats by smallish margins, and loses others by larger amounts, the totals can add up in very peculiar ways.  As a result, a party could win the most seats without having the largest share of the vote.  This is a normal – but infrequent – consequence of the system.

4) Oversized Governments

Our system creates artificial majorities and, by the same token, tends to produce a weak opposition.  In a few recent instances in Canada, the electoral system produced either no opposition or an opposition so small that it had no capacity to do its job.

New Brunswick:    1988  (0 opposition seats)

Prince Edward Island:    1989 (2),  1993 (1),  2000 (1)

British Columbia:    2001 (2)

On average, governments in BC have twice the number of seats as the opposition.

5) Under-Representation of Women and Minorities

In BC, the record of the last five elections suggests the numbers of women in the legislature grew quickly in the early 1990s but has levelled off or perhaps even declined since.  At last count, women constitute about 20 per cent of the legislators in Canada.

Different systems appear to make a difference to the proportion of women and minorities elected.  Generally speaking, electoral systems which incorporate higher “district magnitudes” and proportional representation list systems are more likely to produce women in the legislature.  A recent examination of the world’s major post-industrial democratic societies produced the following compiled statistics:

Percentage Women in National Legislature:

  • Plurality / Majority: 16.9
  • Mixed Constituency-Proportional: 19.4
  • Proportional Representation (list): 29.5

Why are there such differences?

While the causes of these differences are not clear, in plurality and majority systems, parties are more limited in their control over who the candidates are than in proportional representation systems.  In plurality and majority systems, with only one or two nominations available, there is often a vigorous local contest the outcome of which cannot easily be controlled.  Proportional systems that require a party to present a list of candidates in the order they are to be elected, offers the party leadership considerable influence over who is nominated and ultimately elected.