Proportional representation
From Free net encyclopedia
Proportional representation, also known as full representation, is an electoral system in which the overall votes are reflected in the overall outcome of the body or bodies of representatives. This system tends to deliver coalition governments in a body often called a parliament. Some important distinctions of full representation are: a low threshold to elect a single representative, an elected body that can be led by a minority government when needed (but only to the extent the majority allows it to lead) and, as already mentioned, full representation.
Proportional representation involves a close match between the percentage of votes that political parties receive and the number of seats they obtain in legislative assemblies. Various forms exist, such as party-list proportional representation, in which voters can only vote for parties. Another kind of electoral system covered with the term proportional representation is the single transferable vote (STV), which, in turn, does not depend on the existence of political parties. A distinction can be made for systems with a single non-transferable vote and for cumulative voting, systems that are sometimes categorized as "semi-proportional". Some nations, like the Netherlands, combine all aspects, and is by many [1] considered to be the perfect form of proportional representation: the voters vote for a specific person who is then also part of a political affiliation, a term that covers either a single party or an affiliation for electoral purposes only of several parties. Most English speaking nations do not have proportional representation.
Contents |
Minority Governments
What surprises people accustomed to district elections the most about proportional representation is that minority governments can apparently lead a nation. However, appearance is not necessarily what rules this minority government; though the majority of the elected body is not leading, it is always in control. Therefore, minority governments' control may be more limited since they must receive approval for their actions from the majority of the elected body, but they are not necessarily weak. Minority governments are not the norm and newspapers around the world will report this unusual aspect. Some sources mention that, actually, governments of nations with district elections may represent fewer people. The governmental election in that other well-known two-party nation — Britain — delivered in 2005, according to Nina Temple of the pressure group Make Votes Count, an "election result [that] was really a travesty of democracy. For every person who voted Labour, two people voted for other parties and two people abstained and yet we have a [Labour] majority government." Her comments and that of others can be read in the American British newspaper Union Jack of June 2005[2] 'Blair Under Pressure To Reform Britain's Voting System,' highlighting the desire for political reform in the UK, one of the very few nations in the world where only two parties governed in the last sixty years.
New Zealand
As one of the few nations in the world with English as their language, New Zealand has a system of proportional representation[3]. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission reported on New Zealand [4] that parliamentary elections "were held under a single member constituency First Past the Post system, i.e. district elections, until 1996 when following widespread dissatisfaction with the fairness of this electoral system and with political parties in general, a system of proportional representation — Mixed Member Proportional — was introduced. Under this system voters have two votes, one for an electorate MP and one for a party. There are 120 seats in New Zealand's parliament. After the 1999 general election 61 were electorate seats, 6 Maori seats and 53 party seats." Especially the jump of female representatives elected percentage-wise was stark (jump from 21% to 30% in one election).
Full Representation/Winner Takes All
Full Representation is a term often used to describe Proportional Represention, yet differs from that term in that it is a description of the emancipatory effect that is usually attributed to proprotional representation; however, nations with district elections, such as Canada, may also achieve under certain conditions a representative level resembling full representation.
In the electoral system of proportional representation, political groups can emancipate within the system. Emancipation is the process of being able to participate and contribute, while being able to remain oneself without having to adjust to a larger more powerful group. Some nations with district elections indeed deliver this emancipatory effect of full representation to various political groups. Examples are Canada, with French-speaking Quebec, and Germany, for instance through the Green party; both nations with district elections give space to independently functioning political parties that represent very distinct parts within these nations, not forcing them to adhere to other overbearing parties. This aspect of emancipation stands in contrast to the political segments in some of the nations with a more pure form of district elections, such as, for instance, the christian coalition in the United States that finds its existence often politically confined within the Republican Party; in the United States and Great-Britain, only two parties have been in power over the last sixty years. The level of emancipation of specific groups may reach a high level, but never the highest level; they must exist within the framework of (one of) the two political parties. In general, third parties have mainly been successful in disturing the balance of the two parties.
