DD Papers
Elections in Northern Ireland: systems for stability and success
Draft,
February 1998
This is the second of a series
of working papers being published by Democratic Dialogue to work through
otherwise apparently intractable problems associated with negotiating
a settlement of the Northern Ireland conflict. Democratic Dialogue welcomes
comment on its contents, which are not intended to be definitive but to
stimulate constructive discussion and debate.
© Democratic Dialogue 1998
Acknowledgements
Democratic Dialogue is indebted
to Carmel Roulston who undertook this research at short notice, and executed
it with speed. We recognise her as the principle author. We also acknowledge
Sydney Elliot, who was, as ever, on hand to offer invaluable advice.
Introduction
Electoral systems are
the key variables in the political process in a democracy, because to
a large extent they determine who gets what, when and how.
(Reeve & Ware, 1992)
Taking the view that electoral
outcomes in Northern Ireland which include small parties, and more women
endows the pro process which the electoral system governs with greater
stability than would otherwise have been the case, this paper undertakes
a review of electoral systems elsewhere which are targeted at:
(a) the inclusion of small
political parties and
(b) increasing the number
of women in elected positions representing political parties
It makes recommendations based
on this review which could be beneficial to any future Northern Ireland
electoral systems. We refer to a discrete part of these, viz. an
assembly.
The paper firstly considers
the purpose of elections, before describing the key elements of election
systems, and their relationship with electoral outcomes. We note that
a huge number of mechanisms for converting votes cast into seats won by
parties and individual candidates exists throughout the world. We explore
the technical detail of a number of these and then assess how they work
in practice. We turn attention to how systems are tailored to include
those groups who generally find themselves outwith the outcome. But it
is not electoral systems alone which will achieve proportional representation
for women. Parties are the gatekeepers to candidature, and we consider
their responsibilities to women in this respect.
In conclusion, we suggest six
principles which electoral systems in Northern Ireland should adhere to.
We present possible parameters for such structures, and we sketch five
specific systems which give practical expression to these principles and
parameters.
Democratic Dialogue
February 1998
I. Introduction:
studying elections
Voting in elections is for
most people in modern liberal-democracies the most significant, indeed
the only, form of participation in politics. Elections are a key link
between citizens and policy-makers. They have both practical and symbolic
importance in the many states which call themselves democracies, playing
a vital role in the legitimisation of the political system and contributing
to political stability and order. The composition of legislative assemblies
is, in the last instance, determined by popular vote in elections; for
this reason, political parties have paid increasing attention to electoral
strategies, cultivating ever more sophisticated techniques for influencing,
measuring and responding to public opinion. Indirectly, elections influence
the composition of governments at local, regional and national levels
and therefore have some bearing upon the policies of states. Even if we
accept Schumpeter's view (1975) that in liberal democracies citizens choose
between competing policy-makers rather than decide upon policies, it is
hard to deny that accountability through the ballot box has the effect
of concentrating the minds of political elites keen to be returned to
office.
For all these reasons, every
aspect of the conduct of elections attracts the attention of all those
with an interest in politics and policy-making. A vast and growing literature
has been created on electoral rules and institutions, while the conduct
and outcomes of individual elections are studied and interpreted in considerable
detail. Often in such studies it is the citizens' engagement with the
processes which is the object of attention; in particular, in recent years,
their shifting political allegiances and the extent to which these can
be reflected in the available party system. As new political identifications
begin to intersect with or replace older alignments and cleavages, the
mechanisms for expressing and aggregating preferences have become more
significant. Put simply, sometimes the electoral system is based on the
expectation that a society is divided by social class or attitude into
two roughly equal groups, which will be represented by competing parties
or blocs of parties. In reality, social and attitudinal changes may have
brought on to the scene new issues such as the environment, or partiessuch
as the Green Party, which cannot find a space given the constraints of
the system. Adjustments to the electoral system can, and have been, introduced
with the aim of achieving certain specific outcomes: more parties in the
legislature, fewer parties elected, more women and members of minority
groups and so on. This can be illustrated by developments in a number
of European statesboth in the EU and in former Communist-led statesin
recent years. In Britain, France and Italy, for example, the emergence
of new parties or rejection of traditions associated with existing dominant
parties have brought demands for changes to the electoral system. In the
former Communist states, the framers of electoral laws have found themselves
obliged to balance the objective of encouraging an open pluralistic system
against the desire to limit both political fragmentation and the influence
of the successors to the former ruling parties.
It has become widely accepted,
then, that the electoral system is an important variable in the determination
of how citizens participate and are represented. The details of the electoral
system from the structure of the ballot paper to the size of constituenciescan
have an influence upon the behaviour of both voters and parties, favouring
some choices and discouraging others. The exact nature of these effects
is still open to debate, but a strong consensus has been reached on the
importance of the electoral system. Sartori commented that the "electoral
system is the most specific manipulative element in politics." (Lijphart,
1994b:2 ) Putting this more strongly, Blackburn (1995:1) tells us that
the "crucial democratic link between politicians and people or government
and the governedis the electoral system. The quality of that electoral
system itself determines the quality of our democracy." It is not clear,
however, that simple causal links can be identified between, for example,
electoral system and party system. The 'law' that Duverger (1954) expounded"the
simple-majority single-ballot system favours the two-party system"with
its corollary that proportional representation favours multi-party systems,
has come to seem less obvious. Other factorsthe nature of political cleavages,
size of territory, level of economic developmenthave come to be seen
as influencing the nature of party-systems. Which aspects of the electoral
system have what effects has also been the subject of much discussion,
and there has been growing resistance to the idea that it is possible
to establish a 'best possible' system. (Gallagher et. al , 1995, Reeve
& Ware, 1992). Changing the rules may change some aspects of
the nature of the process, but questions still remain as to whether absolute
judgements can be made about how "democratic" any given system might be.
