INTRODUCTION
understandable results; moreover, the dealing of my thesis could appear
not so fluent and a bit confused. Anyway, for the time being, I’m quite
satisfied of the work I have carried on, that could be more deepened and
detailed in my future studies.
At a first basic level, electoral systems translate the votes cast in a general
election into seats won by parties and/or candidates.
The principal key variables used for analyzing electoral systems are the
electoral formula used (i.e. if the system is majoritarian rather than
proportional, and which specific math formula is adopted to compute the
seat allocation), the district magnitude that deals with how many members
of parliament this district elects, and the minimum representative threshold
of votes to be reached by one candidate to gain his or her election.
There are lots of electoral systems currently in use, but for sake of
simplicity in the first chapter I’ll categorize them into three broad branches,
the plurality-majority, the semi-proportional and the proportional ones.
Looking into these three macro-categories, we can furthermore distinguish
into nine “sub-branches”: First Past The Post (FPTP1), the Block Vote
(BV), the Alternative Vote (AV), and the Two-Round System (TRS), also
known as Second Ballot System2, are all plurality-majority systems;
Parallel systems and the Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV) are both
semi-proportional; and List Proportional Representation (List PR), Mixed
1
For convenience, from now onwards, I will always use the abbreviations put in brackets for
indicating each system from time to time.
2
Farrell, 1997.
10
INTRODUCTION
Member Proportional (MMP), and the Single Transferable Vote (SNTV)
are all proportional systems.
In the second chapter I will try to answer the question “Which electoral
system ?” defining what and which are efficient and “extreme” electoral
systems through the employment of a wide range of indicators for
analyzing, categorizing and studying electoral systems and their inner
relationship with political parties. These indicators belong to two main
groups: the Interparty Dimension (it regards majoritarian and proportional
forms of representation) and the Intraparty Dimension (it deals with “strong
candidates” and “strong parties”, through the use of either nominal voting
or list voting).
The third chapter will be employed for explaining how to assess an
electoral system, in which terms, through which and how many involved
dimensions and which type of indicators (representativeness and
governability) using. These indicators will be combined to compute out a
Social Utility Function (SUF) that I will use for evaluating and rank ordering
the examined simulated electoral systems.
In the fourth chapter I will present and justify the results of my two sets of
simulations (with fictitious data and with real data). I will explain why and
how I have carried on them, which criteria following and which program
using.
In appendix A you will find the description of the VAP system, a new
electoral system that I included in my work; this system was invented in
11
INTRODUCTION
2000 by Guido Ortona at the department Polis at the University of Eastern
Piedmont, Alessandria, Italy.
Appendix B will be employed for presenting a detailed guide of the
program I’ve used of running my simulations.
Appendix C will be dedicated to some outputs of my simulations;
12
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
CHAPTER ONE: THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
SECTION 1: ELECTORAL SYSTEM FAMILIES
Figure 1.1: Electoral System Families
Source: The international IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design (see footnote n° 3)
1.1 PLURALITY-MAJORITY SYSTEMS
The distinguishing features of plurality-majority systems are that they
almost always use single-member districts. In a typical FPTP system, all a
candidate needs to win a seat is more votes than any of the other
candidates, but not necessarily an overall majority of all the votes cast in
the constituency (see paragraph 2.1.1). This type of electoral system is
typically used in Great Britain and, of course, a great number of British ex-
Plurality-Majority Semi-PR Proportional
representation
FPTP
BV
AV
TRS
Mixed
Systems
SNTV MMP
STV
List
PR
13
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
colonies, such as the United States of America, New Zealand, Barbados,
Jamaica, Canada, Papua New Guinea and so on.
When (rarely) this system is used in multi-member districts it becomes the
BV(see paragraph 2.1.2) where voters have as many votes as there are
seats to be won, and the best candidates in terms of gained votes fill the
positions regardless pf the percentage of votes really achieved.
Majoritarian systems, such as the Australian AV and the French TRS (see
paragraph 2.1.5) try to assure an absolute majority (i.e. 50% of the votes
plus one) to the winning candidate. In practice, each system makes use of
voters’ second choices do obtain a majority winner if nobody overcomes
all the others during the first round of voting.
