A — Plurality and Majority systems
- First~past~the~post (FPP): _single Member and multi~Member
- Two~round run~off using FPP
- Limited Vote: _ a variant using FPP
- Cumulative Vote: _ a variant of FPP
- Alternative Vote (AV): _with several choices or two only
- Regional Seats system (RS)
*** Multiple seats in large electoral regions:
B — Non & slightly proportional types:
- Single non~transferable vote (SNTV)
- Dual vote, parallel (DVP) – or called Mixed Member Majority (MMM)
C — Proportionate types:
- List proportional representation (list PR)
- Mixed member proportional (MMP)
- Dual member proportional (DMP)
- Single transferable vote (STV)
Intro:
A dichotomy exists regarding what general elections are presumed to be about. While most voters view general elections as the means of installing a government, a sizeable minority believe general elections should be about representing the various political groupings that already exist as formal parties — or would do so were the electoral system more amenable to their likely success in electing some of their number. Most realise this would entail coalition governments becoming common: in which event government formation would come after the general election by way of negotiations amongst several of the parties who have elected Members. Note that the party with the most seats might not be in the governing coalition. _New Zealand in 2018 is an instance of this.
Nearly all who teach political theory in Canadian colleges and universities adhere to this representational conception, so regard our present electoral system as being far from ideal. They approve of coalition government, calling it “power sharing”. Critiques of the several electoral systems presented below typically reflect this dichotomy regarding general elections.
~ Plurality and Majority Systems
Description: These today typically use single~seat electoral districts. Majority systems always do, and they require a winning candidate to obtain at least half the valid ballots cast. As this frequently does not happen immediately, there are various means of achieving same. Where the winner need not get half the ballots, this is called a plurality system.
First-past-the-post: (FPP) our current system using single~Member districts.
Voters mark for one candidate and the one with the most votes wins the seat. Often this is with under half the valid ballots and may dip below a third of them. _One Member elected per district is now usual, though a few dual~seat districts existed in the British Columbia legislature in the 1950s, and PEI was entirely dual~seat districts well into the 1990s. Where in use, the parties run two candidates each, voters mark for two candidates, and the top two vote getters are declared elected. [Circa 1860 in England about a third of all electoral districts were dual~seat. Today in the UK they are all single~seat.]
In the past, there have been multi~seat districts used in England and in early Australia, in which case the voter had as many votes as there were seats to be filled and could assign one vote per candidate selected. The top vote getters were elected.
Two-Round: also called a run~off system. …Here there are two election days, usually either one or two weeks apart. Voters mark for one candidate on the ballot, who to be elected must obtain over half the ballots cast. It is unusual for this to happen on the first election day, so a run~off second election is held. France uses this to elect Members to its National Assembly. The top two candidates from the first round, plus any others who got at least 1/8th of the votes cast, will be on the second ballot. The top vote getter is elected. The prurpose of the 1st round is to pare down choices to a few only. Typically 2 to 5 candidates are on the second ballot. AV voting could be used, but isn’t.
Where a President or Governor is elected in this manner, typically only the top two from the first round are on the second ballot.
A peculiar FPP variant was used in 13 urban districts in England between 1867 and 1885, in which three seats were at stake per district but voters could only select two candidates. This was called the Limited Vote. Nonetheless, the Liberal Party was so dominant there and so well organised, it instructed its supporters which two to vote for, and this being different for different groups of its supporters, that it still won all the seats.
Cumulative Vote: Another variant of FPP used in the late 1800s in England for electing school board members. Each district, usually an entire board area, elected several Members and voters had as many votes as Members to be chosen. However, each voter could assign any number of his votes to several candidates, even all of them to one candidate. Note that the religion of the candidates was a major factor and this type of voting facilitated minority groups getting one of their own elected.
Alternative Vote: (AV) also known as preference voting. …Or in the USA some call this (rather stupidly) an “instant run~off”.
Using single~seat districts, this majority system requires a candidate to obtain over half the valid ballots cast. Voters are asked to rank the candidates in their order of preference: 1, 2, 3, … If no candidate is elected using only the first preference marking, then the following procedure is employed: the lowest vote getter is dropt and those ballots are re~allotted to each ballot’s next preference.
If still no candidate is elected, the procedure is repeated until some one does get over half the valid ballots initially cast. Or if only two candidates remain and neither has half the ballots, then the one with more ballots wins. (This may happen if many voters mark for only one or two candidates which get dropt: such ballots are then exhausted and cannot be further transferred.)
Originally, all candidates on the ballot were to be ranked by a voter — which is tedious when there are many candidates. Australia weirdly insisted on this for many years [perhaps yet does] but as few ballots are ever transferred more than twice, voters may be restricted to ranking three choices only. It would hasten voting and reduce waiting time at the polls, while also facilitating machine reading of ballots and so shorten counting time.
Today in mayoral contests in England, AV is used but restricted to two choices per ballot. This is called Supplementary voting. _If no one is elected using only 1st choices, then all but the top two candidates are dropt and those ballots are distributed using the 2nd choices, after which the candidate with the most votes wins.
