Written by Classical Liberal
Electoral systems for lower houses of selected Western liberal democracies
COUNTRY ELECTORAL SYSTEM
Australia Winner-takes-all-AV
Belgium PR-List
Canada FPTP
Denmark PR-List
France Winner-takes-all-2-Round
Finland PR-List
Germany PR-List
Ireland PR-STV
Italy PR-List
Netherlands PR-List
New Zealand MMP
Norway PR-List
Sweden PR-List
UK FPTP
USA FPTP (in 41/50 states)
Proportional Representation (PR) characterises electoral systems in which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. The concept applies mainly to geographical and political divisions of the electorate. When X% of the electorate supports a particular political party or set of candidates as their favourite, roughly X% of seats are allocated to that party. The essence of such systems is that all votes contribute to the result – not just a plurality or a bare majority. The most prevalent forms of PR all require multiple-member voting districts, as it is impossible to fill a single seat in a proportionate manner. PR systems that achieve the highest levels of proportionality tend to include districts with large numbers of seats, as large as a province or an entire country.
The most widely used families of PR electoral systems are party-list PR, single transferable vote (STV), and mixed-member PR (MMP).
With party-list PR, political parties define candidate lists, and voters vote for a list. The relative vote for each list determines how many candidates from each list are elected. Lists can be ‘open’ or ‘closed’. ‘Closed’ lists are selected before the election. ‘Open’ lists allow voters to indicate preferences for individual candidates during the election.
With STV, voters can rank individual candidates rather than vote for a single ‘best’ candidate. During the count, as candidates are eliminated, surplus/discarded votes that would otherwise be wasted are transferred to other candidates in order of preference, forming consensus groups that elect surviving candidates. STV enables voters to vote across party lines, choose the most preferred party’s candidates, and vote for independent candidates, knowing that their vote will likely not be wasted if the candidate is not elected.
MMP is a two-tier mixed electoral system combining local non-proportional plurality/majoritarian elections and compensatory regional or national party-list PR elections. Voters typically have two votes, one for their single-member district and one for the party list. Additional members compensate parties that are under-represented by district elections. The total number of members of each party is proportionately based on the party-list vote.
Some form of PR is used for national lower house elections in 94 countries. Party-list PR is the most widely used, being used in 85 countries. MMP is used in seven lower houses. STV is only used in two lower houses: Ireland and Malta. However, STV is also used in the Australian Senate. Due to electoral thresholds and the use of small constituencies, and manipulation tactics such as party splitting and gerrymandering, perfect PR is rarely achievable. Nonetheless, they approximate PR much better than other systems.
The electoral threshold is the minimum vote required to win a seat. All electoral systems have thresholds, either formally defined or as a mathematical consequence of the parameters of the election. A formal threshold usually requires parties to win a certain percentage of the vote to be awarded seats from the party lists. In Germany and New Zealand, the threshold is five per cent of the national vote. However, the threshold is not applied to parties that win a minimum number of constituency seats: three in Germany and one in New Zealand.
PR tries to resolve the unfairness of majoritarian and plurality voting systems where the most prominent parties receive an unfair seat bonus, and smaller parties are always under-represented. An established party in UK elections can win majority control of the House of Commons with as little as 35% of votes: as witnessed by the 2005 General Election.
Plurality/majoritarian systems also benefit regional parties, like the SNP in the UK, that win many seats in the region with a strong following but have little support nationally. While other parties with national backing that are not concentrated in specific districts, like UKIP in the UK, win few or no seats.
The use of multiple-member districts enables a greater variety of candidates to be elected. The more representatives per district and the lower percentage of voters required for election increases the chances that minor parties can gain representation.
Critics, on the other hand, claim this can give extreme parties a foothold in parliament. Small parties can act as ‘kingmakers’ with very low thresholds, holding more immense parties to ransom during coalition discussions. But these problems can be limited by introducing higher threshold limits for a party to gain parliamentary representation. Which, of course, increases the number of wasted votes.