Nevertheless, even if we accept that there is no perfect electoral system,
we can still attempt to define the potential effects of key elements of
the electoral system on the fortunes of political parties, and ultimately,
on the policy agenda in any future representative assembly in Northern
Ireland.
II. Key
elements of election systems
To the general public, the
key distinguishing feature between electoral systems is whether they can
be described as 'proportional representation' or 'first past the post'
('majoritarian' or 'simple plurality') systems. Blackburn (1995:362) points
out that, strictly speaking, proportional representation is "not in itself
a system for elections, but rather a criterion upon which to evaluate
the working of any one of a range of electoral systems which can be used
for voting purposes. It is a principle or yardstick by which to test the
degree of representative proportionality between citizens' votes and successful
party candidates." What we can say is that some systems have been devised
in order to achieve a closer match between votes cast for a party and
seats won by it. As Gallagher observes, however, it is not accurate to
see PR and plurality systems as polar opposites. "After all, even plurality
systems are 'proportional' in their own way in that they award the seat(s)
within each constituency to the party with the largest number of votes.
The real opposite of proportional representation would be a 'perverse'
system that awarded all the seats to the party with the fewest votes."
(1995:275) The different systems, according to this view, can be seen
as belonging to a spectrum, with different degrees of proportionality
arising from the presence or absence of certain features. Some are, however,
considerably more accurate in relating seats won to votes cast than others.
The British simple plurality system, for example, has been described as
so disproportional as to be "a distortion and falsification of democracy".(Blackburn,
1995:363) The most important features identified over the years by scholars
such as Bogdanor (1984), Blais (1988), Carstairs (1980), Rae (1971), Gallagher
(1991) and Lijphart (1994) are:
- assembly size,
- electoral formula,
- ballot structure,
- district magnitude and
- thresholds of representation.
There is continued debate about
the relative importance of these elements and to what extent they should
be viewed as independent variables, but all can be seen as having some
impact upon the eventual outcome of elections.
Assembly size might
seem to be the least significant factor, but Lijphart points out that
while it makes sense for small countries to have relatively small assemblies,
"when assemblies are made extremely small, the chances of proportional
election results are severely reduced." In assemblies of over approximately
100 seats, differences in size appear to have little influence on proportionality,
but smaller assemblies may be very disproportional. (1997:74)
Electoral formula and
ballot structure, identified as being of great importance in Rae's
influential work (1971) are part of the process of 'aggregating votes',
that is drawing together the individual choices made by voters into collective
outcomes. (Reeve & Ware, 1992: 83) Ballot structure refers to the
range of choices which a voter can express: does she have more than one
vote, can she cast votes for more than one party, how many preferences
can she register and so on. The electoral formulas translate votes into
seats. Plurality and majoritarian systems have relatively simple formulas
- the candidate with the biggest number of votes wins the seat, even if
he has not won the votes of a majority, or the candidate with a majority
of preferences takes the seat. The various PR systems, which allow for
a greater range of preferences and have multi-member constituencies, have
more complex formulas and ballot structures. All PR systems have multi-member
constituenciesthis is a defining feature of PR, though a few plurality/majority
systems have more than one representativeand district magnitude
refers to the number of legislators elected from each district. In PR
systems, as a rule, the greater the district magnitude the more
proportional the system. Finally, threshold of representation refers
to the percentage of votes required to have a chance of winning a seat.
Sometimes this refers to a minimum percentage laid down by law in party
list or mixed systems (e.g. in Poland, since 1994, only those parties
winning at least 4% of the national poll will be allocated seats) and
sometimes it refers to the effective percentage required in order to have
a chance of winning a seat . In this case, it is then linked to district
magnitude (the lower the district magnitude, the higher the effective
threshold). In general, the higher the threshold the less proportional
will be the outcome and the greater the number of 'wasted votes'. This
underlines again the degree to which electoral systems are a continuum;
in some PR systems a relatively high percentage of votes may be 'wasted',
though not as many as is the case in plurality systems.
III. Common
electoral formulas
An enormous variety of mechanisms
for turning votes cast by citizens into seats won by parties and candidates
exists throughout the world. As noted above, the adoption of one mechanism
in favour of another, or the retention of a system in use for many years,
may be intended to achieve a specific outcome or correct a perceived actual
or potential imbalance. In the newly created states and democracies of
Eastern and Central Europe, we have been able to witness the creation
of systems in relation to certain values and objectives which the leading
reformers considered important. In contrast to the one-party systems which
had been overthrown, free and open party competition was widely agreed
upon as a fundamental principle. However, this was constrained in some
cases by the desire to limit the influence of the former ruling communist
party and the concern to achieve stable and secure majorities in order
to manage economic transformation. In some cases efforts were also made
to revive or recreate pre-communist traditions and to learn from the mistakes
of, or emulate the success of more established parliamentary democracies.
