CHAPTER TWO

2.1. POLITICAL PARTIES AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

Introduction

Political parties and party systems constitute another mechanism and elements of democracy.
Political parties and party systems vary in terms of their structure and function with the
character, system of government, the nature of governance system, nature of the society, political
culture, politics, etc. The fundamental purpose of political parties and party systems is to provide
a stable pattern of expectations, activities and behavior or the peaceful change of government
from one party to another or from one set of individual candidates to another, and hence to assure
democracy and democratization process in a given state and society.

2.1.1. Meaning of Political Party

A political party is an organization that coordinates candidates to compete in a particular

country's elections. It is common for the members of a party to hold similar ideas about politics,
and parties may promote specific ideological or policy goals.

A political party is defined as an organized group of people with at least roughly similar political
aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public
office.

A Political Party can be defined as a group of people who share a common conception of how
and why state power should be organized and used; and what, how and why a given sets of
public policies are important to a given state and it should have been legally registered in a given
state administration. A political party is a normally and legally registered organization that is
concerned with the expression of preferences regarding the seizure of consolidation, and uses of
state powers a content control of the chief policy making offices of government in a manned
consulter with the laws of a country. Political parties are relatively permanent organizations
which usually contest for election showing their own policies, because they seek to occupy the

Page 1 of 48
decisive positions of authorities within the state. Viewed in this way, political parties live “in a
house of power”.

A political party refers to an association of persons, set up voluntarily so as to promote policies

and principles, to run the government. It also nominates and supports some of its party members
as leaders for the purpose of elections. The members agree to the ideology of the party,
concerning various policies and programmes for the welfare of the society at large.

Distinguishing Features of Political Parties

With regard to the major features of political parties we can identify the following characteristics
that distinguish political parties from any other groups:

 Parties aim to exercise government power by winning political office;

 Parties are organized bodies with a formal “card caring” membership. This distinguishes
them from broader and more diffuse social movement;
 Parties typically adopt a broad issues focus, addressing each of the major areas of
government policy; and
 To varying degree, parties are united by shared political preferences and a general
ideological identity.

Constitutional parties operating in a context of electoral competition tend to be portrayed as

bastions of democracy; indeed, the existence of such parties is often the litmus test of a healthy
democratic system. As such, political parties can play their pivotal role in the process of
democratization.

2.1.2. Types of political parties and party system

There are mainly four types of political parties in modern democratic states;

- Reactionary parties — which cling to the old socio-economic and political

institutions.
- Conservative parties — which believe in the status-quo (existing state of affairs).
- Liberal parties — which aim at reforming the existing institutions.

Page 2 of 48
 - Radical parties — which aim at establishing a new order by overthrowing the
existing institutions.

In their classification of political parties on the basis of ideologies, the political scientists have
placed the Radical parties on the Left, the Liberal parties in the Centre and the Reactionary and
Conservative parties on the Right. In other words, they are often described as Leftist, Centrist
and Rightist parties.

A variety of classification have been used or propounded by many scholars and academicians.
The most important of these are the following:

1. Cadre, Mass Parties and Catch-all Parties

Cadre party: The most common distinction is that between cadre and mass parties. The term
Cadre Party originally meant a “Party of notables”; dominate by an informal group of leaders
who saw little point in building up a mass organization. Such parties invariably developed out of
parliamentary actions or cliques at a time when the franchise was limited. Whoever, the term
cadre is now more commonly used (as in communist parties) to denote trained and professional
party members who are expected to exhibit a high level of political commitment and doctrinal
discipline. In this sense, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the Nazi Party in
Germany, the Fascist Party in Italy were cadre parties, as are the Chiness Communist Party
(CCP), and in certain aspects, the Indian Congress Party in the modern period. The
distinguishing feature of cadre parties is their reliance on politically active elite (usually subject
to quasi-military discipline that capable of roaring ideological leadership to the masses. Cadre
parties are also termed as elite or caucus parties. They are internally greeted. They are those that
originate in the legislature rather than the wider society.

Mass parties: On the other hand, a mass party places a heavy emphasis on broadening
membership and constructing a wide electoral base. Deputies to seek a mass appeal, the earliest
examples of mass parties were European Socialist Parties, such as the German Social Democrats
(GSD), and UK Party, which structured organizations specifically designed to mobilize working-
class support. The key features of mass parties are that they place heavier stress or recruitment
and organization than on ideology and political conviction. Despite the fact that such parties

Page 3 of 48
often have formally democratic organizations, except for minority of activities, membership
usually entails little in the way of participation and only general agreement about principles and
goals.

Catch-all Parties: Most modern parties fall in to the category which called “Catch-all Parties”.
These are parties (Catch-all parties) that drastically reduce their ideological baggage in order to
appeal to the largest possible number of voters. The best examples of “catch all parties” are
found in USA in the form of the republicans and Democrats. Modern de-ideologies socialist
parties such as the German Social Democrats and the Labor party in the UK also fit this
description. These parties differ from the classic model of a mass party in that they emphasize on
leadership and unity and down grade the role of individual party members in trying to building
broad coalitions of support rather than relying on a particular social class or sectional group.

2. Representative Versus Integrative Parties

The second party distinction is that between the so-called parties of representation and parties of
integration. Representative parties see their primary function as being the securing of votes in
elections. They, thus, attempt to reflect, further than shape, public opinion. In this respect,
representative parties adopt a catch-all strategy and thereby replace programmatic principles and
market research before popular mobilization. The prevalence of such parties in modern politics
gave considerable force to arguments based on rational choice models of political behavior
which portray politicians as power-seeing creatures that are willing to adopt whatever politics
likely to bring them electoral success.

Rational Choice: is an approach to politics based on the assumption that individuals

are rationally self- interested actors on economic theory of politics.

In political strategies (parties of integrative); primary focused on wishing to educate and inspire
the masses rather than merely respond to their concerns. Although they are typically mobilizing
tendencies until they become discouraged by electoral failure, they emphasized on maintaining
benefits of public ownership, full employment, redistribution, social careful and soon.

3. Constitutional Parties Versus Revolutionary Parties

Page 4 of 48
Constitutional parties acknowledge the right and entitlements of the parties and thus operate
within a framework of rules and constraints. In particular, they essentially acknowledge that
there is diversion between the party and the state; the party in power (the government of the day)
and state institutions (the bureaucracy) judiciary police and so on) that enjoy formal
independence and political neutrality. Above all, constitutional party’s’ acknowledges and
respects the rules of electoral competition. They recognize that they can be voted out of power as
easily as they can be voted in to it. Mainstream parts in liberal democracies all have such a
constitutional character.

On the other hand, revolutionary parties are anti-system or anti-constitutional parties, either of
the left or the right wing. Such parties aim to seize power and overthrow the exiting
constitutional order and constitutional structure using the tactics that range from outright
insurrection and popular violence to the quasi-legalism practiced by the Nazi and the Fascists.

In some cases, revolutionary parties are formally banned by being classified as “extremist” or
“antidemocratic”; as has been the case of Germany in post Second World War period. When
such parties win power, however, they invariably become “ruling” or regime parties, suppressing
rival parties and establishing a permanent relationship with the state machinery. In one party
systems, wherever established wonder the banner of communism, fission, nationalism, or
whatever, the distinction between party and the state, has been so weakened that the “ruling
party” has in effect substituted itself for the government, creating a fused “party-state” apparatus.
It was common in the USSR, for instance, for the General secretary of the CPSU to act as the
chief executive or head of government without bothering to assume a formal state post. In the
modern politics, a glaring example of this type of party is the peoples’ Front for Democracy and
Justice (PFDI) in Eritrea since 1991 under the leadership of Issayas Afework.

4. Left-Wing versus Right-Wing Parties

This distinction between left-wing parties and right-wing parties is essentially on the basis of
ideological orientation. Parties seen as part of “the left” (progressive, socialist and communist
parties) are characterized by a commitment to change, in the form of either social realm or whole
scale economic transformation. These have traditionally drawn their support from the ranks of

Page 5 of 48
the poor and disadvantaged (in urban societies, the working classes). On the other hand, parties
seen as “the Right” (conservative and fascist parties in particular) generally uphold the existing
social order and are, in that sense, a force for continuity. Their supporters usually include
business interests and the materially contented middle classes.

2.1.2.1.
Party Systems

Political parties are important not only because of the range of the functions they carry out, but
also because of the complex interrelationship between and among parties are crucial in
structuring the way political systems work in practice. It is this network of relationship that is
said to be a party system. Put it differently, whenever the phrase party systems used three basic
ideas are implicit in the usage. These are:

1. The idea of the constitutional and legal regulations governing the formation, organization
and functioning of political parties;
2. Party system can also be used to describe the balance of electoral support among political
parties in a given political system; and
3. Party system also refers to the actual number of political parties operating in a state.

In short, a party system denotes the interaction between and among the significant political
parties. In democracy, political parties respond to each other’s initiatives in a competitive
interplay. All political parties in a country are influenced by the political and constitutional
system which they form part. The most familiar way distinguishing between different types of
party system is by reference to the number of parties competing for power. The mere presence of
parties’ dose not however guarantees the existence of a party system. The pattern of relationship
amongst parties constitutes a system only if it is characterized by stability and orderliness.