Winner Takes All also refers to the effect of district elections, where those not receiving the majority of the votes do not get their representative. The runner-up may receive up to 49.9% of the votes, but still not get the seat. Again, this term is often used to describe district elections, yet, as described above, winner-takes-all is not identical to district elections.
History
The Proportional Representation system was devised in the late 19th century, the brain-child of D'Hondt. Party-list proportional representation was first used in Belgium in the 1900 parliamentary elections and was implemented in many European countries during or after World War I. Single Transferable Vote was first used in Tasmania in 1907.
Proportional representation is a much more common system of voting than the plurality voting system. In general, first-past-the-post is only used in former British colonies, and in the Westminster Elections in the United Kingdom, but a form of proportional representation known as the mixed member system is now being used in the United Kingdom to elect the members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh National Assembly. Although once an unknown system, proportional representation is now gaining popularity in Canada with five provinces: British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick currently debating whether to abolish the first past the post system, and at the federal level, a Parliamentary Committee is now exploring the issue. Political analysts point out the fact that the current attitude and sequence of events is very similar to what happened in New Zealand when New Zealand opted for Mixed Member Proportional Representation and the analysts conclude Canada is heading towards the same direction. All of the members of the European Parliament, or MEPs, including those elected from constituencies in Britain, are elected by proportional representation. Proportional representation is also used in many European countries.
Proportional representation does have some history in the United States. Many cities, including New York City, once used it for their city councils as a way to break up the United States Democratic Party monopolies on elective office. In Cincinnati, Ohio, proportional representation was adopted in 1925 to get rid of a United States Republican Party party machine, but the Republicans successfully overturned proportional representation in 1957. With proportional representation, otherwise marginalized social, political and racial minorities were able to attain elected office, and this fact was ironically a key argument opponents of proportional representation used in their campaigns - "undesirables" were gaining a voice in electoral politics. While most jurisdictions no longer use proportional representation, it is still used in Cambridge, Massachusetts and Peoria, Illinois. San Francisco did not have proportional elections; rather it had city-wide elections where people would cast votes for five or six candidates simultaneously, delivering some of the benefits of proportional representation, but not all. A comparison [[5]] between San Francisco and Rotterdam shows how emancipation and access are more entrenched in district elections.
Some electoral systems incorporate additional features to ensure absolutely accurate or more comprehensive representation, based on gender or minority status (like ethnicity or race). Note that features such as this are not strictly part of proportional representation; depending on what kind of PR is used, people tend to be already represented proportionally according to these standards without such additional rules.
In Ireland, proportional representation has resulted in a strange situation whereby a centre party with a large support base, known as Fianna Fáil, has 45% of the vote but the opposition parties are extremely fragmented with the only thing that unites them being their dislike of Fianna Fail. Therefore although people do want a strong alternative to Fianna Fail, they differ greatly on what form that should take, thus an extremely fragmented opposition vote. This has lead to a series of coalition governments in power.
In his essay, Overcoming Practical Difficulties in Creating a World Parliamentary Assembly, Joseph E. Schwartzberg proposes the use of proportional representation in the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in order to prevent, for instance, lower castes of Indians from being excluded[6]:
There are certain other advantages to proportional representation.
Methods of proportional representation
There are different methods of proportional representation, which achieve either a greater degree of proportionality or a greater degree of determinate outcome.
Party list system in a multi-member constituency
The parties each list their candidates according to that party's determination of priorities. In a closed list, voters vote for a list, not a candidate. Each party is allocated seats in proportion to the number of votes, using the ranking order on its list. In an open list, voters indicate their order of preference within the list.
- This system is used in Israel (where the whole country is one closed list constituency), the Netherlands (open list) and for elections to the European Parliament in the United Kingdom (closed list) as well as in Finland using multi-member districts and open lists.
Additional-member system, mixed-member system
Main articles: Additional Member Systems - mixed Member Proportional and Parallel voting; Alternative Vote and alternative vote top-up
- This system, or variations of it is used in Germany, New Zealand, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Italy has changed between sub-systems.