With all these factors coming into play, Holmes notes that the systems
adopted were often based on compromises between competing principles and
have required subsequent adjustment and amendment. (1997:152) Electoral
systems have become a current issue again in the UK, with discussions
about the system to be used in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly,
as well as reform of the electoral system for Westminster being investigated.
In the latter case, pressures and doubts arise from the need to keep some
of what has been valued in the old systemterritorial link between constituents
and representatives, for examplewhile removing its most obvious shortcomingswasted
votes, for instance.
If we limit ourselves to the
British and East European cases, we can find examples of the most popular
and respected formulas in use today.
For UK Westminster elections,
of course, the system used is single-member plurality. This system,
or a derivative, has also been employed in countries which were formerly
British colonies. (New Zealand, however, recently adopted a PR system).
This is a relatively straightforward system: voters, organised in territorial
constituencies, are presented with a ballot paper containing a list of
names of candidates, most of whom are attached to political parties. Voters
choose one of these candidates only and the candidate whom the largest
number of voters identify as their choice wins the seat, even if the largest
number is a minority of the total number of votes cast. In the country
as a whole, the party which wins the largest number of constituencies
(again, even if this party has not won a majority of votes cast) will
be the one to form a government. Voters are then potentially influencing
two outcomes, namely, the result in their constituency and the result
in the country as a whole. The criticisms of this system are well-known,
but before we enumerate them it may be useful to outline some of the reasons
for its survival. It is simple to operate, particularly for those counting
the votes, it retains a clear link between representative and constituency
and it allows local issues to predominate where there is strong feeling
about them. It is argued that disproportionalities in any one constituency
may be 'ironed out' over the country as a whole, thus 'safe' Labour seats
balanced by 'safe' Tory seats, for example. The major disadvantages are
that, by denying voters the opportunity to express a range of preferences
rather than a straight choice, it leads to 'wasted votes', where a voter
can feel that he or she has little effect on the outcome of the election,
either at the local or national levels. The benefits of being able to
highlight local issues and on occasion vote for independent candidates
are offset by the strength of the party system in modern states. It strongly
disadvantages smaller parties, especially those whose support is dispersed
throughout the country, such as the Liberal-Democrats. Further, it can
lead to a situation where a relatively small shift in public opinion can
lead to a significant change in the composition of the parliament. The
misgivings about this system are illustrated by comments on British elections
in recent years, when both Conservative and Labour parties won disproportionate
numbers of seats.
To remove some of these faults
while keeping most of the benefits of the system, modified plurality or
majority systems have been proposed and tried. In Australia, there is
the alternative vote system, where voters elect a single constituency
representative but are allowed to rank candidates in order of preference.
When all first preferences are counted, provided no-one has a majority,
lower-placed candidates are eliminated and their votes redistributed in
accordance with second-preferences until one candidate has a clear majority
over the others. In France, a similar principle is employed in the second-ballot
system, where lower-ranked candidates are eliminated and the
voters return to the polls to decide as to which they prefer among the
remaining choices. In some opinions, the French system is fairer because
voters have more information when making their second choice. Numerous
variations on this basic formula are possible: sometimes voters can only
offer two preferences, sometimes only the top two candidates go into the
second stage and so on. It does not eliminate disproportionality across
the whole country, but it does allow voters more influence over the range
of choices offered to them. In this respect, it can be said to have some
of the features of the US primary system, where party members take part
in the process of selecting candidates.
The single-transferable
vote system, which is also popular in English-speaking countries,
also combines the features of a primary with an election. It allows voters
to convey a lot of information about their preferences, and in particular
to select among a range of candidates offered by the same party. Voters
can also express support for more than one party, or for parties plus
independents, on their ballot-papers. Although counting the votes is complex,
this is also a relatively simple system to use in most contexts. Voters
are presented with a list of candidates competing to win a variable number
of seats in multi-member constituencies. They rank their preferences in
order, and again are both influencing the choice of constituency member
as well as the composition of the government. In counting the votes, the
key factor is the 'quota' or proportion of the votes which any candidate
must reach in order to be elected. In Ireland, the 'Droop quota' is used;
the total votes cast are divided by the total number of seats plus one.
It is possible to use other methods of calculating the quota; the 'Hare'
system simply divides votes cast by seats, which produces a smaller 'effective
threshold'. To be elected, a candidate must win this number of votes plus
one and does not require any more votes than this. Consequently, the processes
of redistribution involve both votes for those candidates who have been
eliminated and the surplus votes of those who have been elected, so in
theory, there are no 'wasted votes'. It is this system which the Liberal-Democrats
favour for British Westminster elections and it does have certain advantages,
including the likelihood that it would give them seats in parliament in
proportion to their support in the country. Voters are given considerable
control over the way their vote is used, they can influence the direction
in which their party will develop, they can highlight issues which they
consider important and it is much less disproportional than the single-member
plurality system. However, this appears to be a system which might not
work as well in larger constituencies and it can allow local issues to
have too great a significance.
If STV is favoured because
of the power it gives electors, party-list systems are weighted
in favour of the parties. As with the other mechanisms described, there
are many possible variations: in the degree of choice given to voters,
in the size of the constituencies and in the precise formula used to calculate
how seats relate to votes. The basic principle is that parties are fundamental
to the representation of opinion and that party representation in the
legislature should be closely proportional to party support in the country.
