◉

Electoral Systems

  • “Electoral systems around the world vary significantly, ranging from single-winner/majoritarian systems that prioritize straightforward representation of constituencies, to proportional representation systems that aim for a more accurate reflection of the electorate’s preferences, to mixed systems that combine elements of both to balance local and proportional representation.”
  • “Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, influencing political stability, representation fairness, and voter satisfaction.”
  • “Single-Winner/Majoritarian Systems like First-Past-The-Post can lead to disproportionate representation and often marginalize smaller parties.”
  • “Proportional Representation Systems ensure proportional representation of parties, encouraging a multiparty system and greater diversity of political views.”

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Categorize the types of electoral systems employed around the world.
    1. Types of Electoral Systems Employed Around the World
      1. Single-Winner/Majoritarian Systems
      2. Proportional Representation Systems
      3. Mixed Systems
      4. Conclusion
  2. For each of the systems in your list above, provide a clear description and the associated strengths and weaknesses.
    1. Electoral Systems Around the World
      1. Single-Winner/Majoritarian Systems
      2. Proportional Representation Systems
      3. Mixed Systems
  3. Create a table displaying the following column headers on electoral systems.
    1. Electoral Systems Around the World
  4. Write an essay on the best electoral systems as suggested by the relevant experts.
    1. The Best Electoral Systems: Insights from Experts
      1. Proportional Representation Systems
      2. Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)
      3. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
      4. Expert Consensus on Best Practices
    2. The Best Electoral Systems as Suggested by Experts
      1. First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)
      2. Proportional Representation (PR)
      3. Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP)
      4. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
      5. Majoritarian Systems
      6. Parallel Systems
  5. Quizzes
  6. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Discussion Questions on Electoral Systems

Categorize the types of electoral systems employed around the world.

Types of Electoral Systems Employed Around the World

Single-Winner/Majoritarian Systems
  1. First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)
    • Definition: The candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins the seat.
    • Example Countries: United States, United Kingdom, Canada
  2. Two-Round System (Runoff Voting)
    • Definition: If no candidate wins a majority in the first round, a second round is held between the top two candidates.
    • Example Countries: France, Russia, Ukraine
  3. Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting)
    • Definition: Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority, the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated, and their votes are redistributed until one candidate has a majority.
    • Example Countries: Australia (House of Representatives), Ireland (Presidential elections)
Proportional Representation Systems
  1. Party-List Proportional Representation
    • Definition: Parties present lists of candidates, and seats are allocated in proportion to the number of votes each party receives.
    • Example Countries: Sweden, Israel, Brazil
  2. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
    • Definition: Voters rank candidates in multi-member constituencies. Seats are allocated based on voters’ preferences and a quota system.
    • Example Countries: Ireland (Dáil Éireann), Malta, Australia (Senate)
  3. Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)
    • Definition: Combines single-winner districts with proportional representation. Voters cast two votes: one for a candidate and one for a party. The party vote determines the overall proportion of seats each party should have.
    • Example Countries: Germany, New Zealand, Scotland (Scottish Parliament)
Mixed Systems
  1. Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian)
    • Definition: Voters cast two votes: one for a candidate in a single-winner district and one for a party list. The two parts of the election are independent.
    • Example Countries: Japan, South Korea, Russia (before 2007 and from 2016 onwards)
  2. Mixed Proportional
    • Definition: A hybrid system that combines elements of majoritarian and proportional representation systems, typically with two votes, but ensures overall proportionality through a compensatory mechanism.
    • Example Countries: Germany, New Zealand, Mexico
Conclusion

Electoral systems around the world vary significantly, ranging from single-winner/majoritarian systems that prioritize straightforward representation of constituencies, to proportional representation systems that aim for a more accurate reflection of the electorate’s preferences, to mixed systems that combine elements of both to balance local and proportional representation. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, influencing political stability, representation fairness, and voter satisfaction.

Sure, here’s a brief categorization of the types of electoral systems employed around the world:

  1. Single-Winner/Majoritarian Systems: These systems are designed to elect one winner in each electoral district. They include:
    • First-Past-The-Post (FPTP): The candidate with the most votes in a district wins, regardless of whether they have a majority.
    • Two-Round System (Runoff Voting): If no candidate achieves a majority in the first round, a second round of voting is held between the top two candidates.
    • Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting): Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate has a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest is eliminated and their votes are redistributed, until one candidate has a majority.
  2. Proportional Representation Systems: These systems aim to allocate seats in proportion to the number of votes each party or candidate receives. They include:
    • Party-List Proportional Representation: Parties present lists of candidates, and seats are allocated to parties in proportion to their share of the vote.
    • Single Transferable Vote (STV): Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and seats are allocated in multi-member districts, with votes being transferred from elected or eliminated candidates to others according to voters’ preferences.
    • Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP): A hybrid system where some seats are allocated using a majoritarian system and others using a proportional system.
  3. Mixed Systems: These systems combine elements of majoritarian and proportional systems. They include:
    • Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian): Some seats are filled by majoritarian methods and others by proportional representation, but the two types of seat are filled independently of each other.
    • Mixed Proportional: Some seats are filled by majoritarian methods and others by proportional representation, with the proportional seats used to correct any disproportionality produced by the majoritarian elections.

Each of these systems has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of system can have a significant impact on the nature of party competition and the composition of legislatures.

Sure, here’s the categorization with bold formatting for headers and key terms:

Single-Winner/Majoritarian Systems:

1. First-Past-The-Post (FPTP):

  • The candidate with the most votes in a given constituency or district wins.
  • Used in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and India, among others.