1.2 SEMI-PROPORTIONAL SYSTEMS
The two most famous and widespread used semi-proportional systems are
the SNTV and Mixed systems (also known as Parallel Systems3). The first
ones allow the elector to express just one vote but in the district there are
more than one seat to be filled, and the candidates with the best
performances (the highest number of votes) fill these positions. This
means that in a ten-member district, for example, one would on average
need only over 10% of the votes to be elected. This peculiarity encourages
3
Arend Lijphart (2001), deals with Mixed Systems.
The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design speaks about Parallel Systems
instead.
For sake of simplicity, I will always use the term “Mixed Systems” because of its impressive
meaning.
14
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
the election of minority party candidates, and improves overall
parliamentary proportionality (see paragraph 2.2.1).
Mixed systems are, as the term suggests, a weighted mixture of
majoritarian and proportional elements; they use both PR list and plurality-
majority districts but, unlike MMP systems (see paragraph 2.2.1), the PR
list don’t compensate for any non-proportionality inside the majoritarian
districts.
Mixed systems have been largely used by new democracies in Africa and
the former Soviet Union.
1.3 PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
The basic idea of proportional representation (PR) systems is to
consciously reduce the disparity between a party’s (or candidate’s) share
of votes and its share of the parliamentary seats; if a major party wins 40%
of the votes, it should win on average 40% of the seats, and a minor one
with 10% share should also gain 10% of the parliamentary seats.
Proportionality is more suitable to the use of party lists, where parties
present list of candidates to the electorate on a national (or regional)
scale, but it can reached more easily just if the proportional component of
an MMP system compensate for any disproportionality which comes out of
the majoritarian district results.
15
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
But preferential vote can perform equally well: the STV, where voters rank-
order candidates in multi-member districts, is another well-established
proportional system.
1.4 WORLDWIDE DIFFUSION OF ELECTORAL FORMULAS
As Table 1.1 tells, over half (114, or 54% of the total) of the independent
states and semi-autonomous lands of the world which have dire ct
elections use plurality-majority systems, another 75 (35%) use PR-type
ones, and the leaving 22 (10%) use semi-PR some of whom are Mixed
Systems.
Taking into account population size instead, the supremacy of plurality-
majority systems is even more emphasized, with parliaments elected by
FPTP, BV, AV or TRS methods representing totally 2.44 billion people
(59% of the total). PR electoral systems are used by more or less 1.2
billion inhabitants, and semi-PR ones represent just less than half a billion
people. In the IDEA survey the seven countries which do not have direct-
elected national parliament count 1.2 billion people, without forgetting that
just China makes up 99% of this measure.
Taking into account main electoral system groups one-by-one, FPTP
systems are the most popular, with 68 out of 211 nation-states and related
territories with 32% of the total, immediately followed by the 66 items of list
PR systems (31%). But looking at people dimensions, FPTP systems are
used by twice as many people as those in List PR countries. The 1.8
16
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
billion measure in Table 1.1 is pumped by India and the United States, but
FPTP is used by many little Caribbean an Oceanian islands as well.
The biggest country, which uses List PR, is Indonesia with 191 million
people, but Western European, Latin American and African countries
mainly use this system. Next in order are TRS (15%) and Mixed Systems
(9%). So, while TRS systems are used in more countries, more people
use Mixed systems. This happens especially because of Russia (148
million inhabitants) and Japan (125 million) use of Mixed Systems.
The BV is used in 13 countries and territories, 6% of the countries
included, but its 143 million people only represent 3% of the total. On the
other hand, MMP systems are use in just 7 countries, but the collective
256 million people of Germany, Venezuela, New Zealand, Mexico, Italy,
Bolivia and Hungary represent 6% of the total. The STV, AV and SNTV
systems are the rarest ones in use so far, with only two or three examples
of each. 18 million people living in Australia and Nauru use AV system,
whereas Jordan and Vanuatu’s SNTV systems represent only 5 million
people, and Ireland and Malta’s STV systems 4 million4. If we look at
electoral system in “established democracies” (i.e., those states with a
population of more than a quarter of a million which have held continuing
free elections for over 20 years)5, we discover that PR systems are more
4
This system is also adopted in Australia for the elections to the Tasmanian House of Assembly,
the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, and the federal Senate.