Accordingly, parties offer voters lists of candidates, usually containing
as many names as there are seats to be filled. In some countries there
are lists for more or less large constituencies (Spain has seven-member,
Finland has twelve-member constituencies), in others (Holland, for example)
there is one nation-wide constituency. Voters then decide which party
they prefer and seats are allocated to the names on the list (usually
in the order decided by the party) in proportion to the support among
the electorate. In some countries, voters can change the order of the
candidates (usually to very little effect); in others (Switzerland, Luxembourg)
electors can vote for more than one list, or can use more than one vote
for the same candidate. However, even where an elector votes for an individual
candidate, as in Finland, the vote cast may in some circumstances be counted
as part of the overall vote for the party and be used to elect a candidate
who might not ever have featured in that voter's preferences. In some
systems, a second-tier of seats is reserved, allocated to parties on the
basis of total votes cast to iron out any disproportionalities in the
constituency rounds. The precise formula used to allocate seats in party
list systems is based on the principle that as far as possible the average
number of votes needed to elect candidates is the same for each party.
According to the d'Hondt method, the total votes cast for each list are
divided and redivided so that the seats go to the parties with the highest
average of votes. Other 'highest average' methods are used where it is
regarded as desirable to 'overcompensate' smaller parties. 'Largest remainder'
systems involve dividing the total number of votes cast by the number
of seats to be won and tend to be less likely to penalise smaller parties.
Party list systems are usually very good at achieving proportionality
(though this varies according to the size of the constituencies and the
level of threshold), but can be said to sacrifice voter choice to some
extent in favour of party control. Parties choose the candidates and can
determine or strongly influence which candidates take seats by putting
favoured candidates higher on the lists. Some decentralisation of control
over such decisions can be achieved by allowing local party organisations
to influence the lists, or by having primaries, as has happened recently
in Israel. These procedures still leave control in the hands of party
activists, however, limiting the voters choice to a degree.
Finally, there are additional
member systems. The best known of these is the German system, variants
of which have been adopted by some Eastern European states, including
Hungary and Bulgaria. To some extent the law-makers in these states were
influenced by similar considerations to those which applied in Germany,
aiming to find a proportional system which would give voters a wide choice
but would also avoid the multiplication of smaller parties which many
saw as responsible for the paralysis of the Weimar parliamentary system.
In Germany, the country is divided into 328 single-member constituencies,
where candidates are elected using a plurality system. On the ballot-paper,
however, the voter has another vote which is cast for a party list, and
which results in the election of a further 328 members. The object of
this second vote is to compensate for disproportionalities at the constituency
level; the number of seats going to party list candidates depends upon
how many they have won at constituency level and on how proportional that
number is compared to overall support for the party in the country as
a whole. 'Additional' seats are awarded to parties who have won fewer
constituency seats relative to their overall share of the vote. It sometimes
happens that a few extra seats are required in the assembly to ensure
that no party receives fewer seats than their share of the vote indicates
as necessary. The systems proposed for the Scottish parliament and Welsh
assembly are similar to the German one. All sorts of variations are possible;
higher or lower thresholds for the party list vote; fewer members elected
on this basis, regional or nation-wide lists. The advantages of this system
are that it allows voters to express complex preferences and is reasonably
proportional. Compared to other systems, however it is complex both for
voters and for counters of votes.
IV. Electoral
systems in practice
Broad generalisations are often
made about the differences between PR and 'first past the post' systems.
These are grounded in fact to some extent, though they tend to be qualified
after closer examination. To return to Duverger's 'law', this is based
on the assumption that the 'fairness' of PR systemsthe closer correlation
of seats won by parties to votes cast for them encourages and rewards
smaller parties, leading to a fragmented or multi-party system, with a
tendency to have coalition governmentswhich change frequentlyand a high
degree of political bargaining. The reverse of this is that plurality
systems, by disproportionately advantaging large parties and underrepresenting
smaller parties produce a stable two-party system, with alternating governments
and adversarial politics. These generalisations are then extended to encompass
the following assumption: that the adoption of PR involves opting for
fairness at the expense of political stability. It has then been argued
that PR is more suited to smaller countries, in part because with their
smaller burden of decision-making they will be less adversely affected
by frequent governmental changes and in part because multi-member constituencies
are thought to lead to a potential loss of connection between voters and
representatives. Plurality/majoritarian systems are based upon a strong
territorial principal, in which a bond is created between the single representative
and her constituents. In a large population, with multi-member constituencies,
this bond would be sacrificed.
A number of reservations can
be entered about these assumptions. Firstly, there is the question of
the link between electoral formula and party system. As Rae noted, party
systems are influenced by many forces, one of which is the electoral law.
In addition, "electoral laws are themselves shaped by party systems."
(Rae, 1957:141) So, determining which force causes what results will require
more specific information about individual countries. Many writers have
observed that PR systems have been introduced in response to changes already
taking place in the party system. (Carstairs, 1980, Rokkan, 1970) Likewise,
Bogdanor and Butler (1983) demonstrated that reductions in the numbers
of effective parties can take place under PR. Plurality systems have sometimes
coincided with one-party dominance, or with one large party confronting
a shifting alliance of smaller parties (both of these have been a feature
of Indian politics since independence and at one time were thought possible
for the UK).
