ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

There is dissatisfaction with the way that our electoral system translates votes into
seats. There is a strong regional dimension to this dissatisfaction, with residents of
Alberta and Quebec being least likely to find the current process acceptable. It should
be emphasized, however, that in no region of the country does more than a bare
majority find the workings of the present system acceptable.(1)

INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

The subject of electoral systems, though dry-as-dust to some and arcane to many, is --or ought to be --- of central interest to anyone concerned with the operation of
democratic systems of government. Elections are the defining moment in any
democracy and in representative democracies, as one scholar reminds us, elections
perform two fundamental tasks: they confer authorization upon those chosen to
represent the electors and they hold representatives to account for their actions while
in office.(2) Electoral systems, the means by which elections are formally structured,
are thus a vital component in the achievement of these goals.
Strictly defined, electoral systems are the mechanisms by which the preferences of
citizens are translated into seats in representative institutions. As such, their impact on
a whole range of elements that make up the political character of a society is quite
considerable. The behaviour of political parties and candidates for elected office will,
for example, in large measure be conditioned by the shape of an electoral system.
Canada's electoral system is a case in point. Academic observers have noted that in
this country the electoral system is weighted in favour of regional preferences, so that
parties are encouraged emphasize regional rather than national concerns during
election campaigns. This has tended to produce patterns of representation at the
national level whose focus is regional and whose consequences are centrifugal.(3)
More importantly, the way in which an electoral system translates votes into seats in
elected assemblies may influence the degree of public support for the democratic
system itself. If, for example, citizens do not perceive that their preferences are
adequately reflected in the legislature following an election, their support for the
system in general is likely to decline. Turnout during elections will drop off, respect

for politicians and elected representatives will fall, and laws enacted by government
will not be seen as fully legitimate.
Democracy is an ideal, an abstraction which often assumes concrete dimensions for
the vast majority of people through the electoral system. For many, an election marks
the only occasion of any form of political participation --- it is the only tangible
evidence of what it means to be a citizen in a democratic society. It is therefore of
utmost importance that electoral systems be seen as fair and as fulfilling public
expectations; if not, democracy itself is put at risk.
Canadians are no strangers to debates over electoral systems.(4) The most recent of
these debates took place during the last round of constitutional talks and focused on
proposals to transform the Canadian Senate into an elected body.(5) Although there is
little evidence that Canadians are ready to adopt new means of structuring their
electoral systems, it is likely that these debates will continue. As the quotation that
opens this paper suggests, citizens of our country are not altogether happy with the
status quo. Citizen discontent with "politics as usual" has sometimes prompted a
demand for changes in the structure of political institutions, including the way
elections are organized, as this paper will show. The citizens of two countries, New
Zealand and Italy, have just voted in large numbers for major overhauls to the
structure of their electoral systems.
In view of the fact that electoral systems will remain a world-wide topic of discussion,
this paper aims to acquaint the reader with the general outlines of the principal
electoral systems currently used in representative democracies. The first section
describes the mechanics of these systems, while the second section summarizes their
claimed advantages and drawbacks. Two concluding sections examine the recent
efforts by citizens of New Zealand and Italy to change their electoral systems.
ELECTORAL SYSTEMS: THE MECHANICS
The electoral systems currently in use in representative democracies can be divided
into two basic kinds: majoritarian systems and proportional representation systems
(often referred to as PR).
A. Majoritarian Systems
In majoritarian electoral systems, winning candidates are those having attracted the
most votes in a given electoral district. Majoritarian systems differ according to the
number of representatives elected in an electoral district and the kinds of majorities
(simple or absolute) that winners must achieve.

1. Single-Member Plurality Systems

Single-member plurality (SMP) systems are commonly found in countries that have
inherited elements of the British parliamentary system; it is this kind of electoral
system that is most familiar to Canadians.
In electoral districts represented by one member in an elected assembly, simple rather
than absolute majorities suffice to determine the winner of an electoral contest.(6)
Each elector marks a single "X" (or other similar mark) beside the name of the
candidate of his or her choice. Although several candidates may compete for the seat,
the winner need only attract the largest number of votes cast. For this reason, this kind
of electoral system is referred to as a "single-member plurality" or a "first past the
post" system. Electoral systems of this sort are used in Canada, the United States,
New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
2. Multi-Member Plurality Systems
In some majoritarian electoral systems, more than one member per electoral district
can be sent to the assembly.(7) Voters in this kind of system mark off as many names
on their ballots as there are seats to be filled. As is the case in single-member systems,
the candidates with the most votes are declared elected.
3. Single-Member Majoritarian Systems
In contrast to the systems just described, single-member majoritarian systems seek to
ensure that the winning candidate has the support of an absolute majority of the voters
in his or her district. There are essentially two ways of achieving this outcome.
a. The Alternative Vote
Countries that employ an alternative vote (also referred to as a preferential voting
system or PV) require voters to rank-order their preferences on their ballots. Electors
write number 1 down beside their first choice, 2 beside the second, and so on. If, when
the ballots are tallied, no candidate receives an absolute majority, the candidate with
the least votes is eliminated and his or her ballots are redistributed according to the
second choices marked on them. This process continues until a winner emerges with
more than half of the total vote. The alternative vote system has been used for
elections to the Australian House of Representatives (Australia's lower house) since
1918.
b. The Two-Ballot System