Regional Seats: (RS) innovation not yet in use. [This website]
A region is a group of single~seat districts (usually four or five, and rarely three or six) for which a Regional Member is chosen additional to those elected in the districts that comprise the region. The Regional Member is not voted for directly but chosen instead from the unelected candidates who ran therein, by the current leader of the party having the most votes among those unelected candidates in the region. The sole exception is if that leader is not then a Member of the legislature, said leader may become the Regional Member despite perhaps not having run in that region — or anywhere at all.
This system may use either FPP or AV voting. In the latter case, the first preference votes of the unelected candidates are used to determine which party wins the regional seat.
Advantages: These systems are readily understood; they encourage broad-based parties; seldom result in coalition governments; often yield stable majority governments; and generally have a close geographic link between constituents and elected Members. The Regional Seats system assures that every region, consisting of only a few districts, has Members from at least two parties.
Critiques: Except for the RS system, large areas may be represented by one party, creating regional imbalance; seats obtained are not proportionate with the popular vote for parties, (something some feel is important); plus the TR system has the expense of holding two elections, and when only two candidates are in the second election, voter turnout may drop considerably.
[Note:__ Another critique made of these systems is one of “vote wastage” which is not a valid criticism as it pertains only to proportional voting and party votes, while these systems are votes only for candidates. While it is true that many vote for a candidate because of the party he or she represents, incumbency is also a vote attractor. An especially clear instance is the repeated re~election of the Hon. Ralph Goodale in Regina despite the party he is of, being at times its only candidate elected in Saskatchewan. (However, this winning streak ended in 2019 in a strong aversion to the Trudeau gov’t.)]
Systems of many seats each in large electoral regions:
Description: Both proportional and non~proportional systems may use large electoral regions electing multiple Members. Proportional systems have as an explicit goal a close match between: the seats a party obtains, with its popular vote percentage within the region; they are largely party oriented. The other systems do not have that goal.
Non- & slightly-proportionate types:
Single Non-transferable Vote: (SNTV) It seems designed to facilitate election of at least a few independent candidates and does not have proportionality as an explicit goal. Each electoral region elects several Members, yet voters can choose only one candidate on the ballot. As in FPP, candidates with the most votes are elected: for example, say there are five seats to be filled, then the top five vote getters fill them.
This system may facilitate the election of well~known independent candidates and also those of minor parties who offer a single candidate to voters — especially true where the number of seats in the region are many. However, larger parties will run several candidates each, then partition the large electoral region and emphasise one of their candidates in each area. In this way a large disciplined party can get a majority in the legislature. But if the election results are close, then considerable influence and importance attaches to the few independent and minor party Members whose votes in the legislature may be needed to pass anything. [Used in Japan in the 1950s thru 1980s.]
Dual Vote, Parallel: (DVP) also called a Mixed Member Majority system. The voter has two votes: one for party list candidates for the entire region (usually a closed list — see list proportional below for an explanation); the other is for a candidate up for election FPP style in a single~seat district that is a subdivision of the large region. Usually, these candidates are barred from also being on the party lists.
The two systems are fully independent of each other, hence parallel. The most popular party is often able to obtain a majority overall and can govern alone, especially when the list seats are a fifth or less of the legislature. It is used in Japan and Korea, where a majority gov’t with some variety is wanted. However, a close election might result in a coalition government.
Advantages: Majority government is likely with DVP; with SNTV small parties and unaffiliated candidates have a better chance of being elected than when single~seat districts are used; a disciplined large party often gets a majority of the seats under SNTV.
Critiques: With SNTV the results produced may be viewed as somehow unfair, particularly when a party runs more candidates than its support warrants and this splits their vote such that the party elects fewer of its candidates than it expected to. Several parties with only a few seats each may also result, making formation of a stable government difficult. Some critics sniff that DVP does not produce anything like a proportionate outcome, but then it is not meant to, so this criticism is invalid.
~ Proportionate types:
List Proportional Representation: (List PR) With this system any large country is divided into regions and for each region the parties present a list of their candidates running for its many seats. In closed~list systems voters mark once for their party of choice; the votes are tallied and seats allotted to the parties in proportion to their percentage of the vote; and those seats are filled in order from the top of each party’s list. Names toward the bottom of a party list are very unlikely to be selected.
Often this system is modified to allow voters, if they so choose, to indicate some preference within the list of the party they vote for. This may be by marking one or a few names which then rise to the top of the list on that ballot, while otherwise preserving the rank order set be the party. In open~list systems voters may rank as many candidates as there are seats to be filled: 1,2,3…, thereby changing the order of the party list on that ballot. [However, few places, if any, allow ranking across party lists.]
List PR encourages the formation of political parties, so there are always more of them than with any plurality or majority electoral system. Seldom will one party get half or more of the vote and be able to govern alone, so coalition government is almost always the outcome.