Secondly, it is not at all
clear that two-party systems are in any case necessarily more stable or
effective. A number of writers (Finer, 1975 and Powell, 1982 for example)
have argued that on certain key indicators of success the consensual-coalition
democracies perform better than adversarial systems. Finer's arguments
are well known, and widely contested (see Dearlove and Saunders, 1984).
Adversarial politics in his view lead to governments which manipulate
economic policy for electoral advantage, leading to artificial disruptions
in the business cycle. In the longer term, coalitions tend to be more
centrist and consensual with fewer sharp changes of policy.
Other writers have noted that
on matters such as voter participation and control of violence, consensual-coalition
governments also perform better. Growing electoral volatility - with voters
changing parties in an unpredictable manner might also increase instability
in some plurality/majoritarian systems. Famously, Arend Lijphart argued
(1977) that consensual-coalition government was particularly appropriate
for societies deeply divided by ethnic, linguistic or religious differences.
Of course, to put the other point of view, it is argued that multi-party
systems are inherently less fair than two-party systems as they tend to
produce governments dominated by relatively unpopular centrist parties,
which can 'hold the balance of power' and be 'permanently in government'.
Using the
systems
Showing the difficulty of finding
simple causal relationships between electoral systems and party systems,
or the danger of drawing hasty conclusions about electoral systems and
stable government, is not to argue that electoral systems have no effects
at all. On the contrary, in keeping with Sartori's claim, quoted above,
about their potential use as an instrument for political manipulation,
studies of electoral systems and their histories have shown that changes
and adaptations have been made in order to achieve certain outcomes. There
have been cases of ruling parties changing the rules of the game in order
to achieve some advantage for themselves. In the Fourth and Fifth French
Republics there have been shifts from alternative vote to PR and back
again in order to limit the power of the Communists or enhance the success
of the dominant party. Constituency boundaries have been manipulated in
order to consolidate the vote for particular parties or individuals. The
US provides some examples. In the 1800s, the Governor of Massachusetts,
Elbridge Gerry, constructed a salamander-shaped congressional district
( hence 'gerrymander' ) in order to favour his own party. In the 1960s,
the US Supreme Court began to require states to construct electoral boundaries
in conformity with the principle that "every vote should count equally"
so that the vote of a citizen in one territorial unit should not count
for more than that of a voter in another district. This principle was
then applied to allow boundaries in certain areas to be redrawn in order
to ensure the election of representatives from certain ethnic minoritiesto
consolidate the black and Hispanic vote, in effect. (See Phillips, 1996
for a discussion of this.)
Bringing
in excluded groups
The original introduction of
PR systems was intended to offset the disadvantages of minority groupsin
Denmark in the 1850s, to help the German minority in Schleswig, for example.
Belgium introduced PR in the 1890s as a response to the problems of accommodating
a three-party system. As Lijphart and others have demonstrated, in societies
which are divided in complex ways, PR has been introduced to systems to
ensure that minority communities are represented in proportion to their
numbers in the population. It is important to recall the caveats entered
above; there is no guarantee that the effects sought will be achieved
simply by changing electoral laws. Other factorspublic resistance, party
policies, demographic shiftswill also have an impact, sometimes reinforcing,
sometimes undermining the consequences of electoral change. Nevertheless,
certain patterns can be discerned.
If we take as an example the
effects of electoral systems on the percentages of women elected to legislative
assemblies, there are indications that, as Gallagher puts it, (Gallagher
et al, 1995: 294) PR systems affect not only the representation of parties
but also the "profile of the individuals who sit on the parliamentary
benches." A substantial literature on women in politics has, since the
1970s, shown that women candidates find it more difficult to be elected
into parliaments under plurality systems than under PR. (Darcy, Welch
& Clark, 1987, Lovenduski & Norris, 1993, Phillips, 1995, Randall,
1987) The features most conducive to electoral success for women candidates
are: larger district magnitudes and a party list electoral system. In
addition, rules which increase the representation of smaller partiesusing
largest remainder calculations, having the lowest possible thresholdsmay
in some cases also lead to greater numbers of women in assemblies, as
smaller parties, with weaker competition for seats, tend to put forward
more women candidates. It appears to be the "single-member" feature of
plurality systemscombined with cultural attitudes which discriminate
against womenthat is the key to explaining their under-representation
in parliaments elected under such rules. The presence of women
as candidates in such systems attracts attention which leads selectors
to fear they may win fewer votes than a male candidate. In PR systems
with their larger numbers of candidates, the absence of women from
lists or ballot papers attracts attention and requires justification.
All of these factors can also be seen to apply to other excluded or minority
groups.