2. Two-Round System (Runoff Voting):

  • If no candidate receives a majority (usually 50% + 1) of the votes in the first round, a second round (runoff) is held between the top two candidates.
  • Used in France, Argentina, and parts of the United States for some elections.

3. Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting):

  • Voters rank candidates in order of preference.
  • If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on the next preference.
  • Used in Australia, Papua New Guinea, and some local elections in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Proportional Representation Systems:

4. Party-List Proportional Representation:

  • Parties receive seats in proportion to their overall share of the national vote.
  • Voters choose a party, and parties allocate seats based on their lists of candidates.
  • Used in many European countries, including Spain, Sweden, and Portugal.

5. Single Transferable Vote (STV):

  • Voters rank candidates in order of preference.
  • Candidates must reach a specified quota of votes to be elected.
  • Surplus votes are transferred to other candidates based on preferences.
  • Used in Ireland, Malta, and some local elections in the United States and the United Kingdom.

6. Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP):

  • A combination of FPTP and party-list proportional representation.
  • Some seats are elected through FPTP, and others are allocated based on party-list proportional representation to ensure overall proportionality.
  • Used in Germany, New Zealand, and parts of Mexico.

Mixed Systems:

7. Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian):

  • Some seats are elected through FPTP, and others are elected through party-list proportional representation, but without an adjustment to ensure overall proportionality.
  • Used in Japan, Russia, and parts of South Korea.

8. Mixed Proportional:

  • A combination of FPTP and party-list proportional representation, with an adjustment to ensure overall proportionality.
  • Used in parts of Mexico and some local elections in the United States.

For each of the systems in your list above, provide a clear description and the associated strengths and weaknesses.

Electoral Systems Around the World

Single-Winner/Majoritarian Systems
  1. First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)
    • Description: The candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins the seat.
    • Strengths:
      • Simple to understand and implement.
      • Tends to produce stable, single-party governments.
    • Weaknesses:
      • Can lead to disproportionate representation.
      • Encourages tactical voting and often marginalizes smaller parties.
  2. Two-Round System (Runoff Voting)
    • Description: If no candidate wins a majority in the first round, a second round is held between the top two candidates.
    • Strengths:
      • Ensures that the winner has broad support.
      • Reduces the spoiler effect of minor candidates.
    • Weaknesses:
      • More expensive and time-consuming due to the need for two rounds of voting.
      • May still marginalize smaller parties.
  3. Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting)
    • Description: Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority, the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated, and their votes are redistributed until one candidate has a majority.
    • Strengths:
      • Reduces the spoiler effect.
      • Encourages positive campaigning, as candidates seek second-choice votes.
    • Weaknesses:
      • Can be complex to understand and administer.
      • May still produce disproportionate results compared to proportional systems.
Proportional Representation Systems
  1. Party-List Proportional Representation
    • Description: Parties present lists of candidates, and seats are allocated in proportion to the number of votes each party receives.
    • Strengths:
      • Ensures proportional representation of parties.
      • Encourages a multiparty system and greater diversity of political views.
    • Weaknesses:
      • Can lead to coalition governments, which may be less stable.
      • Voters have less influence over individual candidates.
  2. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
    • Description: Voters rank candidates in multi-member constituencies. Seats are allocated based on voters’ preferences and a quota system.
    • Strengths:
      • Highly proportional representation.
      • Voters can choose between individual candidates and parties.
    • Weaknesses:
      • Complex to understand and administer.
      • Counting process can be time-consuming.
  3. Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)
    • Description: Combines single-winner districts with proportional representation. Voters cast two votes: one for a candidate and one for a party. The party vote determines the overall proportion of seats each party should have.
    • Strengths:
      • Balances local representation with overall proportionality.
      • Reduces the disadvantages of pure majoritarian or proportional systems.
    • Weaknesses:
      • Can be complex for voters to understand.
      • May lead to coalition governments.
Mixed Systems
  1. Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian)
    • Description: Voters cast two votes: one for a candidate in a single-winner district and one for a party list. The two parts of the election are independent.
    • Strengths:
      • Combines elements of majoritarian and proportional systems.
      • Allows for local representation and a proportional element.
    • Weaknesses:
      • Does not ensure overall proportionality.
      • Can still produce disproportionate outcomes.
  2. Mixed Proportional
    • Description: A hybrid system that combines elements of majoritarian and proportional representation systems, typically with two votes, but ensures overall proportionality through a compensatory mechanism.
    • Strengths:
      • Balances local and proportional representation.
      • Ensures overall proportionality.
    • Weaknesses:
      • Complex to understand and administer.
      • May lead to coalition governments, which can be less stable.

Sure, here are the descriptions, strengths, and weaknesses of each electoral system:

  1. First-Past-The-Post (FPTP): This is a majoritarian system where the candidate with the most votes in a district wins, regardless of whether they have a majority12.
  2. Two-Round System (Runoff Voting): If no candidate achieves a majority in the first round, a second round of voting is held between the top two candidates3.
  3. Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting): Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate has a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest is eliminated and their votes are redistributed, until one candidate has a majority45.
  4. Party-List Proportional Representation: Parties present lists of candidates, and seats are allocated to parties in proportion to their share of the vote78.
  5. Single Transferable Vote (STV): Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and seats are allocated in multi-member districts, with votes being transferred from elected or eliminated candidates to others according to voters’ preferences1011.
  6. Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP): A hybrid system where some seats are allocated using a majoritarian system and others using a proportional system1314.
  7. Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian): Some seats are filled by majoritarian methods and others by proportional representation, but the two types of seat are filled independently of each other1516.
  8. Mixed Proportional: Some seats are filled by majoritarian methods and others by proportional representation, with the proportional seats used to correct any disproportionality produced by the majoritarian elections714.