2.1.2.2. Types or classification of party system

The major party systems found in modern politics are the following

1. One-Party System

Page 6 of 48
One party system is also called single party system. It is present in a society where there is at
work only one all-powerful and popular political party. A one party system or a one party by
definition refers to a political framework where a one/single political party forms and runs the
government. This may happen in two ways. Firstly, the activities of the opposition may be
completely out lawed such that even the opposition leaders are not allowed to participate in
elections. Secondly, the chances of the opposition to clinch power are thwarted by the
unfavorable legal framework that is in place.

In such a system political power is continuously used by one political party. During elections,
this single party fields several of its own candidates out of which one candidate is elected by the
people as their representative. No other political party can exist without the consent of this party.

Opposition is considered useless and harmful. The policies and programmes of the single ruling
party are considered to be the best national policies and programmes. In such a system there is no
opposition party. According to Curtis, “Single Party System is characterized by the party in
power either dominating all other groups, or suppressing all opposition groups. When the single
all powerful party allows no other party to live or act in opposition, it is called totalitarian single
party system”. Example; China, Cuba, Eritrea and most African countries after their
independency (1970’s-1990)

2. Two-Party System

A two-party system is dualistic in that it is dominated by two major parties that have a roughly
equal prospect of running government power. In its classical terms, a two party system can be
identified by three criteria;

A) Although the number of “minor” parties may exist, only two parties enjoy sufficient
electoral and legislative strength to have a realistic prospect of winning government
power;
B) The large party is able to rule alone (usually on the basis of a legislative majority); the
other provides the opposition.
C) Power alternates between these parties; both are “electable”, the opposition serving as a
“government in the wings”.

Page 7 of 48
The most glaring examples are the UK (the Labor and Conservative parties) and USA
(Republican Party and Democrat Party). Others are also that of Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand.

Its key advantage is that it makes possible a system of party government, supposedly
characterized by stability, choice and accountability. Besides, the two parties are also able to
offer the electorate as strength forward choice between rival programmes and alternative
government. Voters can support a party knowing that, if it wins the election, it will have the
capacity to carry out its manifest to promises without having to negotiate or compromise with
coalition partners. This is sometimes seen as one of the attractions of majoritarian electoral
systems that exaggerate support for large parties. The two parties systems have also been on
relentless delivering strong but accountable government based on relentless competition between
the governing and opposition parties. Although government can govern, it can never relax or
become complacent because it is constantly confronted by an opposition that acts as a
government in waiting.

Definition

Party government is a system through which single parties are able to form governments
and carry through policy programmes. In competitive systems, party government exists
nowhere in pristine form; it is therefore sensible to talk about more party government or
less party government, but not about out where it exists. The key features of party
government are the following:

a. the major parties possess a clear programmes character and thus offer the electorate
a meaning full choice between potential governments;
b. the governing party is able to claim a popular mandate and enjoys sufficient
ideological cohesion and organization unity to delivery on its manifest to
commitments; and
c. Responsibility is maintained by the government’s accountability to the electorate
through its mandate, and by existence of credible opposition acting as a balancing

Page 8 of 48
 force.

However, two-party politics and party government, instead of guarantying moderation, usually
displays a periodic tendency towards adversary politics. This is reflected in ideological
polarization and an emphasis on conflict rather than consensus and compromise.

3. Dominant-Party System

Dominant-party systems should not be confused with one-party systems, although they may at
times exhibit similar characteristic. A dominant party system is competitive in that a number of
parties compete for power in regular and popular elections, but is dominated by a single major
party (or coalition of parties) that consequently enjoys prolonged periods in power. This
apparently neat definition, however, runs into problems, notably in relation to determining how
“prolonged” a governing period must be for a party to be considered “dominant”. Japan is
usually cited as the classic example of dominant-party system. Until its fall in 1993, the Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP) had been in power continuously for 38 years having felled to gain an
overall majority in the House of Representatives (the lower chamber of the Japans Diet) only in
1976, 1999 and 1983, LDP dominance was underpaid by the Japans “economic Miracle”. It also
reflected the powerful appeal of the party’s neo-Confucian principles of duty and obligation in
the still –traditional Japans country side, and the strong links that the party had forged with
business elites. Although the LDP continues to be Japan’s largest party, it increasingly has to
rely on other parties to form governments.

The congress party in India enjoyed an unbroken spell of 30 years in power commencing with
the achieving of independence in 1947. Until 1989 it had endured only three years in opposition,
following Indri Gandhi’s 1975-1977 state of emergency. The African National Congress (ANC)
has similarity been the dominant party in South Africa Since the ending of Apartied in 1993, its
position being based on its preeminent role in the long struggle against white rule. The best
European examples of a dominant-party system are Sweden, where the Social Democratic Labor
party (SAP) remained in power from 1951 to 1993 for all but two years (either alone or as a
senior partner in a coalition), and Italy, where the Christian Democratic Party (DC) dominated

Page 9 of 48
every one of the country’s 52 years post Second World war governments until the party’s
effective collapse amidst mounting allegations of corruption in 1992 to 1994.

Whereas other competitive party systems have their supporters, or at least apologists, few are
prepared to the defense of the dominant party system. Apart from a tendency towards stability
and predictability, dominant-party system is usually seen as a regrettable and unhealthy
phenomenon. The following factors are some among the others that helps to substantiate this
argument.

1) In the first place, it tends to erode the important constitutional distinction between the
state and the party in power. When governments cease to come and go, an insidious
process of politicization takes place though which state officials and institutions adjust to
the ideological and political priorities of the dominate party.
2) An extended period in power can engender complacency, arrogance and even corruption
in the dominant party. The course of Italian and japans politics has, for example,
regularly been interrupted by scandals, usually involving allegations of finical corruption.
Indeed, the decline of both the LDP and the DC in the 1990s was closely linked to such
allegations. When parties cease to “fear the ballot box”, they are likely to be become
unresponsive and ideologically entrenched.
3) A dominant-party system is characterized by fear and ineffective opposition. Criticism
and protest can more easily be ignored if they stem from parties that are no longer
regarded as genuine rivals for power.
4) The existence of a “permanent” party of government-party system may, then,
psychologically self-perpetuating. A genuinely democratic culture may require a general
public that has a healthy distrust of all parties and, most importantly, willingness to
remove governments that have failed.

4. Multiparty system

In a Multi-party System, the party system has several equally popular political parties. Several
political parties are actively involved in politics. In such a system very often no-single party is in

Page 10 of 48
a position to get a clear majority in the elections. Several parties form a coalition to run the
government.

In other words a multi-party system means the existence of several popular and active political
parties (three or more than— three political parties) in the political process. People are members
of several political India, Switzerland, Japan, Italy and France provide four classic examples of
multi-party systems. The Congress, BJP, CPI, CPM, BSP, NCP, BJD and several other political
parties have been active actors in Indian politics. Different parties have been using political
power in India. In India the multi-party system has been mainly responsible for the emergence of
coalition politics.

Political instability has remained a chronic feature of Italian and French political systems. In
Italy, the government-making has been a highly problematic affair as the coalition partners—
Communists, Socialists, Democratic Socialists, and Christian Democrats and others remain on
involved in conflict and their actions keep up an environment of continuous political instability.

In France, the Socialists, Communists, Gaullists, Liberals and Republicans are the major parties
of the multi-party system. “Over the years the French coalitions have been a source of political
instability. The constitution of the Fifth Republic has tried to overcome this problem by creating
a mixture of parliamentary and presidential forms, the latter for ensuring political stability
through a directly elected powerful head of the state—the French President.”

In Switzerland also there is a multi-party system with Social Democrats, Radical Democrats,
Liberal Democrats and Communists as the major equally influential parties. However, with the
known business-man like approach of the Swiss, the multi-party system has not resulted into
political instability because these parties keep the struggle for power so managed that the
political system is kept free from instability. All the four major political parties in Switzerland
together share the political power.

One-party Systems A single-party state, one-party state, one-party system, or single-party

system is a type of state in which a single political party has the right to form the government,
usually based on the existing constitution.

Page 11 of 48
Two-party Systems A two-party system is a system where two major political parties dominate
politics within a government. One of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature
and is usually referred to as the majority party while the other is the minority party.

Dominant party systems A dominant-party system or one-party dominant system, is a system

where there is "a category of parties/political organizations that have successively won election
victories and whose future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future."

Multiparty Systems A multi-party system is a system in which multiple political parties have
the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition.

2.1.3. Functions of political parties

Political parties are indispensable for the working of modern democratic governments. The
importance of Political parties lies in the fact that democracies cannot function without the
existence of political parties.

Aldrich writes that in the contemporary world, democracy is unworkable without having any
political parties. Because of their functions the parties have become a crucial factor in stabilizing
the state. In modern and democratic societies, fighting to gain power usually is the perfect
function of political parties. Mostly, political parties, present programmes that the society can
decide to support or refuse. It is the party leaders and members who decide upon special policies
and rules while sticking together and sharing their ideas, in addition to, taking suggestions from
their society. The basic aim is to present these ideas to the government for the good of the
citizens. Political parties perform certain functions necessary for running the political system. It
is feasible to organize these functions under the following titles.

