Electoral Systems

I think that Benjamin Reilly stated it particularly well when he discussed the tendencies of candidates when campaigning in a plurality system. Because extremism is more rewarding than moderation in their collective appeals to gain votes, “politics can quickly turn centrifugal, as the center is pulled apart by extremist forces and ‘winner takes all rules the day.” This is what Reilly calls the failure of democracy, which I think is a bit of extremist statement, but it does bring up the question of whether the will of the people is actually represented in plurality systems.
If we return to the basic idea of Condorcet’s Paradox—that the collective preferences of a group of rational individuals can itself be irrational, and therefore a single, unambiguous “majority will” does not exist—it is difficult to determine which of the electoral systems is the most fair, or most representative of the will of people. As tends to be the case in Comparative Politics, I think that different institutions work for different places. While there are arguments to change both the United States and the United Kingdom to preferential systems, in order to avoid the extremist politics that we practice today, it would be an arduous process. As we often hear in class, different places value different things, and the plurality system seems to work for places that value simplicity and tradition. However, while it seems to function efficiently does not mean that the results of the election are necessarily ‘representative’ of the will of the voters.
I found one of the most interesting parts of the reading this week to be the five cases presented to support centripetalism. Part of the reason that the preferential systems have shown to be so effective in countries such as Northern Ireland and Estonia because it changes the political behavior of candidates. As opposed to “playing the ethnic card,” candidates tend campaign for the second choice on the ballot, and thus go for a “moderate middle,” crossing ethnic appeals. Reilly also discusses how the system creates alliances between parties, develops multiethnic parties, and achieves stability for new or transitional democracies.
As the presidential election draws closer, I think it is particularly relevant to learn about other electoral systems, so that we can further examine our own system and make our own decision on whether our leaders and legislators can be called “representative” of our country.