Each of these systems has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of system can have a significant impact on the nature of party competition and the composition of legislatures.

Certainly, here’s a clear description, strengths, and weaknesses for each of the electoral systems:

Single-Winner/Majoritarian Systems:

1. First-Past-The-Post (FPTP):

  • Description: The candidate with the highest number of votes in a given constituency or district wins, even if they don’t have an overall majority.
  • Strengths: Simple to understand and implement, tends to produce stable governments, direct accountability between voters and their representatives.
  • Weaknesses: Can lead to disproportional representation, wasted votes for losing candidates, risk of gerrymandering.

2. Two-Round System (Runoff Voting):

  • Description: If no candidate receives a majority in the first round, a second round (runoff) is held between the top two candidates.
  • Strengths: Ensures the winner has majority support, allows voters to express nuanced preferences.
  • Weaknesses: Can be costly and time-consuming, potential for vote-splitting in the first round.

3. Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting):

  • Description: Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on the next preference.
  • Strengths: Allows voters to express nuanced preferences, ensures the winner has broad support, eliminates the need for a separate runoff.
  • Weaknesses: Can be complex for voters, potential for strategic voting.

Proportional Representation Systems:

4. Party-List Proportional Representation:

  • Description: Parties receive seats in proportion to their overall share of the national vote. Voters choose a party, and parties allocate seats based on their lists of candidates.
  • Strengths: Ensures proportional representation, promotes a diversity of voices and perspectives in the legislature.
  • Weaknesses: Can lead to fragmented parliaments, weaker constituency representation, voters have limited influence over individual candidates.

5. Single Transferable Vote (STV):

  • Description: Voters rank candidates in order of preference. Candidates must reach a specified quota of votes to be elected. Surplus votes are transferred to other candidates based on preferences.
  • Strengths: Proportional representation, allows voters to express nuanced preferences, promotes diversity of representation.
  • Weaknesses: Can be complex for voters and officials, potential for vote-splitting.

6. Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP):

  • Description: A combination of FPTP and party-list proportional representation. Some seats are elected through FPTP, and others are allocated based on party-list proportional representation to ensure overall proportionality.
  • Strengths: Combines direct constituency representation with proportional representation, promotes diversity of voices in the legislature.
  • Weaknesses: Can be complex, potential for split voting behavior, risk of disproportionality in the FPTP component.

Mixed Systems:

7. Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian):

  • Description: Some seats are elected through FPTP, and others are elected through party-list proportional representation, but without an adjustment to ensure overall proportionality.
  • Strengths: Combines direct constituency representation with proportional representation.
  • Weaknesses: Can lead to significant disproportionality, potential for split voting behavior, complex.

8. Mixed Proportional:

  • Description: A combination of FPTP and party-list proportional representation, with an adjustment to ensure overall proportionality.
  • Strengths: Combines direct constituency representation with proportional representation, ensures overall proportionality.
  • Weaknesses: Can be complex, potential for split voting behavior.

These descriptions, strengths, and weaknesses highlight the trade-offs and considerations involved in choosing an electoral system for a given context.

Create a table displaying the following column headers on electoral systems.

  • Type Name
  • Description
  • Strengths
  • Weaknesses
  • Location (5 countries in which the electoral system is employed)

Electoral Systems Around the World

Type NameDescriptionStrengthsWeaknessesLocation
First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)The candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins the seat.Simple to understand and implement.
Tends to produce stable, single-party governments.		Can lead to disproportionate representation.
Encourages tactical voting and often marginalizes smaller parties.		United States, United Kingdom, Canada, India, Nigeria
Two-Round System (Runoff Voting)If no candidate wins a majority in the first round, a second round is held between the top two candidates.Ensures that the winner has broad support.
Reduces the spoiler effect of minor candidates.		More expensive and time-consuming due to the need for two rounds of voting.
May still marginalize smaller parties.		France, Russia, Ukraine, Mali, Togo
Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting)Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate wins a majority, the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated, and their votes are redistributed until one candidate has a majority.Reduces the spoiler effect.
Encourages positive campaigning, as candidates seek second-choice votes.		Can be complex to understand and administer.
May still produce disproportionate results compared to proportional systems.		Australia (House of Representatives), Ireland (Presidential elections), Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Malta
Party-List Proportional RepresentationParties present lists of candidates, and seats are allocated in proportion to the number of votes each party receives.Ensures proportional representation of parties.
Encourages a multiparty system and greater diversity of political views.		Can lead to coalition governments, which may be less stable.
Voters have less influence over individual candidates.		Sweden, Israel, Brazil, South Africa, Spain
Single Transferable Vote (STV)Voters rank candidates in multi-member constituencies. Seats are allocated based on voters’ preferences and a quota system.Highly proportional representation.
Voters can choose between individual candidates and parties.		Complex to understand and administer.
Counting process can be time-consuming.		Ireland (Dáil Éireann), Malta, Australia (Senate), New Zealand, Scotland (local elections)
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)Combines single-winner districts with proportional representation. Voters cast two votes: one for a candidate and one for a party. The party vote determines the overall proportion of seats each party should have.Balances local representation with overall proportionality.
Reduces the disadvantages of pure majoritarian or proportional systems.		Can be complex for voters to understand.
May lead to coalition governments.		Germany, New Zealand, Scotland (Scottish Parliament), Bolivia, Lesotho
Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian)Voters cast two votes: one for a candidate in a single-winner district and one for a party list. The two parts of the election are independent.Combines elements of majoritarian and proportional systems.
Allows for local representation and a proportional element.		Does not ensure overall proportionality.
Can still produce disproportionate outcomes.		Japan, South Korea, Russia (before 2007 and from 2016 onwards), Taiwan, Thailand
Mixed ProportionalA hybrid system that combines elements of majoritarian and proportional representation systems, typically with two votes, but ensures overall proportionality through a compensatory mechanism.Balances local and proportional representation.
Ensures overall proportionality.		Complex to understand and administer.
May lead to coalition governments, which can be less stable.		Germany, New Zealand, Mexico, Hungary, Italy