1. The governing function:

Without political parties, this multifaceted modem civilization would become unmanageable.
Political parties make easier the creation of governments. They also give stability to the
government; particularly if members of the authority belong to a party. Political parties usually

Page 12 of 48
collaborate between the two main areas of government: the legislative body and the
administrative. Parties provide a very important opposition and criticism, from within as well as
out of government.

2. The electoral function:

Election in democratic societies is dependent on political parties. Political parties generally select
candidates at elections. They offer funds and services for election campaigns. Recent electoral
investigation has discovered that the common man has some problems in making the right
selection in elections because complication of matters and the diversity of choices confuse
voters. For this reason, one of the strange functions of political parties is to make politics more
reachable to citizens. Political parties need to organize the vote bank to get votes and also to
protect the election of their candidate to parliament or other public office. On other hand, all
political parties try to find ways to persuade voters that their candidates are more reliable than
those of its rivals. They set up policies which the voter is required to support. Parties supply a tag
with which the electorate can identify and take responsibility, since the voter is capable of
holding them accountable for policy achievements or disappointments.

3. The representative function

Political parties facilitate the formation of ideas of people to be understood and they guarantee
that issues of social concern in the political scheme. They are the main input mechanisms that
guarantee the fulfillment of the needs and desires of the society. This kind of function is, one of
the basic and essential functions of a party.

4. The policy, or goal setting, function

While performing their representative functions, political parties try to create some policies.
They are one of the agencies through which people of a country try to attain their joint goal.
While doing this, political parties gather support of the common people and through this, they
ultimately gain political power. This helps them, get into the parliamentary system of a specific
state and there, they make and implement the policies they had promised the common masses.
Political parties also introduce ideas and matters; they clear other goals for the society in ways
that could improve the chances for selecting those values.

Page 13 of 48
 5. The recruitment and participation function

In modem and democratic societies most political campaigners are members of parties. In these
countries political parties perform the main function of giving confidence to people to become
political activists. They are in charge of supplying to the states their political principals. Leaders
gain office because of their high profiles and participants in a presidential selection are generally
political party leaders. In the parliamentary system the head of the majority in parliament usually
becomes prime minister and other place of duty are generally filled by most important party
members. Sometimes, political parties offer a training class for policy makers, and equip them
with information and skills. Otherwise, in societies where political parties are powerless, power
is generally in the hands of traditional leaders like that of military institutions or ruling families.

2.1.4. Difference between political parties and pressure/interest group

Pressure/interest group is a formally organized association of people, which attempts to influence

public policy. It covers all those intermediary organizations or bodies that work for the
betterment of the society or state. They play a significant role in every country as they influence
the process of policymaking.

In simple words, an interest group is a voluntary body of individuals having common interests to
promote and protect – economic, social, cultural, religious, environmental, educational, and
linguistic well-being. They organize programmes and rallies to influence government policies,
officials, laws, institutions, as well as decisions taken by different branches i.e. legislative,
executive and judiciary using methods like lobbying, strike, agitation, dharna, etc.

The following are some of the major difference between political party and interest groups:

 A political party refers to a body of people who form a party with the primary purpose of
contesting elections and winning majority votes so as to hold power in the government.
On the other hand, Interest groups are the formally organized group of individuals with
common views and objectives, who work for promoting and protecting specific interests.
 The main function performed by interest group is that they influence government
officials, policies and decisions by funding and organizing campaigns. Contrarily, the
main function of a political party is to run the government by winning elections.

Page 14 of 48
  A political party works for the interest of the public, so they deal with all the matters,
whereas an interest group concentrates on those matters or issues which concerns their
members like environment, human rights, agriculture, religion, etc.
 The political parties nominate their candidates for the purpose of winning elections and
holding government office, whereas interest groups do not nominate candidates, rather
they only support candidates nominated by the political parties.
 Political parties focus on winning elections by contesting elections and getting majority
seats, to form the government. Oppositely, interest groups focus on influencing policies
and decisions made by the government or its branches.
 To influence the opinion of public and government institutions, interest group uses
methods like lobbying, strikes, dharna, litigation, protests, rallies, etc. Contrastingly,
political parties use elections, as a technique to pursue their agenda.
 When it comes to purpose, the main purpose of political parties to facilitate in
determining who holds government office. Conversely, the purpose of interest groups is
to influence the policy choices made by the officeholders.

2.2. Election and Electoral system

Election is the formal process of selecting a person for public office or of accepting or rejecting a
political proposition by voting. It is important to distinguish between the form and the substance
of elections. In some cases, electoral forms are present but the substance of an election is
missing, as when voters do not have a free and genuine choice between at least two alternatives.
Most countries hold elections in at least the formal sense, but in many of them the elections are
not competitive (e.g., all but one party may be forbidden to contest) or the electoral situation is in
other respects highly compromised.

Definition of election:
 Election means by which people choose their officials for definite and fixed periods and
to whom they entrust, for the time being as their representatives, the exercise of powers
of government.
 It is the principal means by which the citizens of the country vote and select certain

Page 15 of 48
 officials to represent them in the administration of the government.
 Election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an
individual to hold public office.
 Also known as polling or voting is a process of choosing a person/persons as a
representative or to perform governmental functions

Types of Election

- General election: are those held for the purpose of electing national and local
officials simultaneously
- National Election: are those conducted to elect the president, Vice President and
members of congress
- Local Election: those held for the purpose of selecting officials in the region,
provinces, cities and municipalities
- Special Election: held on a date different from that of regular elections.

The difference between General and Primary elections are;

 General elections are held on a much larger scale and include publicity campaigns and
debates that are telecast on television. On the other hand, primary elections are meant to
finalize party candidates for the ensuing general elections.
 General elections decide the candidate who finally wins and occupies the office or the
legislative assembly seat. On the other hand, primary elections are held to narrow down
the choice of candidates inside a political party.
 Republicans run against fellow republicans in primary elections while the fight is
between a Republican and a Democrat in general elections.
 Primary elections may be closed or open whereas general elections are always open

Electoral systems

Page 16 of 48
Electoral system is considered as the most important aspect of modern democracy. It is the
method of transferring votes into a result i.e. seat/office etc. usually a parliament’s seat or local
representative body’s seat won by party candidates or party itself.

Different scholars and institutions have defined electoral system in different manner;

- Andre Blais, Eurpean journal of political research; electoral systems are defined as those
rules which govern the process by which preferences are articulates as votes and by
which these votes are translated into the election of decision-makers.
- Rae (1969); the working of electoral system can be divided into three phases (balloting,
districting and formulae)
- Taylor and Johnston (1979); they distinguish three basic characteristics;
o the number of votes (i.e. ballots)
o The number of representative per constituency (districts) and
o the way in which votes are allocated or counted (i.e. formulae)
- Gallagher (2014), Electoral system is the set of rules that structure how votes are cast at
election and how these votes are then converted into the allocation of office.
- Loosemore and Hanby (1971); electoral systems can thus also be defined on the basis of
actual seat-vote relationship, i.e. the disparity between shares of votes and shares of seats.
- IDEA Institutional; political institutions shape the rules of the game under which
democracy is practiced, and it is often argued that the easiest political institution to
manipulate, for good or for bad, is the electoral system.

According to the Ace Project, there are three variables in electoral systems;

- Electoral Formula (it will focus on the methods/types of election such as majority
system, proportional system or mixed systems and how/which formula is to be used to
count votes
- Ballot Structure (it will see if voters can vote a candidate or a party and if voters can
make a single choice or multiple choice)
- District Magnitude (it will see how many parliamentarians/winners will be sent from a
particular district. Usually, population and a size of district are elements to determine
district magnitude).

Page 17 of 48
2.2.1. Types of electoral system

A country’s electoral system is the method used to calculate the number of elected positions in
government that individuals and parties are awarded after elections. In other words, it is the way
that votes are translated into seats in parliament or in other areas of government (such as the
presidency).

There are many different types of electoral systems in use around the world, and even within
individual countries, different electoral systems may be found in different regions and at
different levels of government (e.g., for elections to school boards, city councils, state
legislatures, governorships, etc.).

There are countless electoral system variations, the majority of which fall into three broad
families (plurality/majority system, proportional system and mixed system). The most common
way to look at electoral systems is to group them according to how closely they translate national
votes won into legislative seats won, that is, how proportional they are. To do this, one needs to
look at both the votes-to-seats relationship and the level of wasted votes.

1. Plurality/Majority Systems

Plurality system is an electoral process in which the candidate who polls more votes than any
other candidate is elected. They are the winner-take-all systems most often used to elect officials
to local, state, and federal legislatures. These systems all require the winning candidate to garner
either a plurality or a majority of the votes.

The principle of plurality/majority systems is simple. After votes have been cast and totalled,
those candidates or parties with the most votes are declared the winners (there may also be
additional conditions). However, the way this is achieved in practice varies widely.

Five varieties of plurality/majority systems can be identified:

 First Past The Post (FPTP),

 Block Vote (BV),
 Party Block Vote(PBV),
 Alternative Vote (AV), and

Page 18 of 48
  The Two-Round System (TRS).