Mixed Member Proportional: (MMP), also called the Additional Seat system, and may also be termed Dual Vote, Integral (DVI). Same as DVP — two votes: one for party list candidates for the region, usually a closed list, and the other for a candidate running in a single~seat district FPP style, it being a subdivision of the large region. Typically these candidates are barred from also being on the party lists. How the list candidates are selected differs from DVP in that the formula for distributing seats takes into account wins in the single~seat districts — the two systems are integral and not independent of one another. In consequence, the final outcome of all seats is close to being the same as the percentages of list votes for the parties, and this nearly always results in a coalition government being formed.
[Indeed, the German Bundestag, or Lower House, has rules that assure strict proportionality. But in contrast, the Greek system awards a bonus of fifty extra seats to the leading party, to help assure its dominance of any ruling coalition, which may also consist of fewer parties than otherwise. Several other countries using MMP are not strictly proportional either.]
Dual Member Proportional: (DMP) A fully proportionate system yet to be in use anywhere that is best viewed as an improvement on MMP. Electoral districts directly elect one Member each FPP style, the voter’s only vote, there being no party lists and no second vote. Nonetheless, each district also gets a regional Member selected from among its unelected candidates in a manner such that the total Members for each party in the legislature will closely match in proportion the popular vote for parties in the general election of the entire polity.
Necessarily, half the Assembly will be directly elected and half not, but all would have run as candidates for direct election in the districts. In this respect only it is like the RS system. (See Addendum for a modification.)
Single Transferable Vote: (STV) Here a raft of candidates seek the several seats available — typically at least four and usually more — in each (often large) electoral region, the voter being asked to rank the candidates: marking 1,2,3,…, though this is not required, and as long as one candidate is properly marked the ballot is valid.
To be elected the candidate must get the “quota” of votes, which is one vote more than: _the total valid ballots cast in the region divided by: its number of seats plus one. [This ghost seat is said to compensate for ballots that become exhausted and are not further transferable.] Usually several candidates are elected using only the first preferences on the ballots.
Then comes the signature feature of this system: the number of ballots over quota for each elected candidate are allotted to other candidates by a complex procedure based on the rankings of all the ballots of the elected one. Perhaps a few more candidates can then get the quota of votes and become elected, whereupon their over quota votes are allotted by a yet more complex procedure. And so on. Finally, there will often still be one or more unfilled seats, and the candidate with the fewest ballots at this point is eliminated and those ballots re-allocated. [So why the ghost seat above?] This process continues until all seats in the region are filled. Seats obtained by each party tend to mirror its percentage of the popular vote; coalition government typically results.
Bear in mind there will be dozens of candidates, since the major parties will each run as many as there are seats in the region; smaller parties fewer; fringe parties at least one; while several unaffiliated candidates may try their luck as well. In the days when the count was done by hand, the repeated re~allocation of ballots could take many days to complete.
Advantages: Seats obtained closely match the percentage of the vote for each party, so even smaller parties will obtain seats (provided they are above a certain minimum percentage). As this encourages party formation, voters have more choice; coalition government is usual and some regard such “power sharing” as a good thing.
Critiques: Ballots may be long and complicated; vote counting may be slow; regionalism, due to regional party formation, is highly likely; coalition government is typical and often takes many weeks to form; coalitions may include several parties and tend to fall apart within two years or so; cabinet discord due to several parties being in it may result in policy paralysis; accountability of specific parties for government actions or inaction is much less clear; other than in DMP the geographic link of constituent with elected Member is weak, except for those directly elected; except for DMP voters have scant ability to shorten the political careers of the top people in any party, and such career politicians are prone to corruption, tempted by money for favours. [Scandals of this nature have erupted in Europe.)
[note:__ Obscurists may claim that PR systems tend to have coalition governments. Yeah sure, and hearts tend to beat. Many countries after installing a PR voting system have seldom had government by one party; others never have had one. Coalition government is characteristic of PR systems, saying only ‘tend to‘ is deception — tend to always would be accurate.]
Current use: FPP Canada, UK, India, USA, others; AV Australian Lower House and others; RS Canadian invention not yet in use; TR France, Brasil, others; STV Ireland, Australian Senate; DVP Japan, Korea, others; MMP Germany, New Zealand, others; DMP Canadian invention not yet in use; Open list PR Denmark, Finland, others; Closed list PR Russia, South Africa, others; same modified Austria, Belgium, Sweden, others.
note:___ RS was developed in Winnipeg and DMP in Edmonton; the Library of Parliament is in Ottawa and its 2016 background paper on electoral systems failed to include either of these. Nor has it been revised to do so, and the Librarian appears to have no intention of doing so.
Addendum: Although DMP as originally designed would see half of an Assembly directly elected, it can be modified so that two~thirds are. This would come by pairing the districts and having one regional Member per pair. Districts would then be not so large, nor the Assembly overly large either, though the overall result of an election may be somewhat less proportional.
Take Saskatchewan as an example: it could have 48 districts electing one Member each FPP style, plus 24 regional Members in an Assembly of 72 seats. As its current size is 61 seats, the new districts would be on average 27% larger in population (61/48 = 1.27). No doubt this would not sit well in those rural parts where electoral districts are already large in area. Having half the Assembly as regional Members would be even worse: say 61/36 = 1.70, some 70% larger in population on average.