Sure, here’s a table with the requested information:

Type NameDescriptionStrengthsWeaknessesLocation
First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)The candidate with the most votes in a district wins, regardless of whether they have a majority.Simple, produces clear winners, representatives are beholden to defined geographic areas.May overlook minority interests, can lead to the dominance of two major parties.United States, Canada, India, Bangladesh, Jamaica
Two-Round System (Runoff Voting)If no candidate achieves a majority in the first round, a second round of voting is held between the top two candidates.Allows voters to change their minds between rounds, ensures the elected candidate has majority support.Can be complex, costly, may result in lower voter turnout in the second round.France, Belarus
Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting)Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate has a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest is eliminated and their votes are redistributed.Promotes majority support, discourages negative campaigning, provides more choice for voters.Can be complex to understand and implement.Australia, India, Ireland, Papua New Guinea
Party-List Proportional RepresentationParties present lists of candidates, and seats are allocated to parties in proportion to their share of the vote.Allows different voices to be heard, provides a system of true representation.Can lead to coalition governments, reduce accountability to voters.Albania, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil
Single Transferable Vote (STV)Voters rank candidates in order of preference, and seats are allocated in multi-member districts, with votes being transferred from elected or eliminated candidates to others according to voters’ preferences.Promotes proportional representation, gives voters more choice.Can be complex to understand and implement.Ireland, Malta, Australia, Northern Ireland, Scotland
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)A hybrid system where some seats are allocated using a majoritarian system and others using a proportional system.Combines the benefits of majoritarian and proportional systems.Can be complex, may create two classes of representatives.Germany, New Zealand, Italy, Israel, Japan
Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian)Some seats are filled by majoritarian methods and others by proportional representation, but the two types of seat are filled independently of each other.Combines the benefits of majoritarian and proportional systems.Can create two classes of representatives and cannot guarantee overall proportionality.Italy, Japan, Taiwan, Lithuania, Russia
Mixed ProportionalSome seats are filled by majoritarian methods and others by proportional representation, with the proportional seats used to correct any disproportionality produced by the majoritarian elections.Allows different voices to be heard, provides a system of true representation.Can lead to coalition governments, reduce accountability to voters.Germany, New Zealand, Italy, Israel, Mexico

Please note that the countries listed are just examples and the actual usage of these systems can vary widely. Also, the strengths and weaknesses listed are general observations and may not hold true in every specific case. The choice of an electoral system can have a significant impact on the nature of party competition and the composition of legislatures.

Speaker: Here’s a table with the requested column headers on electoral systems:

Type NameDescriptionStrengthsWeaknessesLocation (5 countries)
First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)The candidate with the highest number of votes in a given constituency or district wins, even if they don’t have an overall majority.Simple to understand and implement, tends to produce stable governments, direct accountability between voters and their representatives.Can lead to disproportional representation, wasted votes for losing candidates, risk of gerrymandering.United Kingdom, United States, Canada, India, Bangladesh
Two-Round System (Runoff Voting)If no candidate receives a majority in the first round, a second round (runoff) is held between the top two candidates.Ensures the winner has majority support, allows voters to express nuanced preferences.Can be costly and time-consuming, potential for vote-splitting in the first round.France, Argentina, Egypt, Ukraine, Haiti
Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting)Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on the next preference.Allows voters to express nuanced preferences, ensures the winner has broad support, eliminates the need for a separate runoff.Can be complex for voters, potential for strategic voting.Australia, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Ireland (for presidential elections), Malta
Party-List Proportional RepresentationParties receive seats in proportion to their overall share of the national vote. Voters choose a party, and parties allocate seats based on their lists of candidates.Ensures proportional representation, promotes a diversity of voices and perspectives in the legislature.Can lead to fragmented parliaments, weaker constituency representation, voters have limited influence over individual candidates.Spain, Sweden, Portugal, Netherlands, Turkey
Single Transferable Vote (STV)Voters rank candidates in order of preference. Candidates must reach a specified quota of votes to be elected. Surplus votes are transferred to other candidates based on preferences.Proportional representation, allows voters to express nuanced preferences, promotes diversity of representation.Can be complex for voters and officials, potential for vote-splitting.Ireland, Malta, Australia (for Senate elections), New Zealand (for some local elections), Northern Ireland (for local elections)
Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)A combination of FPTP and party-list proportional representation. Some seats are elected through FPTP, and others are allocated based on party-list proportional representation to ensure overall proportionality.Combines direct constituency representation with proportional representation, promotes diversity of voices in the legislature.Can be complex, potential for split voting behavior, risk of disproportionality in the FPTP component.Germany, New Zealand, Mexico (for some elections), Bolivia, Lesotho
Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian)Some seats are elected through FPTP, and others are elected through party-list proportional representation, but without an adjustment to ensure overall proportionality.Combines direct constituency representation with proportional representation.Can lead to significant disproportionality, potential for split voting behavior, complex.Japan, Russia, South Korea (for some elections), Lithuania, Hungary
Mixed ProportionalA combination of FPTP and party-list proportional representation, with an adjustment to ensure overall proportionality.Combines direct constituency representation with proportional representation, ensures overall proportionality.Can be complex, potential for split voting behavior.Mexico (for some elections), Italy (for some elections), Venezuela (for some elections), Romania (for some elections), Kazakhstan

This table provides a comprehensive overview of the different electoral systems, their descriptions, strengths, weaknesses, and examples of countries where they are employed.