In an FPTP system (sometimes known as a plurality single-member district system) the winner is
the candidate with the most votes but not necessarily an absolute majority of the votes. When
this system is used in multi-member districts, it becomes the Block Vote. Voters have as many
votes as there are seats to be filled, and the highest-polling candidates fill the positions regardless
of the percentage of the vote they achieve. This system—with the change that voters vote for
party lists instead of individual candidates—becomes the Party Block Vote.

Majoritarian systems, such as the Alternative Vote and the Two-Round System, try to ensure that
the winning candidate receives an absolute majority (i.e. over 50 per cent). Each system in
essence makes use of voters’ second preferences to produce a winner with an absolute majority if
one does not emerge from the first round of voting.

a) First Past The Post (FPTP)

The First Past The Post system is the simplest form of plurality/majority system, using single
member districts and candidate-centered voting. The voter is presented with the names of the
nominated candidates and votes by choosing one, and only one, of them. The winning candidate
is simply the person who wins the most votes; in theory he or she could be elected with two
votes, if every other candidate only secured a single vote.

Advantages and disadvantages of FPTP system

 Simple, straight-forward, easy to understand

 Quick vote counts and result declaration
 Clear link between voter and representatives
 Offers the electorate a clear choice of potential parties of government
 Stability/strength: generally, strong stable government having clear decisive mandate
 Encourages broad based centrist parties
 Keeps extremism at bay by making it more difficult for small radical parties to gain seats
 Directly responsible and accountable government.

DISADVANTAGES

Page 19 of 48
  Unfairness: highly disproportionate; no correlation between votes obtained and seats won
 Punishes small issue based parties
 Favors large parties and strong regional parties and punishes small parties and ones with
geographically evenly distributed support (‘the third-party effect’)
 Wastage of votes
 Encourage strategic voting
 It offers only limited choices because of its duopolistic (two-major-parties) tendencies
 It undermines the legitimacy of government, in that governments often enjoy only
minority support
 It creates instability because a change in government can lead to a radical shift of
policies and direction
 It discourages the selection of a socially broad spread of candidates in favor of those who
are attractive to a large body of voters.
b) Block Vote (BV)

The Block Vote is simply the use of plurality voting in multi-member districts. Voters have as
many votes as there are seats to be filled in their district, and are usually free to vote for
individual candidates regardless of party affiliation. In most BV systems, they may use as many,
or as few, of their votes as they wish. If, for example, there are three at-large city council seats
up for election and six candidates for those seats, the top three vote-getters would win election to
those seats. This system is sometimes also referred to as plurality-at-large voting or multiple
non-transferable voting. The system was used in Jordan in 1989, in Mongolia in 1992, and in the
Philippines and Thailand until 1997, but was changed in all these countries as a result of unease
with the results it produced.

Advantages and disadvantages of BV

Advantages of BV

The Block Vote is often applauded for retaining the voter’s ability to vote for individual
candidates and allowing for reasonably-sized geographical districts, while at the same time
increasing the role of parties compared with FPTP and strengthening those parties which
demonstrate most coherence and organizational ability.

Page 20 of 48
Disadvantages of BV

However, the Block Vote can have unpredictable and often undesirable impacts on election
outcomes. For example, when voters cast all their votes for the candidates of a single party, the
system tends to exaggerate most of the disadvantages of FPTP, in particular its
disproportionality. When parties nominate a candidate for each vacancy in a Block Vote system
and encourage voters to support every member of their slate, this is particularly likely. In
Mauritius in 1982 and 1995, for example, the party in opposition before the election won every
seat in the legislature with only 64 per cent and 65 per cent of the vote, respectively. This created
severe difficulties for the effective functioning of a parliamentary system based on concepts of
government and opposition. The use of ‘best loser’ seats in Mauritius only partially compensates
for this weakness.

In Thailand, the Block Vote was seen as having encouraged the fragmentation of the party
system. Because it enables electors to vote for candidates of more than one party in the same
district, members of the same party may be encouraged to compete against each other for
support. The Block Vote was thus sometimes seen in this country as being a contributor to
internal party factionalism and corruption, which eventually led to its replacement.

Besides Thailand, some other countries have abandoned the Block Vote in favour of other
systems. Thailand and the Philippines both changed from BV to a mixed system in the late
1990s. In both cases, a major justification for the change was the need to combat vote-buying
and strengthen the development of political parties.

c) Party Block Vote (PBV)

Under Party Block Vote, unlike FPTP, there are multi-member districts. Voters have a single
vote, and choose between party lists of candidates rather than between individuals. The party
which wins most votes takes all the seats in the district, and its entire list of candidates is duly
elected. As in FPTP, there is no requirement for the winner to have an absolute majority of the
votes. As of 2004, PBV was used as the only system or the major component of the system in
four countries—Cameroon, Chad, Djibouti and Singapore.

Advantages and disadvantages of PBV

Page 21 of 48
Advantages of PBV

PBV is simple to use, encourages strong parties and allows for parties to put up mixed slates of
candidates in order to facilitate minority representation. It can be used to help to ensure balanced
ethnic representation, as it enables parties to present ethnically diverse lists of candidates for
election—and may indeed be designed to require them to do so.

Disadvantages of PBV

However, the Party Block Vote also suffers from most of the disadvantages of FPTP, and may
indeed produce highly disproportional results where one party wins almost all of the seats with a
simple majority of the votes. In Djibouti’s 1997 election, the ruling Union for the Presidential
Majority coalition won every seat, leaving the two opposition parties without any representation
in the legislature. Some electoral amendments were introduced by the government of Djibouti in
2012, through which some seats in parliament were allotted proportionally and the rest of them
under the same PBV system. This change showed more equitable outcomes to other parties in the
2013 election.

d) The Alternative Vote (AV)

Elections under Alternative Vote are usually held in single-member districts, like FPTP
elections. However, AV gives voters considerably more options than FPTP when marking their
ballot paper. Rather than simply indicating their favored candidate, under AV electors rank the
candidates in the order of their choice, by marking a ‘1’ for their favorite, ‘2’ for their second
choice, ‘3’ for their third choice and so on. The system thus enables voters to express their
preferences between candidates rather than simply their first choice. For this reason, it is often
known as ‘preferential voting’ in the countries which use it. (The Borda Count, STV, and the
Supplementary Vote are also preferential systems).

AV also differs from FPTP in the way votes are counted. Like FPTP or TRS, a candidate who
has won an absolute majority of the votes (50 per cent plus one) is immediately elected.
However, if no candidate has an absolute majority, under AV the candidate with the lowest
number of first preferences is ‘eliminated’ from the count, and his or her ballots are examined for
their second preferences. Each ballot is then transferred to whichever remaining candidate has

Page 22 of 48
the highest preference in the order as marked on the ballot paper. This process is repeated until
one candidate has an absolute majority, and is declared duly elected. AV is thus a majoritarian
system.

It is possible, but not essential, in preferential systems such as AV to require voters to number
all, or most, of the candidates on the ballot paper. This avoids the possibility of votes becoming
‘wasted’ at a later stage in the count because they bear no further valid preferences. However, it
can lead to an increase in the number of invalid votes, and it can sometimes give substantial
importance to preferences between candidates to which the voter is indifferent or actively
dislikes.

Advantages and disadvantages of AV

Advantages of AV

- It enables the votes of several candidates to accumulate, so that diverse but related
interests can be combined to win representation.
- It enables supporters of candidates who have little hope of being elected to influence, via
their second and later preferences, the election of a major candidate. For this reason, it is
sometimes argued that AV is the best system for promoting centrist politics, as it can
compel candidates to seek not only the votes of their own supporters but also the ‘second
preferences’ of others. To attract these preferences, candidates must make broadly-based
appeals rather than focusing on narrower issues. The experience of AV in Australia tends
to support these arguments: the major parties, for example, typically try to strike bargains
with minor parties for the second preferences of their supporters prior to an election—a
process known as ‘preference swapping’.
- Furthermore, because of the majority support requirement, AV increases the consent
given to elected members, and thus can enhance their perceived legitimacy.

The experience of AV in Papua New Guinea and in Australia suggests that it can provide
significant incentives for accommodatory and cooperative politics. In recent years, AV, or its
variant the Supplementary Vote, has also been adopted for presidential and mayoral elections in
Bosnia, London, and San Francisco.

Page 23 of 48
Disadvantages of AV

Nevertheless, AV also has a number of disadvantages.

- First, it requires a reasonable degree of literacy and numeracy to be used effectively, and
because it operates in single-member districts it can often produce results that are
disproportional when compared to PR systems—or even in some cases compared with
FPTP.
- Also, the potential of AV for promoting centrist outcomes is very dependent on
underlying social and demographic conditions: while it successfully promoted interethnic
accommodation in Papua New Guinea during the 1960s and 1970s, it has been criticized
in another Pacific country, Fiji, since it was implemented there in 1997. Moreover, as its
use in the Australian Senate from 1919 to 1946 noted, AV does not work well when
applied to larger, multi-member districts.
e) The Two-Round system (TRS)

Also known as the second ballot, runoff voting, or ballotage, is a voting method used to elect a
single candidate, where voters cast a single vote for their preferred candidate. The election
usually proceeds to a second round only if in the first round no candidate has received a simple
majority (more than 50%) of votes cast, or at least some other prescribed percentage. In the
second round, usually only the two candidates who received the most votes in the first round, or
those candidates who received above a prescribed proportion of the votes, would be candidates
in the second round. Any remaining candidate is free to withdraw from the second round.