5
Austria, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,
Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States of
America, Venezuela.
17
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
numerous with 21 (59%) out of the 36 states but, owing to the size of India
and the United States, 71% of people living in these 36 democracies live
under FPTP systems. There is an over-representation of MMP systems at
11%, and in fact these are used by four million more people than the more
widespread List PR systems. Because of Japan’s shift to a Mixed system
there are no effective examples of SNTV in established democracies.
Across countries, the distribution of electoral systems is more dispersed.
As Table 1.2 shows, FPTP systems make up approximately 30-45% of the
total in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Americas (principally North
America and the Caribbean). This system is less used in Europe and the
former Soviet Union, but fairly predominant in Oceania. List PR ones are
spread at the same way throughout Africa, the Americas (especially
Central and South America), and post-communist Eastern Europe.
Instead, List PR is more adopted in Western Europe (about 61%) and the
three main PR systems (List PR, MMP and STV) represent three-quarters
of all the electoral systems in Western Europe. Finally, almost a third of
the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Eastern Europe use
TRS systems, while over a third of all countries which apply to the Block
Vote are found in Asia.
18
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
19
Table 1.1: The World of Electoral Systems
# of
Countries/
Territories
Total
Population
(million)
Established
Democracies
Total
Population
(million)
“Free”
Countries/
Territories
1
“Not Free”
Countries/
Territories
N° % N° % N° % N° % N° % N° %
FPTP 68 32 1.849 45 11 30 1.273 71 35 36 16 35
BV 13 6 143 3 1 3 1 0.1 3 3 5 11
AV 2 1 18 0.4 1 3 18 1 2 2 0 -
TRS 31 15 427 10 1 3 58 3 7 7 11 24
Mixed 20 9 443 11 1 3 126 7 5 5 5 11
SNTV 2 1 5 0.1 0 - - - 1 1 0 -
List PR 66 31 965 23 15 42 158 9 39 40 9 20
MMP 7 3 265 6 4 11 162 9 4 4 0 -
STV 2 1 4 0.1 2 6 4 0.2 2 2 0 -
TOTAL 211 4,199 36 1,800 98 46
Source: The international IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design
1
36 established democracies are categorized by Lijphart (see footnote n° 3) who includes all countries
considered democratic now, and for the last 20 years, which have a population of at least a quarter of million
people. “Free” and “Not Free” classifications are taken from Freedom in the World 1995-1996 (New York,
Freedom House, 1997).
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
20
Table 1.2: Regional distribution of Systems
Africa
Americas
Asia
CIS &
Eastern
Europe
Western
Europe
Middle
East
Oceania
Total
FPTP 18 19 10 1 4 3 13 68
BV 2 2 5 0 0 3 1 13
AV 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
TRS 10 6 1 8 2 2 2 31
Mixed 7 2 3 7 1 0 0 20
SNTV 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
List PR 17 16 3 10 17 1 2 66
MMP 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 7
STV 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
TOTAL 54 48 22 27 28 10 22 211
Source: The international IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design
Figure 1.2: The World of Electoral Systems
Main groups of electoral
systems
(# of countries)
114
22
75
P-M (FPTP, BV, AV, TRS) Semi PR (Mixed, SNTV)
PR (List-PR, MMP, STV)
Number of countries & Territories
68
13
2
31
20
2
66
7
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
F
P
T
P
B
V
A
V
T
R
S
M
i
x
e
d
S
N
T
V
L
i
s
t
P
R
M
M
P
S
T
V
Source: The international IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design
Total population
(in millions)
1.849
14318
427
443
5
965
2654
FPTP BV AV TRS Mixed SNTV
List PR MMP STV
THE ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
Figure 1.3: The Electoral Systems of the World
Source: The international IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design
21
Ricevi informazioni sui nostri servizi, sulle offerte e non perdere news e consigli su università e lavoro.