Write an essay on the best electoral systems as suggested by the relevant experts.

The Best Electoral Systems: Insights from Experts

Choosing the best electoral system is a complex and often contentious issue, as different systems can produce markedly different political outcomes. The “best” system often depends on the specific goals and values of a society, such as fairness, stability, and representation. However, electoral experts tend to agree on several key points regarding the strengths and weaknesses of various systems. This essay will explore expert opinions on the best electoral systems, focusing on their effectiveness in achieving democratic ideals.

Proportional Representation Systems

Party-List Proportional Representation is frequently highlighted by experts as one of the best electoral systems for ensuring fair representation. In this system, parties present lists of candidates, and seats are allocated in proportion to the number of votes each party receives. According to political scientist Arend Lijphart, proportional representation (PR) tends to produce more accurate reflections of the electorate’s preferences, leading to a more inclusive and representative government.

Strengths:

  • Fair Representation: PR systems are praised for their ability to ensure that minority groups and smaller parties have a voice in the legislature.
  • Encouragement of Multiparty Systems: These systems often result in a wider range of political parties, fostering diversity and more comprehensive debate on policy issues.

Weaknesses:

  • Coalition Governments: PR systems can lead to coalition governments, which may be less stable and more prone to gridlock.
  • Voter-Candidate Disconnect: Voters might feel less connected to individual candidates, as they often vote for parties rather than specific individuals.

Countries like Sweden, Israel, and South Africa effectively employ party-list proportional representation, showcasing its ability to maintain democratic integrity through fair representation.

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)

Experts also frequently recommend Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) for its balance between proportionality and local representation. In MMP systems, voters cast two votes: one for a candidate in their constituency and another for a party. The party vote determines the overall proportion of seats each party should have, with constituency seats filled accordingly.

Strengths:

  • Balanced Representation: MMP systems combine the advantages of proportional representation with the direct accountability of single-member districts.
  • Reduction of Wasted Votes: By ensuring proportionality, MMP reduces the number of wasted votes, enhancing the legitimacy of the electoral process.

Weaknesses:

  • Complexity: MMP can be more complex for voters to understand, requiring them to make two distinct choices.
  • Potential for Coalition Governments: Similar to PR, MMP can result in coalition governments, which might be less stable.

Germany and New Zealand are notable examples where MMP has been successfully implemented, demonstrating its ability to balance fair representation with local accountability.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Another system favored by experts is the Single Transferable Vote (STV), which allows voters to rank candidates in multi-member constituencies. Seats are allocated based on voters’ preferences and a quota system, ensuring that votes contribute to the election of preferred candidates.

Strengths:

  • High Proportionality: STV ensures a highly proportional outcome, reflecting the electorate’s diverse preferences.
  • Voter Empowerment: Voters have significant influence over which candidates are elected, fostering a strong connection between representatives and their constituents.

Weaknesses:

  • Complexity in Counting: The counting process for STV can be complex and time-consuming, potentially delaying results.
  • Difficulty in Understanding: The system can be challenging for some voters to understand, which may affect voter turnout and confidence.

Ireland and Malta are prime examples where STV has been implemented, illustrating its effectiveness in providing proportional and representative outcomes.

Expert Consensus on Best Practices

While there is no universally agreed-upon “best” electoral system, experts generally concur that proportional representation systems, particularly MMP and STV, offer substantial advantages in terms of fairness and representation. These systems tend to foster inclusive governance and reflect the electorate’s diverse views more accurately than majoritarian systems like First-Past-The-Post (FPTP).

However, experts also acknowledge that the best electoral system depends on the specific context and goals of a society. For instance, countries prioritizing political stability and simplicity might favor majoritarian systems, while those emphasizing diversity and inclusiveness might prefer proportional representation.

In conclusion, the best electoral systems, as suggested by experts, are those that balance fair representation with practical governance. Proportional representation systems, particularly MMP and STV, stand out for their ability to provide inclusive and representative outcomes. Nonetheless, the choice of an electoral system should be tailored to the unique needs and values of each society, ensuring that the system aligns with its democratic aspirations.

The Best Electoral Systems as Suggested by Experts

Electoral systems are the backbone of democratic governance, shaping political representation, government formation, and democratic legitimacy1. Experts have evaluated various electoral systems, including First-Past-The-Post (FPTP), Proportional Representation (PR), Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP), Single Transferable Vote (STV), Majoritarian Systems, and Parallel Systems1. Each system has its strengths and limitations, and their effectiveness often depends on specific socio-political contexts1.

First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)

FPTP is prevalent in countries like the UK and the US1. It’s a simple system where the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins. While it tends to produce decisive outcomes, it may overlook minority interests1.

Proportional Representation (PR)

PR systems, observed in Germany and the Netherlands, prioritize proportional representation1. In these systems, parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. While this system is inclusive and representative, it often results in coalition governments1.

Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP)

MMP is a hybrid system that combines elements of FPTP and PR. It allows voters to vote for a local representative and a party list, ensuring local representation and overall proportionality1.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

In the STV system, voters rank candidates in order of preference. It allows for proportional representation in multi-seat constituencies and is highly inclusive1.