Advantages and disadvantages of Two-Round System (TRS)

Advantages of TRS

First and foremost, TRS

- it allows voters to have a second chance to vote for their chosen candidate, or even to
change their minds between the first and the second rounds. It thus shares some features
in common with preferential systems like the Alternative Vote, in which voters are asked
to rank-order candidates, while also enabling voters to make a completely fresh choice in
the second round if they so desire.

Page 24 of 48
 - It encourage diverse interests to coalesce behind the successful candidates from the first
round in the lead-up to the second round of voting, thus encouraging bargains and trade-
offs between parties and candidates. It also enables the parties and the electorate to react
to changes in the political landscape that occur between the first and the second rounds of
voting.
- it lessens the problems of ‘vote-splitting’, the common situation in many
plurality/majority systems where two similar parties or candidates split their combined
vote between them, thus allowing a less popular candidate to win the seat. Also, because
electors do not have to rank-order candidates to express their second choice, TRS may be
better suited to countries where illiteracy is widespread than systems which use
preferential numbering like the Alternative Vote or the Single Transferable Vote.

Disadvantages of TRS

TRS places considerable pressure on the electoral administration by requiring it to run a second
election a short time after the first, thus significantly increasing both the cost of the overall
election process and the time that elapses between the holding of an election and the declaration
of a result. This can lead to instability and uncertainty. TRS also places an additional burden on
the voter in terms of time and effort required to cast the vote as the voter has to make it to the
polling station twice, and sometimes there is a sharp decline in turnout between the first round
and the second.

TRS shares many of the disadvantages of FPTP. Research has shown that in France it produces
the most disproportional results of any Western democracy, and that it tends to fragment party
systems in new democracies.

One of the most serious problems with TRS is its implications for deeply divided societies. In
Angola in 1992, in what was supposed to be a peacemaking election, rebel leader Jonas Savimbi
came second in the first round of a TRS presidential election to Jose dos Santos with 40 per cent
of the vote as opposed to dos Santos’ 49 per cent. As it was clear that he would lose the run-off
phase, he had little incentive to play the democratic opposition game and immediately restarted
the civil war in Angola, which went on for another decade. In Republic of the Congo in 1993,
prospects of a government landslide in the second round of a TRS election prompted the

Page 25 of 48
opposition to boycott the second round and take up arms. In both cases, the clear signal that one
side would probably lose the election was the trigger for violence. In Algeria in 1992, the
candidate of the Islamic Salvation Front (Front Islamique du Salut, FIS) led in the first round,
and the military intervened to cancel the second round. The results of the 2011 election in
Liberia led to violence when the candidate from the opposition, Winston Tubman, called to
boycott the second round alleging fraud during the first one. However, both rounds were won by
then president Ellen Johnson Sir leaf.

2. Proportional Representation (PR)

Proportional Representation is a system used to elect a country’s government in which parties

gain seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. It is an electoral system that tries to
create a representative body that better reflects all of the citizens' interests in an electorate or
voting district. In an election, political parties that earn votes win a number of seats in the
representative body that are directly proportional to the number of votes they received in the
election.

The rationale underpinning all PR systems is to consciously reduce the disparity between a
party's share of the national vote and its share of the parliamentary seats; if a major party wins 40
per cent of the votes, it should win approximately 40 per cent of the seats, and a minor party with
10 per cent of the votes should also gain 10 per cent of the legislative seats. This congruity
between a party’s share of the vote and its share of the seats provides an incentive for all parties
to support and participate in the system.

PR requires the use of electoral districts with more than one member: it is not possible to divide a
single seat elected on a single occasion proportionally. There are two major types of PR system
—List PR and Single Transferable Vote (STV). Proportionality is often seen as being best
achieved by the use of party lists, where political parties present lists of candidates to the voters
on a national or regional basis, but preferential voting can work equally well: the Single
Transferable Vote, where voters rank-order candidates in multi-member districts, is another well-
established proportional system.

There are many important issues which can have a major impact on how a PR system works in
practice. The greater the number of representatives to be elected from a district, the more

Page 26 of 48
proportional the electoral system will be. PR systems also differ in the range of choice given to
the voter—whether the voter can choose between political parties, individual candidates, or both.

Advantages of PR systems

- Popular votes: It is argued that proportional representation gives a true reflection of

popular votes. This is undoubtedly true because the votes of every member of this
system is counted and reflected in the results of elections. It is unlike an absolute
majority where only the candidate with the highest vote wins, thus, letting only the
majority to rule. In countries where proportional representation is practiced, every
political group rules according to the votes they get from the people.
- Equitable representation: The system provides representation for all interest groups
in a community. It makes sure that every group in the society gets the leader they
want, thus, promoting popular participation.
- Democratic in nature: Proportional representation is democratic in nature. It is a
more democratic system of election because everybody are allowed to participate in
the system. This emphasizes leadership by the people.
- Minority groups are protected: Another advantage which proportional
representation has over other election systems is that it protects the minority. The
system protects the interest of minority groups in the society who are not be able to
influence the government through their few number.
- Wider choice of leaders: proportional representation gives voters wider choice to
make, especially in a multi member constituency. In this case, voter will be given the
opportunity to vote for a political party or person that has the same political dreams
and aspirations with them. The system gives the voters the chance to choose
candidates on both personal and party merits.
- It avoids wastage of surplus votes: Proportional representation usually avoid the
wastage of vote that would have been the case in an absolute majority system or other
election systems.

Disadvantages of PR system

Page 27 of 48
 - It is complicated: One of the major draw-back of this system is that it is too
confusing. Proportional representation is a complicated form of election. Sometimes,
it is difficult to understand the structure of this kind of system because, all the groups
in the society are led by different people or political parties.
- It is expensive in nature: As you may know, systems that encourage wide elections
are usually expensive and proportional representation is not an exception in this
instance. The system is also very expensive to operate as all the resources of the state
can be spent on conducting elections.
- Multiplication of political parties: Proportional representation encourages
multiplication of political parties which results in election violence. In countries
where it is practiced, there is usually violence and crisis during election.
- Instability in politics: The system does not create room for political stability. This is
so because there are a lot of political parties that are always making efforts to
suppressed their opponents and take over full political powers. Coupled with that, the
inability of different political parties in winning clear majority in the legislature can
also lead to the formation of coalition government which does not make for
efficiency.
- Manipulation of political parties: The manipulations of political parties make it
difficult for voters to assess them very well before voting. Thus, they votes blindly.
a. List Proportional Representation (List PR)

In its most simple form, List PR involves each party presenting a list of candidates to the
electorates in each multi-member electoral district. Voters vote for a party, and parties receive
seats in proportion to their overall share of the vote in the electoral district. Winning candidates
are taken from the lists in order of their position on the lists.

The choice of List PR does not in itself completely specify the electoral system: more details
must be determined. The system used to calculate the allocation of seats after the votes have
been counted can be either a Highest Average or a Largest Remainder Method. The formula
chosen has a small but sometimes critical effect on the outcomes of elections under PR. In
Cambodia in 1998, a change in the formula a few weeks before polling day turned out to have
the effect of giving the largest party 64 seats, instead of 59, in a 121-seat National Assembly.

Page 28 of 48
The change had not been well publicized, and it was with difficulty that the opposition accepted
the results. This example clearly demonstrates the importance for electoral system designers of
apparently minor details.

There are several other important issues that need to be considered in defining precisely how a
List PR system will work. A formal threshold may be required for representation in the
legislature: a high threshold (for example 10 per cent, as used by Turkey) is likely to exclude
smaller parties, while a low threshold (for example 2 per cent, as used by Israel) may promote
their representation. In South Africa, there is no formal threshold, and in 2004 the African
Christian Democratic Party won six seats out of 400 with only 1.6 per cent of the national vote.
List PR systems also differ depending on whether and how the voter can choose between
candidates as well as parties, that is, whether lists are closed, open or free. This choice has
implications for the complexity of the ballot paper.

Other choices include arrangements for formal or informal ‘vote pooling’; the scope for
agreements between parties, such as that provided by systems which use apparentement; and the
definition of district boundaries.

Advantages and disadvantages of List PR

Advantages of List PR

In addition to the advantages attached to PR systems generally, List PR makes it more likely that
the representatives of minority cultures/groups will be elected. When, as is often the case, voting
behavior dovetails with a society’s cultural or social divisions, then List PR electoral systems can
help to ensure that the legislature includes members of both majority and minority groups. This
is because parties can be encouraged by the system to craft balanced candidate lists which appeal
to a whole spectrum of voters’ interests. The experience of a number of new democracies (e.g.
South Africa, and Indonesia) suggests that List PR gives the political space which allows parties
to put up multiracial, and multi-ethnic, lists of candidates. The South African National Assembly
elected in 1994 was 52 per cent black (11 per cent Zulu, the rest being of Xhosa, Sotho, Venda,
Tswana, Pedi, Swazi, Shangaan and Ndebele extraction), 32 per cent white (one-third English-
speaking, two-thirds Afrikaans-speaking), 7 per cent Colored and 8 per cent Indian. The

Page 29 of 48
Namibian Parliament is similarly diverse, with representatives from the Ovambo, Damara,
Herero, Nama, Baster and white (English and German-speaking) communities.