Single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency
A constituency elects at least three, rarely more than five representatives. Consequently the constituency is three to five times larger than a single member constituency in the plurality voting system. Parties tend to offer as many candidates as they most optimistically could expect to win: the major parties may nominate almost as many candidates as there are seats, while the minor parties and independents rather fewer. Voters mark their ballot, giving their preferred ranking for some or even all the candidates. Consequently, it is the voters, rather than the party, who have final say over which candidates succeed — it is not a good system for party apparatchiks. A successful candidate must achieve a quota of one-fourth plus one of the preferences in a three-member constituency, one-fifth plus one in a four-member, and so on. Only in a few cases is this achieved at the first count. For the second count, if a candidate wins election his surplus votes in excess of the quota, is transferred to his voters' second choices; otherwise, the least popular candidate is eliminated and his votes redistributed according to the second preference shown on them. This process continues for as many counts as are needed until all seats are filled. Although the counting process is complicated, voting is clear and most voters get at least one of their preferences elected. All deputies are answerable directly to their local constituents. Some political scientists argue that STV is more properly classified as 'semi-proportional' as there is no assurance of a proportional result at a nationwide level.
- This system is used in Australia, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Malta.
Disproportionality
The constituency magnitude of a system is measured by the number of seats in a constituency, and plays a vital role in determining how proportional an electoral system can be. When using proportional systems, the greater the number of seats in a constituency, the more proportional it can be. Any system with single-member constituency is by necessity majoritarian - requirement of 50%plus one at that level. However constituency borders may be gerrymandered to allow for simulation of proportionality at a higher level. This may be achieved by creating "majority-minority" constituencies - constituencies in which the majority is formed by a group of voters that are in the minority at a higher level.
However, multiple-member districts do not ensure that an electoral system will be proportional. The bloc vote can result in "super-majoritarian" results in which, in addition to the normal disproportionality of single-member majoritarian systems, geographical variations that could create majority-minority districts become subsumed into the larger districts. There is also another cause of disproportionality within some proportional systems. This is when the party does not provide a list with enough people on it to fill all the seats won by a political party. For instance if a party wins 20 seats but only has 15 people on its list then it loses 5 seats. This is termed an underhang.
Some proportional systems deliberately limit the amount of proportionality by requiring a party list to achieve the election threshold - a certain minimum percentage of votes to receive any seats. Typically, this lower limit is set at between three and six percent of the total number of votes cast. Parties who do not reach that margin will not be represented in parliament, making majorities, coalitions and thus governments easier to achieve. Proponents of election thresholds argue that they discourage disproportionate power for what they may see as extremist parties - that are likely to be small. Opponents of thresholds argue that they cause so-called "proportional" systems to unfairly distribute the representation of the supporters of minor parties to the major parties, thus giving the parties which cross the threshold disproportionally high percentages of the seats and creating the possibility that a party or group of parties will assume control of the legislature without gaining a majority of votes.
There are several ways of measuring proportionality, the most common being the Gallagher Index.
Further reading
- John Hickman and Chris Little. "Seat/Vote Proportionality in Romanian and Spanish Parliamentary Elections" Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans Vol. 2, No. 2, November 2000
- Martin Linton and Mary Southcott. "Making Votes Count: The Case for Electoral Reform", Profile Books Ltd, London, 1998.
See also
- D'Hondt method
- Sainte-Laguë method
- List of politics-related topics
- Wealth primary
- Proportional approval voting
External links
- Proportional Representation Library
- Quantifying Representativity Article by Philip Kestelman
- PR page from old CVD web site.
- PR page from new CVD web site.
- Electoral Reform Society
- Proportional Representation Society of Australia
- Fair Vote Canada
- LocalParty.Org California
- Voting methods survey Describes 19 multi-winner systems
- PR Simulator A web-based application that converts historical or theoretical voting data into proportional results
- PR Simulator Results (US Election 2004) An example of how the above PR Simulator can be used - in this case following the failed Colorado proposal to assign Electoral College votes proportionallycs:Poměrný systém
de:Verhältniswahl fr:Scrutin proportionnel plurinominal nl:Evenredige vertegenwoordiging ja:比例代表制 zh:比例代表制 fi:Suhteellinen vaalitapa