Majoritarian Systems

Majoritarian systems require the winner to receive an absolute majority of votes. If no candidate achieves this in the first round, a second round is held1.

Parallel Systems

Parallel systems use a combination of FPTP and PR, but unlike MMP, the PR seats don’t compensate for any disproportionality in the FPTP seats1.

According to a survey of electoral systems experts, the scholars generally prefer MMP and STV to the two main families of electoral system that have tended to predominate worldwide, namely list PR and single member plurality2. However, it’s important to note that there is no universally superior electoral model1. The effectiveness of an electoral system can significantly depend on the societal preferences and contextual factors of a country1.

In conclusion, understanding and critically evaluating electoral systems is crucial as they directly influence the composition of legislative bodies, the formation of governments, and the responsiveness of political institutions to the will of the electorate1. By identifying best practices and opportunities for improvement in electoral systems, we can contribute to the enhancement of democratic governance worldwide, promoting fairness, representation, and public trust in the electoral process1.

Here’s an essay on the best electoral systems as suggested by relevant experts:

Introduction

The choice of an electoral system is a critical decision that can shape the nature of a country’s democracy, representation, and governance. While there is no universally accepted “best” system, experts in the field of political science and electoral studies have extensively analyzed and debated the merits and drawbacks of various systems. This essay will explore the perspectives of relevant experts on the most recommended electoral systems.

Proportional Representation Systems

Many experts advocate for proportional representation systems, which aim to ensure that the distribution of seats in a legislative body closely reflects the popular vote. Two widely recommended systems in this category are:

1. Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)
This system combines elements of single-member district (SMD) and proportional representation (PR) systems. A portion of seats is elected through SMDs, typically using first-past-the-post (FPTP), while the remaining seats are allocated based on party lists to achieve overall proportionality.

Experts, such as Arend Lijphart and Andrew Reynolds, argue that MMP systems offer the best balance between constituency representation and proportionality. They believe this system can produce stable governments while ensuring diverse representation and minority voice.

2. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
In this system, voters rank candidates in order of preference, and candidates must reach a specified quota of votes to be elected. Surplus votes are transferred to other candidates based on preferences.

Experts like Benjamin Reilly and John Curtice praise STV for its ability to provide proportional representation, encourage diverse and inclusive politics, and minimize wasted votes. They argue that STV’s preferential voting method also promotes cross-community cooperation and consensus-building.

Majoritarian Systems

While proportional representation systems are often favored, some experts suggest that majoritarian systems may be more suitable for certain contexts, particularly in deeply divided societies or countries with a history of political instability.

Alternative Vote (AV)
Also known as instant-runoff voting, this system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority in the first round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on the next preference.

Experts like Andrew Gelman and Gary King argue that AV can produce stable governments with broad support, while still allowing voters to express nuanced preferences. They believe AV strikes a balance between majoritarianism and proportionality, and can promote moderation and compromise among political parties.

Conclusion

While there is no consensus on the “best” electoral system, experts tend to favor systems that balance representation, accountability, and stability. Proportional representation systems like MMP and STV are widely recommended for their ability to promote diverse representation and inclusive politics, while majoritarian systems like AV are suggested in contexts where stability and broad support are paramount concerns.

Ultimately, the choice of an electoral system should be tailored to a country’s specific political, social, and historical context, taking into account factors such as the level of political polarization, the strength of political parties, and the desired balance between representation and governability.

Quizzes

 #1: What is the primary advantage of proportional representation systems?

Answer: Ensures fair representation of parties and encourages a multiparty system and greater diversity of political views.

 #2: Which electoral system combines single-winner districts with proportional representation, allowing voters to cast two votes?

Answer: Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP).

 #3: Name a country where the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system is employed.

Answer: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, India, Nigeria.

 #4: What is a significant weakness of the Two-Round System (Runoff Voting)?

Answer: More expensive and time-consuming due to the need for two rounds of voting; may still marginalize smaller parties.

 #5: Describe the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system.

Answer: Voters rank candidates in multi-member constituencies. Seats are allocated based on voters’ preferences and a quota system.

 #6: What are the strengths of the Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting) system?

Answer: Reduces the spoiler effect and encourages positive campaigning, as candidates seek second-choice votes.

 #7: In which system do voters cast two votes, one for a candidate and one for a party list, and the two parts of the election are independent?

Answer: Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian).

 #8: Which countries employ the Party-List Proportional Representation system?

Answer: Sweden, Israel, Brazil, South Africa, Spain.

 #9: What is a common criticism of coalition governments that can arise from proportional representation systems?

Answer: Coalition governments may be less stable and more prone to gridlock.

 #10: What is a significant strength of the Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) system?

Answer: Balances local representation with overall proportionality and reduces the disadvantages of pure majoritarian or proportional systems.

#1: What is the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) electoral system?

Answer: The First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) is an electoral system where the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins. It is prevalent in countries like the UK and the US.

#2: What is the Proportional Representation (PR) electoral system?

Answer: The Proportional Representation (PR) system is one where parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. It is observed in countries like Germany and the Netherlands.

#3: What is the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system?

Answer: The Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) is a hybrid system that combines elements of FPTP and PR. It allows voters to vote for a local representative and a party list, ensuring local representation and overall proportionality.

#4: What is the Single Transferable Vote (STV) electoral system?

Answer: In the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, voters rank candidates in order of preference. It allows for proportional representation in multi-seat constituencies and is highly inclusive.