List PR makes it more likely that women will be elected. PR electoral systems are almost always
more friendly to the election of women than plurality/majority systems. In essence, parties are
able to use the lists to promote the advancement of women politicians and allow voters the space
to elect women candidates while still basing their choice on other policy concerns than gender.
As noted above, in single-member districts, most parties are encouraged to put up a ‘most
broadly acceptable’ candidate, and that person is seldom a woman. In all regions of the world,
PR systems do better than FPTP systems in the number of women elected, and 15 of the top 20
nations when it comes to the representation of women use List PR. In 2013, the number of
women representatives in legislatures elected by List PR systems was 6.3 percentage points
higher than the average of 21.8 per cent for all legislatures, while that for legislatures elected by
FPTP was 2.8 percentage points lower.

Disadvantages of List PR

In addition to the general issues already identified relating to PR systems, the following
additional disadvantages may be considered:

- Weak links between elected legislators and their constituents. When List PR is used, and
particularly when seats are allocated in one single national district, as in Namibia or
Israel, the system is criticized for destroying the link between voters and their
representatives. Where lists are closed, voters have no opportunity to determine the
identity of the persons who will represent them and no identifiable representative for their
town, district or village, nor can they easily reject an individual representative if they feel
that he or she has performed poorly in office or is not the kind of person they would want
representing them – e.g., warlords in countries such as Bosnia or Afghanistan. Moreover,
in some developing countries where the society is mainly rural, voters’ identification with
their region of residence is sometimes considerably stronger than their identification with
any political party or grouping. This criticism, however, may relate more to the
distinction between systems in which voters vote for parties and systems in which they
vote for candidates.

Page 30 of 48
 - Excessive entrenchment of power within party headquarters and in the hands of senior
party leaderships—especially in closed-list systems. A candidate’s position on the party
list, and therefore his or her likelihood of success, is dependent on currying favour with
party bosses, while their relationship with the electorate is of secondary importance. In an
unusual twist to the List PR system, in Guyana parties publish their list of candidates not
ranked but simply ordered alphabetically. This allows party leaders even more scope to
reward loyalty and punish independence because seats are only allocated to individuals
once the result of the vote is known.
- The need for some kind of recognized party or political groupings to exist. This makes
List PR particularly difficult to implement in those societies which do not have parties or
have very embryonic and loose party structures, for example, many of the island
countries of the Pacific. While technically possible to allow independent candidates to
run under various forms of PR, it is difficult and introduces a number of additional
complications, particularly as relates to wasted votes.
b. The Single Transferable Vote (STV)

STV has long been advocated by political scientists as one of the most attractive electoral
systems, but its use for legislative elections has been limited to a few cases—the Republic of
Ireland since 1921, Malta since 1947, and once in Estonia in 1990. It is also used for elections to
the Australian Federal Senate and in several Australian states, and for European and local
elections in Northern Ireland. It has been adopted for local elections in Scotland and in some
authorities in New Zealand. It was also chosen as the recommendation of the British Columbia
Citizens’ Assembly.

The core principles of the system were independently invented in the 19th century by Thomas
Hare in Britain and Carl André in Denmark. STV uses multi-member districts, and voters rank
candidates in order of preference on the ballot paper in the same manner as under the Alternative
Vote system. In most cases, this preference marking is optional, and voters are not required to
rank-order all candidates; if they wish, they can mark only one.

After the total numbers of first-preference votes are tallied, the count then begins by establishing
the quota of votes required for the election of a single candidate. The quota used is normally the
Droop quota, calculated by the simple formula:

Page 31 of 48
Quota = (votes / (seats +1)) +1

The result is determined through a series of counts. At the first count, the total number of first-
preference votes for each candidate is ascertained. Any candidate who has a number of first
preferences greater than or equal to the quota is immediately elected.

In second and subsequent counts, the surplus votes of elected candidates (i.e. those votes above
the quota) are redistributed according to the second preferences on the ballot papers. For fairness,
the entire candidate’s ballot papers can be redistributed, but each at a fractional percentage of
one votes, so that the total redistributed vote equals the candidate’s surplus (the Republic of
Ireland uses a weighted sample instead of distributing fractions). If a candidate had 100 votes,
for example, and their surplus was five votes, then each ballot paper would be redistributed
according to its second preference at the value of 1/20th of a vote. After any count, if no
candidate has a surplus of votes over the quota, the candidate with the lowest total of votes is
eliminated. His or her votes are then redistributed in the next count to the candidates left in the
race according to the second and then lower preferences shown. The process of successive
counts, after each of which surplus votes are redistributed or a candidate is eliminated, continues
until either all the seats for the electoral district are filled by candidates who have received the
quota, or the number of candidates left in the count is only one more than the number of seats to
be filled, in which case all remaining candidates bar one are elected without receiving a full
quota.

Advantages and disadvantages of STV

Advantages of STV

The advantages claimed for PR generally apply to STV systems. In addition, as a mechanism for
choosing representatives, STV is perhaps the most sophisticated of all electoral systems,
allowing for choice between parties and between candidates within parties. The final results
retain a fair degree of proportionality, and the fact that in most actual examples of STV the
multi-member districts are relatively small means that a geographical link between voter and
representative is retained. Furthermore, voters can influence the composition of post-election
coalitions, as has been the case in the Republic of Ireland, and the system provides incentives for
interparty accommodation through the reciprocal exchange of preferences between parties.

Page 32 of 48
STV also provides a better chance for the election of popular independent candidates than List
PR, because voters are choosing between candidates rather than between parties (although a
party-list option can be added to an STV election; this is done for the Australian Senate).

Disadvantages of STV

The disadvantages claimed for PR generally also apply to STV systems. In addition:

- STV is sometimes criticized on the grounds that preference voting is unfamiliar in many
societies, and demands, at the very least, a degree of literacy and numeracy.
- The intricacies of an STV count are quite complex. This has been cited as one of the
reasons why Estonia decided to abandon the system after its first election. STV requires
continual recalculations of surplus transfer values and the like. Because of this, votes
under STV need to be counted at counting centers instead of directly at the polling place.
Where election integrity is a salient issue, counting in the actual polling places may be
necessary to ensure legitimacy of the vote, and there will be a need to choose the
electoral system accordingly.
- STV, unlike Closed List PR, can at times produce pressures for political parties to
fragment internally because members of the same party are effectively competing against
each other, as well as against the opposition, for votes. This could serve to promote
‘clientelistic’ politics where politicians offer electoral bribes to groups of defined voters.
- STV can lead to a party with a plurality of votes nonetheless winning fewer seats than its
rivals. Malta amended its system in the mid-1980s by providing for some extra
compensatory seats to be awarded to a party in the event of this happening. Many of
these criticisms have, however, proved to be little trouble in practice. STV elections in
the Republic of Ireland and Malta have tended to produce relatively stable, legitimate
governments comprising one or two main parties.

Proportional representation related issues

Proportional Representation electoral systems require to a larger extent than other systems, that
the designer also considers a number of issues in addition to the choice of electoral system type.
These issues will affect the results of the elections both mechanically and through psychological
effects by changing the incentives for voters and political parties alike. Often, these effects will

Page 33 of 48
appear to be minor, and this may very well be true in practice. However, even minor differences
in results can sometimes have serious implications on the setup of the legislature and the
formation of government, and – perhaps most importantly – the perception of the legitimacy of
the elections and the results. Also, even though many of these choices are likely to only affect
the outcome slightly, some – like the choice of electoral district magnitude – will have
considerable implications on the translation of votes into seats, and are thus likely to become a
highly political issue. Therefore, a designer is advised to consider all these issues well in advance
of an election and to be aware of the likely administrative as well as political implications the
different options will have.

i. District Magnitude

There is near-universal agreement among electoral specialists that the crucial determinant of an
electoral system's ability to translate votes cast into seats won proportionally is the district
magnitude, which is the number of members to be elected in each electoral district.

Under a system such as FPTP, AV, or the Two-Round System, there is a district magnitude of
one; voters are electing a single representative. By contrast, all PR systems, some
plurality/majority systems such as Block Vote and PBV, and some other systems such as Limited
Vote and SNTV, require electoral districts which elect more than one member. Under any
proportional system, the number of members to be chosen in each district determines, to a
significant extent, how proportional the election results will be.

The systems which achieve the greatest degree of proportionality will use very large districts,
because such districts are able to ensure that even very small parties are represented in the
legislature. In smaller districts, the effective threshold is higher. For example, in a district in
which there are only three members to be elected, a party must gain at least 25 per cent +1 of the
vote to be assured of winning a seat. A party which has the support of only 10 per cent of the
electorate would be unlikely to win a seat, and the votes of this party’s supporters could therefore
be said to have been wasted. In a nine-seat district, by contrast, 10 per cent +1 of the vote would
guarantee that a party wins at least one seat. The problem is that as districts are made larger—
both in terms of the number of seats and often, as a consequence, in terms of their geographic

Page 34 of 48
size as well—so the linkage between an elected member and his or her constituency grows
weaker.