The election of smaller parties gives rise to one of the principal objections to PR systems that they almost always result in coalition governments. Supporters of PR see coalition governments as an advantage, forcing compromise between parties to form a coalition at the centre of the political spectrum, leading to continuity and stability. Opponents counter that with many policies, compromise is not possible. Neither can many policies be easily positioned on the left-right spectrum. So, policies are horse-traded during coalition formation, with the consequence that voters have no way of knowing which policies will be pursued by the government they elect. In this sense, voters have less influence on governments. Also, coalitions do not necessarily form at the centre. Most importantly, the ability of voters to vote a party in disfavour out of power is reduced.
In closing, the case for PR is probably best summed up with the following example: in the 2015 UK General Election, the SNP gained 56 seats, all in Scotland, with a 4.7% share of the vote; while UKIP only gained a single seat with 12.6% of the vote. Is this fair? Under PR, UKIP would have gained 12.6% of seats.
Photo by katybird 
PR is the quick route to a Muslim party being created and wielding even more power and influence. As always, be careful what you wish for. I was momentarily toying with PR until I attended a talk by David Starkey (Smith lecture 2019 – on YouTube if you missed it) which was very persuasive arguing to undo Blair’s vandalism of abolishing the Lord Chancellor’s office. I will not be supporting PR.
I have a simple rule for discussing electoral systems: “if the powers that be are prepared to discuss it, it isn’t worth discussing”.
Discuss!
a related subject H o Lords reform . Heard a leading Lord say they lordshits do lots of good revising work. Why ?
Are MPs in the commons useless ? aye to that. Are the servile serpents who draft the laws useless ? Aye to that too.
And which noball Lord says lordshits do lots of good revising work. ?
The noball , learned , gallant Gus Mcdonalds … ex head honcho of the servile serpents.
He should know.
Eugene – your comments are apt but they are tied to the party system which has been shown so many, many times to be the essential corruption of our Parliament and parliamentary system. I would refer you and others to ‘the British Constitution and the Corruption of Parliament’ by Ben Greene ISBN 978-0–9932885-8-6 (available from http://www.candour.org.uk). Its only a 60-page booklet
Or ‘Democracy Defined: The Manifesto’ by Kenn d’Oudney ISBN978-1-902848-26-6 available from Amazon.com or read it on-line at http://www.democracydefined.org
It is transparently clear to me that candidates who stand for election after being selected by THE PARTY are beholden to the party when they are elected, not to the constituents. This is evidenced by the Whip system. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve reminded people who claimed (for example) ‘I voted for Tony Blair’ when they couldn’t find his Sedgefield constituency on a map.
It seems to me that if we could do away with parties, choose local independent candidates, and give them an annual performance review in the same way that any other commercial employee might expect, we could come up with a genuinely representative system. Annual reviews would sort the wheat from the chaff and help to rid us of career greasy pole climbers. New Local elections after after an MP has failed an annual review could lead to fewer general elections.
And I would promote a return to the idea of the Monarch, not a party leader, appointing ministers in his/her government.
I scanned this article. Same old, same old. You have had this published here a couple of times in one form or another already.
– Proportion turns the elected representatives authority upside down. Tiny parties, some worthless, contol parliaments. Thank God (or the pedophile according to your proclivities), we are out of the Common Market.
– Lists means Ed ”the sh’1’t” Balls would still be in place along with many others. And you cannot get rid of them. They just turn up on the list next election, near the top (later appear in the lords list). Just think how many remainers would have been on the lists, put forward by all the parties.
– upper and lower houses. These should be the same size. Less political and civil service appointees. The idea of having for example the clergy represented should give an element of balance. But, no footballers init.
– and on. Enough already.
Written by classical liberal. The same liberals that put out a manifesto saying vote for us and we will do what WE the liberal party want to? Those liberals? Do give it up.
Incidentally, France at the last knockings does have winner take all. But there are only TWO people to vote for! Until then it is proportional. And prop for local elections.