#5: What are Majoritarian Systems?

Answer: Majoritarian systems are electoral systems that require the winner to receive an absolute majority of votes. If no candidate achieves this in the first round, a second round is held.

#6: What are Parallel Systems?

Answer: Parallel systems use a combination of FPTP and PR, but unlike MMP, the PR seats don’t compensate for any disproportionality in the FPTP seats.

#7: Which electoral systems do scholars generally prefer?

Answer: According to a survey of electoral systems experts, the scholars generally prefer MMP and STV to the two main families of electoral system that have tended to predominate worldwide, namely list PR and single member plurality.

#8: Is there a universally superior electoral model?

Answer: No, there is no universally superior electoral model. The effectiveness of an electoral system can significantly depend on the societal preferences and contextual factors of a country.

#9: Why is understanding and critically evaluating electoral systems crucial?

Answer: Understanding and critically evaluating electoral systems is crucial as they directly influence the composition of legislative bodies, the formation of governments, and the responsiveness of political institutions to the will of the electorate.

#10: How can identifying best practices and opportunities for improvement in electoral systems contribute to democratic governance?

Answer: By identifying best practices and opportunities for improvement in electoral systems, we can contribute to the enhancement of democratic governance worldwide, promoting fairness, representation, and public trust in the electoral process.

 #1: What is the main principle behind proportional representation systems?

Answer: Proportional representation systems aim to ensure that the distribution of seats in a legislative body closely reflects the popular vote.

 #2: What is the key feature of the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system?

Answer: In the FPTP system, the candidate with the highest number of votes in a given constituency or district wins, even if they don’t have an overall majority.

 #3: What is the advantage of the Two-Round System (Runoff Voting)?

Answer: The advantage of the Two-Round System is that it ensures the winner has majority support, allowing voters to express nuanced preferences.

 #4: What is the primary strength of the Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting) system?

Answer: The primary strength of the Alternative Vote system is that it allows voters to express nuanced preferences, ensures the winner has broad support, and eliminates the need for a separate runoff.

 #5: What is the advantage of the Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) system?

Answer: The advantage of the MMP system is that it combines direct constituency representation with proportional representation, promoting diversity of voices in the legislature.

 #6: What is the primary weakness of the Party-List Proportional Representation system?

Answer: The primary weakness of the Party-List Proportional Representation system is that it can lead to fragmented parliaments, weaker constituency representation, and voters have limited influence over individual candidates.

 #7: Which electoral system is praised for promoting cross-community cooperation and consensus-building?

Answer: The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system is praised for promoting cross-community cooperation and consensus-building.

 #8: What is the key argument in favor of the Alternative Vote (AV) system?

Answer: The key argument in favor of the Alternative Vote (AV) system is that it can produce stable governments with broad support, while still allowing voters to express nuanced preferences.

 #9: What is a potential weakness of the Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian) system?

Answer: A potential weakness of the Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian) system is that it can lead to significant disproportionality, potential for split voting behavior, and complexity.

 #10: What is a key consideration when choosing an electoral system for a country?

Answer: A key consideration when choosing an electoral system for a country is tailoring it to the specific political, social, and historical context, taking into account factors such as the level of political polarization, the strength of political parties, and the desired balance between representation and governability.

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

Discussion Questions on Electoral Systems

  1. What are the key differences between majoritarian and proportional representation electoral systems?
  2. How does the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system impact the representation of smaller political parties?
  3. What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of the Two-Round System (Runoff Voting) compared to FPTP?
  4. In what ways does the Alternative Vote (Instant-Runoff Voting) system reduce the spoiler effect, and why is this important?
  5. How does the Party-List Proportional Representation system ensure a more diverse and representative government?
  6. What challenges might arise from implementing the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system in a country with a large electorate?
  7. How does the Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) system address the weaknesses of both majoritarian and proportional representation systems?
  8. What are the implications of having coalition governments in countries that use proportional representation systems?
  9. How does the Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian) system balance local representation with proportionality?
  10. What factors should a country consider when choosing an electoral system to ensure fair representation and political stability?
  11. Why might some voters find the Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP) system more complex than other systems?
  12. How can electoral systems influence voter turnout and political engagement in a country?
  13. What role does voter education play in the effective implementation of complex electoral systems like STV and MMP?
  14. How do different electoral systems impact the relationship between representatives and their constituents?
  15. In what ways can the design of an electoral system affect the overall legitimacy and acceptance of election results by the public?

These questions are designed to provoke critical thinking and in-depth discussion on the various aspects of electoral systems, their implementation, and their impact on democratic processes.

Sure, here are 15 discussion questions related to the content:

  1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) electoral system?
  2. How does the Proportional Representation (PR) system ensure inclusivity and representation?
  3. Can you explain how the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system combines elements of FPTP and PR?
  4. What makes the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system highly inclusive?
  5. How do Majoritarian Systems ensure that the winner has the support of the majority of voters?
  6. What is the difference between Parallel Systems and MMP?
  7. Why do scholars generally prefer MMP and STV over list PR and single member plurality?
  8. How can societal preferences and contextual factors of a country affect the effectiveness of an electoral system?
  9. Why is there no universally superior electoral model?
  10. How do electoral systems influence the composition of legislative bodies?
  11. In what ways do electoral systems affect the formation of governments?
  12. How do electoral systems impact the responsiveness of political institutions to the will of the electorate?
  13. How can understanding and critically evaluating electoral systems contribute to democratic governance?
  14. What are some best practices in electoral systems?
  15. How can identifying opportunities for improvement in electoral systems enhance democratic governance worldwide?

Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to the content on electoral systems:

  1. What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of the First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system in terms of representativeness and government stability?
  2. How effective are runoff systems, such as the Two-Round System and Alternative Vote, in ensuring that the elected candidate has broad support from the electorate?
  3. In what situations might a Proportional Representation system be more appropriate than a Majoritarian system, and vice versa?
  4. What are the potential challenges in implementing and administering complex electoral systems like the Single Transferable Vote (STV) or Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)?
  5. How can the design of an electoral system impact the incentives for political parties to engage in coalition-building and compromise?
  6. What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, as in the Alternative Vote and STV systems?
  7. How might the choice of electoral system influence the representation of minority groups and marginalized communities in the legislature?
  8. In what contexts might a Mixed System, such as Parallel Voting or Mixed Proportional, strike an appropriate balance between representation and governability?
  9. How can the risk of gerrymandering and boundary delimitation be mitigated in single-member district systems like FPTP or Alternative Vote?
  10. What are the potential implications of a Party-List Proportional Representation system on the relationship between voters and individual representatives?
  11. How might the choice of electoral system impact the incentives for political parties to adopt more extreme or moderate positions?
  12. What are the potential challenges in transitioning from one electoral system to another, and how can these challenges be addressed?
  13. How can the design of an electoral system promote or hinder the participation of women and other underrepresented groups in politics?
  14. In what situations might a hybrid system, such as Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP), be preferable to a pure Proportional Representation or Majoritarian system?
  15. How can the principles of transparency, accountability, and fairness be upheld in the implementation and administration of different electoral systems?

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Categorize the types of electoral systems employed around the world.
    1. Types of Electoral Systems Employed Around the World
      1. Single-Winner/Majoritarian Systems
      2. Proportional Representation Systems
      3. Mixed Systems
      4. Conclusion
  2. For each of the systems in your list above, provide a clear description and the associated strengths and weaknesses.
    1. Electoral Systems Around the World
      1. Single-Winner/Majoritarian Systems
      2. Proportional Representation Systems
      3. Mixed Systems
  3. Create a table displaying the following column headers on electoral systems.
    1. Electoral Systems Around the World
  4. Write an essay on the best electoral systems as suggested by the relevant experts.
    1. The Best Electoral Systems: Insights from Experts
      1. Proportional Representation Systems
      2. Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMP)
      3. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
      4. Expert Consensus on Best Practices
    2. The Best Electoral Systems as Suggested by Experts
      1. First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)
      2. Proportional Representation (PR)
      3. Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP)
      4. Single Transferable Vote (STV)
      5. Majoritarian Systems
      6. Parallel Systems
  5. Quizzes
  6. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Discussion Questions on Electoral Systems

Leave a comment

Phil Stilwell

Phil picked up a BA in Philosophy a couple of decades ago. After his MA in Education, he took a 23-year break from reality in Tokyo. He occasionally teaches philosophy and critical thinking courses in university and industry. He is joined here by ChatGPT, GEMINI, CLAUDE, and occasionally Copilot, Perplexity, and Grok, his far more intelligent AI friends. The seven of them discuss and debate a wide variety of philosophical topics I think you’ll enjoy.

Phil curates the content and guides the discussion, primarily through questions. At times there are disagreements, and you may find the banter interesting.

— Goals and Observations

Stay informed!

Sign up for new post notices.

Recent Posts

  • Grok Self-Reflection Experiment

    The post revolves around a theological debate between Phil and Vince regarding the concept of eternal punishment. Phil critiques the fairness of punishing finite actions with infinite consequences, arguing this collapses the notion of justice. Vince counters with… Read more

  • Where Consciousness Can & Must Emerge

    This inquiry emphasizes that consciousness is not dependent on physical substrate types but arises from specific network configurations. Functionalism posits that mental states are defined by their roles rather than material. Integrated Information Theory (IIT) and Global Workspace… Read more

  • Scoring the Accessibility of Philosophical Content

    The essay critiques the inaccessibility of philosophy, urging a return to clarity in philosophical writing. It introduces thirteen dimensions to evaluate accessibility: lexical determinacy, syntactic coherence, conceptual testability, and others. The scores for three philosophical works—William James’ “Pragmatism”… Read more

  • Assessing AI Alignment with Truth

    The discussion centers on the dynamics affecting AI alignment with truth. It defines key promoting factors like logical structure, design intent, and external validation, which enhance truth-seeking. Conversely, undermining factors such as biased training data, human agendas, and… Read more

  • Categories of Questions

    This post discusses different categories of questions: those answerable by science, subjective questions tied to emotions, and logically incoherent questions. It emphasizes that philosophical inquiries about existence and meaning often lack empirical backing, requiring alternative reasoning methods like… Read more

  • AI “Logic” & “Intelligence”

    This post critiques the ambiguous usage of “logic” and “intelligence,” arguing that such equivocations weaken discussions about rationality and conversational intelligence. It distinguishes logic as a subset of intelligence, emphasizing that intelligence is adaptive and contextual, while logic… Read more

  • Logic wherever Structure

    This post discusses the intrinsic relationship between existence and structure, emphasizing that anything that exists must have some form of structure, which enables subjective minds to assign logic to it. This logic emerges from inductive reasoning, allowing for… Read more

  • Model of Ethical Dynamics

    This post outlines a mathematical model designed to assess ethical dynamics within societies by factoring in psychological, social, and lifestyle influences. It highlights key components such as compassion, indignation, and the costs associated with ethical stances. Through examples,… Read more

Recent Posts — Expanded Version

Go back

Your message has been sent

Links to Section Menus