This can have serious consequences in societies where local factors play a strong role in politics
or where voters expect their member to maintain strong links with the electorate and act as their
‘delegate’ in the legislature.

Because of this, there has been a lively debate about the best district magnitude. Most scholars
agree, as a general principle, that district magnitudes of between three and seven seats tend to
work quite well, and it has been suggested that odd numbers such as three, five and seven work
better in practice than even numbers, particularly in a two-party system. However, this is only a
rough guide, and there are many situations in which a higher number may be both desirable and
necessary to ensure satisfactory representation and proportionality. In many countries, the
electoral districts follow pre-existing administrative divisions, perhaps state or provincial
boundaries, which means that there may be wide variations in their size. However, this approach
both eliminates the need to draw additional boundaries for elections and may make it possible to
relate electoral districts to existing identified and accepted communities.

Numbers at the high and low ends of the spectrum tend to deliver more extreme results. At one
end of the spectrum, a whole country can form one electoral district, which normally means that
the number of votes needed for election is extremely low and even very small parties can gain
election. In Israel, for example, the whole country forms one district of 120 members, which
means that election results are highly proportional, but also means that parties with only small
shares of the vote can gain representation and that the link between an elected member and any
geographical area is extremely weak.

At the other end of the spectrum, PR systems can be applied to situations in which there is a
district magnitude of only two. For example, a system of List PR is applied to two-member
districts in Chile. This delivers results which are quite disproportional, because no more than two
parties can win representation in each district. This has tended to undermine the benefits of PR in
terms of representation and legitimacy.

These examples, from the opposite ends of the spectrum, both serve to underline the crucial
importance of district magnitude in any PR electoral system. It is arguably the single most

Page 35 of 48
important institutional choice when designing a PR system, and is also of crucial importance for
a number of non-PR systems as well. The Single Non-Transferable Vote, for example tends to
deliver moderately proportional results despite not being in essence a proportional formula,
precisely because it is used in multi-member districts. Similarly, the Single Transferable Vote
when applied to single-member districts becomes the Alternative Vote, which retains some of the
advantages of STV but not its proportionality. In Party Block Vote and Block Vote systems, as
district magnitude increases, proportionality is likely to decrease. To sum up, when designing an
electoral system, district magnitude is in many ways the key factor in determining how the
system will operate in practice, the strength of the link between voters and elected members, and
the overall proportionality of election results.

On a related note, the party magnitude (the average number of successful candidates from the
same party in the same electoral district) is an important factor in determining who will be
elected. If only one candidate from a party is elected in a district, that candidate may well be
male and a member of the majority ethnic or social groups in the district. If two or more are
elected, balanced tickets may have more effect, making it likely that more women and more
candidates from minorities will be successful. Larger districts (seven or more seats in size) and a
relatively small number of parties will increase the party magnitude.

ii. The Threshold

All electoral systems have thresholds of representation: that is, the minimum level of support
which a party needs to gain representation. Thresholds can be legally imposed (formal
thresholds) or exist as a mathematical property of the electoral system (effective or natural
thresholds).

Formal thresholds are written into the constitutional or legal provisions which define the PR
system. In the mixed systems of Germany, New Zealand, and Russia, for example, there is a 5
per cent threshold in the PR section: parties which fail to secure 5 per cent of the vote nationwide
are ineligible to be awarded seats from the PR lists. This concept had its origins in the desire to
limit the election of extremist groups in Germany, and is designed to stop very small parties from
gaining representation.

Page 36 of 48
However, in both Germany and New Zealand there exist ‘back-door’ routes for a party to be
entitled to seats from the lists; in the case of New Zealand, a party must win at least one
constituency seat, and in the case of Germany three seats, to bypass the threshold requirements.
In Russia in 1995, there were no back-door routes, and almost half of the party-list votes were
wasted. Elsewhere, legal thresholds range from 0.67 per cent in the Netherlands to 10 per cent in
Turkey. Parties which gain less than this percentage of the vote are excluded from the count. A
striking example of this was the 2002 Turkish election, in which so many parties failed to clear
the 10 per cent threshold that 46 per cent of all votes were wasted. In all these cases, the
existence of a formal threshold tends to increase the overall level of disproportionality, because
votes for those parties which would otherwise have gained representation are wasted. In Poland
in 1993, even with a comparatively low threshold of 5 per cent for parties and 8 per cent for
coalitions, over 34 per cent of the votes were cast for parties and coalitions which did not
surmount it.

An effective, hidden, or natural threshold is created as a mathematical by-product of features of

electoral systems, of which district magnitude is the most important. For example, in a district
with four seats under a PR system, just as any candidate with more than 20 per cent of the vote
will be elected, any candidate with less than about 10 per cent (the exact figure will vary
depending on the configuration of parties, candidates, and votes) is unlikely to be elected.

iii. Open, Closed and Free Lists

While the List PR system is based on the principle that parties or political groupings present
candidates, it is possible to give voters a degree of choice within List PR between the candidates
nominated as well as between the parties. There are essentially three options that can be chosen
—open, closed, and free lists.

The majority of List PR systems in the world are closed, meaning that the order of candidates
elected by that list is fixed by the party itself, and voters are not able to express a preference for a
particular candidate. The List PR system used in South Africa is a good example of a closed list.
The ballot paper contains the party names and symbols, and a photograph of the party leader, but
no names of individual candidates. Voters simply choose the party they prefer; the individual
candidates elected as a result are predetermined by the parties themselves. This means that

Page 37 of 48
parties can include some candidates (perhaps members of minority ethnic and linguistic groups,
or women) who might have difficulty getting elected otherwise. The negative aspect of closed
lists is that voters have no say in determining who the representative of their party will be.
Closed lists are also unresponsive to rapid changes in events. In East Germany’s pre-unification
elections of 1990, the top-ranked candidate of one party was exposed as a secret-police informer
only four days before the election, and immediately expelled from the party; but because lists
were closed, electors had no choice but to vote for him if they wanted to support his former
party.

Many List PR systems in Western Europe use open lists, in which voters can indicate not just
their favoured party but their favoured candidate within that party. In most of these systems, the
vote for a candidate as well as a party is optional and, because most voters mark their ballots for
parties only rather than candidates, the candidate-choice option of the ballot paper often has
limited effect. However, in Sweden, over 25 per cent of the voters regularly choose a candidate
as well as a party, and a number of individuals are elected who would not be if the list were
closed.

In Brazil and Finland, voters must vote for candidates: the number of seats received by each
party is determined by the total number of votes gained by its candidates, and the order in which
the party’s candidates are elected to these seats is determined by the number of individual votes
they receive. While this gives voters much greater freedom over their choice of candidate, it also
has some less desirable side effects. Because candidates from within the same party are
effectively competing with each other for votes, this form of open list can lead to internal party
conflict and fragmentation. It also means that the potential benefits to the party of having lists
which feature a diverse slate of candidates can be overturned. In open-list PR elections in Sri
Lanka, for example, the attempts of major Sinhalese parties to include minority Tamil candidates
in winnable positions on their party lists have been rendered ineffective because many voters
deliberately voted for lower-placed Sinhalese candidates instead. In Kosovo, a switch from
closed to open lists actually enhanced the presence of more extremist candidates. On the same
note, open lists have sometimes proved to be disadvantageous for the representation of women in
highly patriarchal societies, although in Poland voters have shown themselves willing to use

Page 38 of 48
open list to elect more women than would have resulted from the nominations made by the
parties if closed lists had been used.

Other devices are used in a small number of jurisdictions to add additional flexibility to open-list
systems. In Ecuador, Luxembourg and Switzerland, electors have as many votes as there are
seats to be filled and can distribute them to candidates either within a single party list or across
several party lists as they see fit. The capacity to vote for more than one candidate across
different party lists (known as panachage) or to cast more than one vote for a single highly
favored candidate (known as cumulation) both provide an additional measure of control to the
voter and are categorized here as free list systems.

iv. Apparentement

High effective thresholds can serve to discriminate against small parties–indeed, in some cases
this is their express purpose. But in many cases, an inbuilt discrimination against smaller parties
is seen as undesirable, particularly where several small parties with similar support bases ‘split’
their combined votes and consequently fall below the threshold, when one aligned grouping
would have gained enough combined votes to win some seats in the legislature. To get around
this problem, some countries which use List PR systems also allow small parties to group
together for electoral purposes, thus forming a cartel—or apparentement or stembusaccoord—to
contest the election. This means that the parties themselves remain as separate entities, and are
listed separately on the ballot paper, but that the votes gained by each are counted as if they
belonged to the entire cartel, thus increasing the chances that the combined vote total will be
above the threshold and hence that they may be able to gain additional representation. This
device is a feature of a number of List PR systems in continental Europe, in Latin America
(where the umbrella parties are called lema) and in Israel. They are nevertheless a rarity within
PR systems in Africa and Asia, and were abolished in Indonesia in 1999 after some small parties
discovered that, although their cartel gained representation overall, they as parties actually lost
seats. Nowadays, the coalition system has become an important way to contest elections in
Indonesia due to the new electoral rules since only a political party or coalition of political
parties that wins 25% of the votes or gets at least 20% of the seats in the legislature can nominate
candidates for president.