Party responsibilities
The electoral system alone
will not achieve proportional or even radically improved representation
for women. The willingness of parties to select women for winnable seats
is also important, and in the places where women have been most successful,
parties have responded to pressure from women's organisations and/or from
governments. A recent study of provincial elections in Argentina seems
to indicate that a combination of larger district magnitude, a centralised
party list system and a law requiring parties to field a
minimum number of women candidates in the higher portions of the lists
leads to an improvement in the numbers of women elected. Similarly, improvements
in the numbers of women in parliament are possible under plurality/majority
systems if party leaderships or selectors are encouraged to put women
candidates forward in winnable seats. (There is in fact no evidence showing
that women candidates are likely to lose safe seats.) Hence we
can compare the UK and Italy. Before the 1997 election in the UK, 9.2%
of parliamentary seats were held by womena very slight improvement on
the previous situation when the numbers of women for years hovered around
6%. Italy, however, even with its additional member system, returned women
to only 8% of the seats. The 1997 British election saw women take an astonishing
18% of seats, bringing the UK above many European PR systems and bringing
it close to the German figure of 20%. (Germany has a system similar to
that in Italy, but with a greater number of members elected via the party
list.) The significant difference in 1997 was the decision by the Labour
Party to instruct constituencies to select a women candidate in a high
proportion of safe seats. Although this policy was abandoned after a challenge
in the courts, no women candidates already in place were 'deselected'.
Combined with the landslide victory for Labour which led to victories
for candidates in seats not usually considered winnable, the result is
that of the 129 seats in Westminster held by women, 101 are Labour seats.
While there is no guarantee
that future elections to Westminster using the simple-plurality system
will produce the same successes for women Labour candidates, there is
some reason to believe that the 1997 election could be a watershed as
far as women candidates are concerned. Firstly, the success of Labour
women will lead to pressure on other parties who do not already do so
to select a fair proportion of women for winnable seats. This would conform
to a pattern observed in Scandinavia, where parties on the left of the
spectrum initiated a process of selecting women which was then followed
by Centre and Right-wing parties. Secondly, recent research from the US
indicates that a greater number of women representatives leads to an increase
in the general interest in politics among women, (Verba et al 1997) which
in turn may produce more women prepared to be candidates. Finally, it
is possible that electoral reform in Britain may lead to the introduction
of a system whichother things being equalwill at least facilitate the
entry of larger numbers of women into parliament. Social attitudes which
lead to the expectation that the political elite should be male-dominated
may already have been transformed in Britain, so that women candidates
should enjoy even greater success under a proportional system.
V. Conclusions
and recommendations
A recent survey of electoral
systems in democratic states throughout the world (Blais & Massicote,
1997) revealed that, of 77 states designated as "strong democracies",
34 had PR systems, 10 had "mixed' systems which include a PR element,
and 26 were plurality -based. (One country, Chile, had a hybrid system
too difficult to classify.) The survey confirmed the view that "Europe
is the heartland of PR"; of 33 European states, 27 had some form of PR
system. South America, with its European influences, has also shown a
preference for PR elections. The authors concluded that the "debate over
the vices and virtues of various electoral formulas is still very much
alive, but proportional representation may be closely associated, in the
minds of many, with the ideal of democracy." (116) This association of
proportional representation with democracy is borne out by the fact that
many of the emerging post-communist states, especially in Central and
Eastern Europe, have opted to include at least elements of PR in their
new electoral systems, in spite of pressure to resist fragmentation in
the interests of building 'strong government'. The exclusion that accompanies
advantaging large parties, can, in the long run, lead to greater instability.
For any future Northern Ireland
assembly, therefore it would seem appropriate to recommend that elections
be conducted under the fairestthat is, the most conducive to proportionalityelectoral
system. There are good arguments in favour of this. Not only are people
already familiar with the STV method from local and European elections,
but the more complex formula for the May 1996 elections. A PR system allows
for the incorporation of values which are of great importance to future
stability and successful government in Northern Ireland.
Possible systems: principles
The principles any electoral
system should subscribe to should thus involve:
- proportionality and inclusiveness:
the fair representation of all sections of the population and of all
shades of democratic opinion are desirable both in terms of social justice
and because they promote identification with and a sense of ownership
of political institutions and processes.
- accountability: giving
a greater weight to the interests and values of all sections of the
community means that political executives must take some account of
them in setting policy agendas and decision-making
- effectiveness: having
a broader range of opinions represented means that policy areas and
ideas previously not considered will be heard and acted upon
- accommodation: assemblies
elected on the basis of PR tend to lead to a situation where parties
are encouraged to find points of commonality on which they can build
rather than stressing division and difference; far from rewarding extremists,
as is often alleged, these systems offer opportunities for consensus
building
- straightforwardness and
intelligibility: it should be clear to voters what will be the possible
or likely outcomes of casting their votes in particular ways
- act to minimise divisiveness:
the system should balance party- positional and individual-territorial
rooted representation
Insofar as arguments against
PR have validity in any context, it is hard to see how they apply to Northern
Ireland. For a regional assembly, in a small territory, with a relatively
small population, arguments about strong territorial links between electors
and representatives would seem not to apply. Counting and casting votes
under any system would not be too cumbersome or complicated given the
small electorate. The limited decision-making load would also appear to
make PR particularly suitable in this context.
Possible systems: parameters
As the descriptions of various
systems indicates, there is potentially unlimited choice of electoral
system for a Northern Ireland assembly. Finding the 'best' possible system
depends upon a number of factors, some of which have not yet been determined,
such as how many members would be elected. It would seem desirable to
have around 100 members, if the principle of proportionality is to be
preserved. The nature of the government to be created by the assembly
and the powers which it will have are likewise unclear at present, making
very firm conclusions about the electoral process difficult to reach.
Any comments about likely options are thus offered in this context.
