Politcal Parties and Electoral Systems

This week’s readings focused on describing and comparing various types of electoral systems, along with the potential benefits and drawbacks of the individual systems. Also, the understanding that the type of system used affects the outcome is stressed in the readings. In ‘Choosing Electoral Systems’, Norris proposes that the choice of electoral system is determined by the values which the society considers the most important to the electoral process. The choice between Majoritarian and proportional representation as described by Norris is determined by whether the society considers strong and accountable government more or less important than including and expressing minority votes and multiple preferences. Societies which utilize the Majoritarian system, which include plurality (FPTP), second ballot, and alternative vote, focus on the construction of an artificial majority which can push through unpopular legislation. At the end of the elected party’s term the effects of the legislation may be reviewed and the ruling party may be either ousted or rewarded with another term, depending on how the policies fared. In this way the government can act boldly and efficiently, but still feels (in theory) that it is accountable to the citizenry. Alternatively, proportional representation, in the style of open and closed party lists, places an emphasis on forming coalitions and alliances once the seats have been allocated, and in systems with ranked preferences, in appealing to a wider demographic in hopes of capturing the ‘second choice vote’. Party lists express affirmative action more effectively than Majoritarian systems, in that the party may construct its candidate list so that it contains a demographic grouping representative of the constituency in hopes of capturing the vote. A possible complaint about PR is that in a closed party system there is less direct accountability, and therefore less incentive, for representatives to become involved in what Norris refers to as casework, which is to say, a specific task for an individual or small group. Soudriette and Ellis expand in a line of thought which runs parallel to Norris’s assertions and argue that in addition to the influence of values in determining an electoral system, several material factors must be taken into account as well. The education of the electorate may serve as a limitation on the type of system that may be implemented (effectively). Soudriette and Ellis cite a high level of illiteracy as a stumbling block to communicating the concept of representation and the responsibilities thereof, along with implementing more complex systems. Norris echoes the message King has communicated in the lectures that there is no single ‘best’ system, rather merely several different systems suited for different values and situations. Reilly provides specific examples of political systems used as a cohesive force to stabilize a country in a state of ethnic division, through a series of tactics referred to collectively as “centripetalism”. It seems that Reilly’s concept could have some limited application to the situation described by Collier relating to ethnicity and the political process.