The two-ballot or second-ballot system is another means of ensuring that the winning
candidate is supported by a full majority of voters. Under this system, balloting may
take place in two stages. During the first, voters have a choice among several
candidates, only one of whom they may vote for. If no clear winner emerges from this
first round of voting, a second ballot is held between the two candidates with the best
showing. (In a variant of this system, when more than two candidates appear on a
second ballot, a simple plurality determines the winner.)
This system was most recently used in France for parliamentary elections in March
1993. The French changed this system briefly, in 1986, replacing it with proportional
representation (see below), but restored the two-ballot system shortly afterward. The
system is widely used for presidential elections, including those held in France.
B. Proportional Representation
The second major category of electoral system is known as proportional
representation or PR. PR systems are specifically designed to allocate seats in
proportion to votes, in the hope that assemblies and governments will accurately
reflect the preferences of the electorate. PR systems are now the most frequently used
electoral systems in western democracies.(8)
Under PR, political parties are assigned a number of seats in parliament corresponding
to the degree of support they have received in a given electoral district; of necessity,
this arrangement dictates that all PR systems rely on multi-member districts.(9) PR
systems are of two basic types: party list systems and single transferable vote (STV)
systems.
1. Party List Systems
Under party list systems, voters in an electoral district choose from among slates of
candidates put forward by the various parties contesting an election. When the votes
are tallied, each party is entitled to seat the number of members from its list that
corresponds to its share of the popular vote; for example, if a given party obtains 30%
of the vote, then it would send 3 members out of a list of 10 candidates to the
legislature.
To discourage the emergence of splinter parties, jurisdictions using this system
sometimes set a vote threshold that parties must obtain in order to qualify for seats.
Thresholds vary from jurisdiction from jurisdiction; in Israel parties must receive a
minimum of 1% of the popular vote in order to qualify for seats in the Knesset.(10) In
Germany, on the other hand, parties must win a minimum of 5% of the national vote
or win seats in three single-member constituencies before they are given seats on a

proportional basis.(11) Once the threshold is met, different methods, described below,
are used to calculate how seats will be allocated among the parties.
After a party's share of the available seats has been determined, it must be decided
which candidates on its list will be declared elected. In most jurisdictions this depends
on the order in which candidates' names appear. Those whose names appear at the top
of their party's list of candidates thus have the best chance of being elected, those at
the bottom, the least.
a. Party List Systems: Variants
List systems have been criticized because they place considerable power in the hands
of political parties, since they determine the order in which candidates names appear
on the ballot --- and thus which candidates are most likely to assume office. As a
consequence, voters are deprived of a significant degree of choice and the ballot itself
is rendered less meaningful. In order to redress this imbalance, some jurisdictions that
use a list system allow electors a greater degree of choice among the candidates. This
variation on the party list system can take two forms. Under the first, voters have a
choice among candidates, but they must be from one party alone. Under the second
form, known as panachage (used in Switzerland), voters are permitted to make their
choices regardless of party. The basic principles of the party list system are still
operative, however: parties are allocated seats on the basis of the popular vote they
receive.
Seat Allocation
In all PR systems, there has to be some means of determining the allocation of seats
among those contesting the election. Three formulae are commonly used to do this:
the largest remainder system and two highest average systems (the d'Hondtversion
and the Sainte-Lagu version). Table 4 provides a overview of these methods.
a) Largest Remainder System
Under this system, the first step is to set the quota or threshold of votes that each party
must attain to win a seat. The vote for each party is then divided by the electoral
quota. The simplest method of establishing a quota (the "Hare quota") functions as
follows: the number of votes cast is divided by the number of seats to be filled. For
example, in a constituency where five seats are to be filled, and 40,000 votes are cast,
the quota would be 8,000 votes. There are three other options that can be used. Under
the "Hagenbach-Bischoff quota," the number of votes cast is divided by the number of
seats to be filled plus one. When the "Droop quota" is used, the number of votes cast
is divided by the number of seats plus one and one is added to the quotient. The

"Imperiali quota," used in Italy, divides the number of votes cast by the number of
seats plus two.
Subsequently, a seat is awarded to each party for each bloc of votes equal to the quota.
For example, if a Hare quota has been set at 5,000 votes, each party will be given one
seat for each bloc of 5,000 votes that it has received. In a second step, any remaining
seats to be allocated are awarded on the basis of which party or parties have the
highest number of votes remaining after the quotas have been used up. Table 1
illustrates how this works.