Familiarity, intelligibility
and voter choice would be ensured if a straightforward STV system were
put in place. Existing Westminster constituencies could be retained, returning
equal or variable numbers of candidates, or larger constituencies could
be created. Creating larger constituencies returning greater numbers of
representatives would allow more opportunities for smaller parties to
have a chance of winning seats. It would also make it possible for a greater
number of women to be elected, perhaps correcting the present relative
underrepresentation of women in all elected bodies. To a greater or lesser
extent, such systems would tend to favour the existing larger parties.
Adopting a party list system
would also satisfy the requirements of clarity and simplicity to use,
but, as we have seen would reduce voter choice to some extent, depending
on how many preferences voters were allowed to express. The more voter
choice is allowed, of course, the more complex such systems become. In
Northern Ireland, a party list election based on one, two or three large
constituencies would achieve reasonable proportionality. It would seem
acceptable to have relatively low thresholds, given the fact that the
overall electorate is relatively small and the importance of principles
like proportionality and inclusivity. Party list systems permit parties
to bring into the assembly members of groups likely to be underrepresented
or excluded, for example, members of ethnic minorities or women. Party
activists and voters can exert pressure to achieve such representativeness,
or electoral laws can be drafted requiring parties to place set numbers
of such candidates higher in the lists to increase their chances of success.
As with STV systems, the bigger the constituency, the weaker the link
between citizens and representatives, but again this might not be seen
as too significant given the relatively small area and electorate.
The benefits of both systems
might be retained if there were to be a mixed system based on STV and
additional-member formulas, which would result in a percentage of representatives
coming from constituencies and the remainder from party lists. The size
of constituencies and the numbers elected from each sector would be determined
according to how much importance was placed on particular values. For
example, if voter choice and a strong link between representative and
constituents are given highest priority, then there would be a higher
proportion of members coming from constituencies. Having a two-section
ballot paper as in the German systemwith electors both choosing constituency
candidates and expressing a preference for a partygives reasonable choice
while enhancing proportionality. Increasing the proportion coming from
party lists (to 50%, as in Germany) would lead to greater inclusivity
and proportionality. There would also be less likelihood of list members
being perceived as having a lesser status than constituency members. Greater
proportionality would also follow if the list members were elected from
a Northern Ireland-wide constituency, with low thresholds and a 'largest-remainder'
formula for allocating seats. Such a system would be similar, though not
identical, to that proposed for Scottish and Welsh regional elections.
While less straightforward than STV or simple party-list systems, it is
not confusing or difficult for voters to understand.
Possible systems: practice
Any number of permutations
are possible. Below we outline a number, and provide some comment
on likely outcomes, bearing in mind the caevat entered above in respect
of 'unknown' factors such as powers etc.
Single constituency closed
party list system
An assembly of 120 members,
returned from a single Northern Ireland constituency. The ballot paper
would consist of a list of the parties competing in the election; there
would be no candidate names on the paper. Parties would have to register,
and deposit with the electoral office a list of the candidates who would
occupy seats won by the party. The order of candidates would be decided
by the party concerned. Seats would be allocated by dividing the number
of votes cast for a party by the electoral quota. If the number of quotients
turns out to be less than the number of seats available, the remaining
seats would be allocated using the largest remainder method.
Mixed system A
An assembly of 120 members,
electing 72 individual members from 4 constituencies by STV, and 48 members
from nominated parties on a regional list. The ballot paper in each constituency
would thus contain two sections:
(a) Constituency candidates
to be selected by preferential voting; and
(b) The regional list to
be selected by voting 'X' for a party.
There should be no limit on
the number of nominated parties entitled to contest any election. The
seats in the regional sector being allocated by 'greatest remainder'.
The four constituencies might emerge by grouping current Westminster constituencies.
Thus Newry and Armagh, South Down, Upper Bann, Lagan Valley, Strangford
and North Down could be one such constituency; the four Belfast districts
another; South, East and North Antrim with Mid-Ulster a third, and Foyle,
West Tyrone and Fermanagh and South Tyrone the fourth.
Mixed system B
An assembly of 110 members,
electing 90 individual members from the current 18 Westminster electoral
areas by STV, and 20 members from a regional list, with an award of 2
seats to each of the ten parties who cumulatively secured the highest
number of votes. The ballot paper in each constituency would thus contain
two sections:
(a) Constituency candidates
to be selected by preferential voting; and
(b) The regional list to
be selected by voting 'X' for a party.
There should be no limit on
the number of nominated parties entitled to contest any election, and
no threshold should be necessary, given the size of the voting population.
Mixed system C
An assembly of 108 members,
returning 9 individual members from 6 constituencies by STV, and 54 party
representatives from 1 Northern Ireland wide constituency. The ballot
paper in each constituency would thus contain two sections:
(a) Constituency candidates
to be selected by preferential voting; and
(b) The regional list to
be selected by voting 'X' for a party.
The 6 electoral areas could
be composed in two ways. One, electoral areas might become congruent with
existing county boundaries, or they might be fashioned by grouping the
existing Westminster constituencies in bunches of three. Thus the constituencies
envisaged are:
- Foyle, East Londonderry,
North Antrim;
- West Tyrone, Mid Ulster,
Fermanagh and South Tyrone;
- East Antrim, South Antrim,
Belfast North;
- North Down, Strangford,
Belfast East;
- Belfast West, Belfast South,
Lagan Valley;
- Upper Bann, Newry and Armagh,
South Down.
Mixed System D
Similar to Mixed System C,
with six members being returned from 9 constituencies, composed of the
following pairings of Westminster constituencies:
- Belfast West, Belfast North;
- Belfast East, Belfast South;
- North Down, Strangford;
- Lagan Valley, South Down;
- Upper Bann, Newry and Armagh;
- South Antrim, East Antrim;
- North Antrim, Mid Ulster;
- East Londonderry, Foyle;
- West Tyrone, Fermanagh and
South Tyrone.
Possible systems: Outcomes
In keeping with that asserted
elsewhere in this paper, returning representatives from a single constituency,
if no thresholds are imposed, will present the most proportional outcome.
If the results of the May 1996 election are extrapolated and applied to
such a system, Richard Sinnot calculates the following: the UUP and DUP
would each have obtained three fewer seats; the SDLP would have received
two more seats; Sinn Fein, the APNI and the UDP would have remained the
same. The PUP would have gained two seats, the UKUP one, and the Labour
Coalition and NIWC one less. Further, the Greens, Conservatives and Worker's
Party would each have won a seat.
Any mixed system allows for
a balance between party policy and personality interests. System B would
result (assuming a similar turnout to the May 1996 election) in the voice
of women being heard via the NIWC, (assuming also that the NIWC contests
any forthcoming elections) and presents an opportunity for parties to
adopt an 'alternative list'placing male and female candidates alternately
on the party list. It is difficult to extrapolate the local constituency
results, as the system here envisaged engages STV. Systems C and D would,
according to our earlier reasoning, and research elsewhere, allow for
greater electoral impact by smaller parties and by women, but it is difficult
to predict numerically the outcomes.
Different systems will lead
to somewhat different outcomes and will require different strategies from
voters and parties. Whatever system is adopted by those drawing up the
rules, it should be clearly related to identifiable principles which are
spelled out in some detail for the electorate. It should also be possible
to keep the system under review and introduce adjustments or complete
changes after a set period of time had elapsed. Such tasks might be put
in the hands of an independent electoral commission, reporting to the
assembly and the public whose functions would also include supervision
of the conduct of elections and review of constituency boundaries.
We have before us much literature,
theory and practice of how to create manageable and fair election processes
and outcomes. In crafting constitutional change, we cannot ignore them.
References
Blais, Andre (1988) The
Classification of Electoral Systems, European Journal of Political
Research, No. 16 pp. 99-110
Blais, A and Massicote, L (1997)
Electoral Formulas: A macroscopic perspective, European Journal
of Political Research, Vol. 32, No. 1 pp 107-129
Blackburn, R (1995) The Electoral
System in Britain, Macmillan, London
Bogdanor, Vernon (1984) What
is Proportional Representation?, Robertson, Oxford
Bogdanor, V and Butler, D (eds.)
(1983) Democracy and Elections: electoral systems and their political
consequences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Carstairs, A M (1980) A Short
History of Electoral Systems in Western Europe, Allen & Unwin, London
Darcy, R, Welch, S and Clark,
J (1994) Women, elections and representation, University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln
Dearlove, J and Saunders, P
(1984) Introduction to British Politics: Analysing a capitalist democracy,
Polity Press, Cambridge
Duverger, Maurice (1954) Political
Parties, Methuen, London
Gallagher, Michael (1991) Proportionality,
Disproportionality and Electoral Systems, Electoral Studies Vol. 10,
No. 1 pp. 33-51
Gallagher, M, Laver, M and
Mair, P (1995) Representative Government in Modern Europe, New York and
London, McGraw Hill
Holmes, Leslie (1997) Post-Communism:
an introduction, Cambridge, Polity Press
Jones, Mark (1998) Gender
Quotas, Electoral Laws and the Election of Women: Lessons from the Argentine
Provinces, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, February
1998 pp. 3-21
Lijphart, Arend (1997) Democracy
in Plural Societies: a comparative exploration, Yale University Press,
New Haven, Connecticut
Lijphart, Arend (1994) Electoral
Systems and Party Systems, Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press
Lijphart, A (1994b) Democracies:
Forms, performance and constitutional engineering, European Journal
of Political Research, 25, pp. 1-17
Lijphart, A (1997) The Difficult
Science of Electoral Systems, Electoral Studies, 16, pp 73-77
Lovenduski, J and Norris, P
(1993) Gender and Party Politics, Sage, London
Phillips, Anne (1996) The Politics
of Presence, Clarendon, Oxford
Rae, D W (1971) The Political
Consequences of Electoral Laws, Yale University Press, New Haven
Randall, V (1987) Women and
Politics: An International Perspective, Macmillan, Basingstoke
Reeve, A and Ware, A (1992)
Electoral Systems: A Comparative and Theoretical Introduction, Routledge,
London
Rokkam, Stein (1970) Citizens,
Elections, Parties, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
Schumpeter, J (1975) Capitalism,
Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Tow, New York
Sinnot, Richard (1997) Choosing
an Electoral System for Elections to Conflict-resolution Negotiations:
The Case of Northern Ireland Representation Vol. 34, No. 3 &4
Autumn/Winter 1997 pp. 190-199
Verba, S, Burns, N and Schlozman,
K L (1997) Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political
Engagement, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 59, No. 4 pp. 1051-1072
|