Page 39 of 48
Independent Candidates and PR systems

A common misconception is that independent candidates cannot run under proportional systems.
This is not true, although most elections under List PR systems will be carried out exclusively
with candidates who belong to a political party. Under STV however, the very system is
candidate centered and independent candidates are very common in elections in for example the
Republic of Ireland.

Many times, an independent candidate will simply be treated as a one person party, presenting a
list with only one name on it and will gain the seat if he or she receives enough votes in the
election.

3. Mixed Systems

Mixed electoral systems attempt to combine the positive attributes of both plurality/majority and
PR electoral systems. In a mixed system, there are two electoral systems using different formulae
running alongside each other. The votes are cast by the same voters and contribute to the election
of representatives under both systems. One of those systems is a plurality/majority system (or
occasionally an ‘other’ system), usually a single-member district system, and the other a List PR
system.

There are two forms of mixed system. When the results of the two types of election are linked,
with seat allocations at the PR level being dependent on what happens in the plurality/majority
(or other) district seats and compensating for any disproportionality that arises there, the system
is called a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system. Where the two sets of elections are
detached and distinct and are not dependent on each other for seat allocations, the system is
called a Parallel system. While an MMP system generally results in proportional outcomes, a
Parallel system is likely to give results the proportionality of which falls somewhere between that
of a plurality/majority and that of a PR system.

Parallel and MMP systems have been widely adopted by new democracies in Africa and the
former Soviet Union.

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

Page 40 of 48
Under MMP systems, the PR seats are awarded to compensate for any disproportionality
produced by the district seat results. For example, if one party wins 10 per cent of the vote
nationally but no district seats, then it will be awarded enough seats from the PR lists to bring its
representation up to 10 per cent of the seats in the legislature. Voters may get two separate
choices, as in Germany and New Zealand. Alternatively, voters may make only one choice, with
the party totals being derived from the totals for the individual district candidates.

The proportions of seats allocated according to the two elements of the system vary from country
to country. Lesotho’s post-conflict electoral system, adopted in 2002, contains 80 FPTP seats and
40 compensatory ones while Germany elects 299 candidates under each system.

Although MMP is designed to produce proportional results, it is possible that the

disproportionality in the single-member district results is so great that the list seats cannot fully
compensate for it. This is more likely when the PR electoral districts are defined not at national
level but at regional or provincial level. A party can then win more plurality/majority seats in a
region or province than its party vote in the region would entitle it to. To deal with this,
proportionality can be closely approached if the size of the legislature is slightly increased: the
extra seats are called overhang mandates or Überhangsmandaten. This has occurred in most
elections in Germany and is also possible in New Zealand. In Lesotho, by contrast, the size of the
legislature is fixed, and the results of the first MMP election in 2002 were not fully proportional.

Advantages and Disadvantages of MMP

While MMP retains the proportionality benefits of PR systems, it also ensures that elected
representatives are linked to geographical districts. However, where voters have two votes—one
for the party and one for their local representative—it is not always understood that the vote for
the local representative is less important than the party vote in determining the overall allocation
of seats in the legislature. Furthermore, MMP can create two classes of legislators—one group
primarily responsible and beholden to a constituency, and another from the national party list
without geographical ties and beholden to the party. This may have implications for the
cohesiveness of groups of elected party representatives.

In translating votes into seats, MMP can be as proportional an electoral system as pure List PR,
and therefore shares many of the previously cited advantages and disadvantages of PR. However,

Page 41 of 48
one reason why MMP is sometimes seen as less preferable than straight List PR is that it can
give rise to what are called ‘strategic voting’ anomalies. In New Zealand in 1996, in the
constituency of Wellington Central, some National Party strategists urged voters not to vote for
the National Party candidate because they had calculated that under MMP his election would not
give the National Party another seat but simply replace an MP who would be elected from their
party list. It was therefore better for the National Party to see a candidate elected from another
party, providing that candidate was in sympathy with the National Party’s ideas and ideology,
than for votes to be ‘wasted’ in support of their own candidate.

Parallel Systems

Parallel systems also use both PR and plurality/majority components, but unlike MMP systems,
the PR component of a parallel system does not compensate for any disproportionality within the
plurality/majority districts. (It is also possible for the non-PR component of a Parallel system to
come from the family of ‘other’ systems, as in Taiwan which uses SNTV.)

In a Parallel system, as in MMP, each voter may receive either one ballot paper which is used to
cast a vote both for a candidate and for his or her party, as is done in South Korea (the Republic
of Korea), or two separate ballot papers, one for the plurality/majority seat and one for the PR
seats, as is done for example in Japan, Lithuania, and Thailand. Parallel systems have been a
product of electoral system design over the last decade and a half—perhaps because they appear
to combine the benefits of PR lists with those of plurality/majority (or other) representation.

Advantages and disadvantages of Parallel systems

Advantages of Parallel Systems

In terms of disproportionality, Parallel systems usually give results which fall somewhere
between pure plurality/majority and pure PR systems. One advantage is that, when there are
enough PR seats, small minority parties which have been unsuccessful in the plurality/majority
elections can still be rewarded for their votes by winning seats in the proportional allocation. In
addition, a Parallel system should, in theory, fragment the party system less than a pure PR
electoral system.

Page 42 of 48
Disadvantages of Parallel Systems

As with MMP, it is likely that two classes of representatives will be created. Also, Parallel
systems do not guarantee overall proportionality, and some parties may still be shut out of
representation despite winning substantial numbers of votes. Parallel systems are also relatively
complex and can leave voters confused as to the nature and operation of the electoral system.

Other Electoral Systems

Three systems do not fit neatly under any one of the above-mentioned categories. The Single
Non-Transferable Vote is a multi-member-district, candidate-centered systems in which voters
have one vote. Limited Vote is very much like SNTV but gives voters more than one vote
(however, unlike Block Vote, not as many as there are seats to be filled). Borda Count is a
preferential system in single- or multi-member districts.

These systems tend to translate votes cast into seats in a way that falls somewhere between the
proportionality of PR systems and the results of plurality/majority systems.

The Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV)

Under SNTV, each voter casts one vote for a candidate but (unlike FPTP) there is more than one
seat to be filled in each electoral district. Those candidates with the highest vote totals fill these
positions. SNTV can face political parties with a challenge. In, for example, a four-member
district, a candidate with just over 20 per cent of the vote is guaranteed election. A party with 50
per cent of the vote could thus expect to win two seats in a four-member district. If each
candidate polls 25 per cent, this will happen. If, however, one candidate polls 40 per cent and the
other 10 per cent, the second candidate may not be elected. If the party puts up three candidates,
the danger of ‘vote-splitting’ makes it even less likely that the party will win two seats.

Nowadays, SNTV is used for legislative elections in Afghanistan, Pitcairn Islands, Vanuatu and
in 90 of the 150 seat of Jordan’s Lower Chamber, the Senate elections in Indonesia and in 6 of
the 113 seats under the Parallel system in Taiwan. The best known application of this system was
for the integration of the Japanese Lower House between 1948 and 1993.

Advantages and disadvantages of SNTV

Page 43 of 48
Advantages of Single Non-Transferable Vote

The most important difference between SNTV and the plurality/majority systems described
earlier is that SNTV is better able to facilitate the representation of minority parties and
independents. The larger the district magnitude (the number of seats in the constituency), the
more proportional the system can become. In Jordan, SNTV has enabled a number of popular
non-party pro-monarchist candidates to be elected, which is deemed to be an advantage within
that embryonic party system.

SNTV can encourage parties to become highly organized and instruct their voters to allocate
their votes to candidates in a way which maximizes a party’s likely seat-winning potential. While
SNTV gives voters a choice among a party’s list of candidates, it is also argued that the system
fragments the party system less than pure PR systems do. Over 45 years of SNTV experience,
Japan demonstrated quite a robust ‘one party dominant’ system.

Independent candidates are easily accommodated.

Finally, the system is praised for being easy to use and understand.

Disadvantages of Single Non-Transferable Vote

Parties whose votes are widely dispersed will win fewer seats than otherwise and larger parties
can receive a substantial seat bonus which turns a plurality of the vote nationally into an absolute
majority in the legislature. These anomalies may lead to significant protests against the results
and the system. Although the proportionality of the system can be increased by increasing the
number of seats to be filled within the multi-member districts, this weakens the voter–MP
relationship which is so prized by those who advocate defined geographical districts.

As with any system where multiple candidates of the same party are competing for one vote,
internal party fragmentation and discord may be accentuated. This can serve to promote
clientelistic politics where politicians offer electoral bribes to groups of defined voters.

Parties need to consider complex strategic questions of both nominations and vote management;
putting up too many candidates can be as unproductive as putting up too few, and the need for a

Page 44 of 48
party to discipline its voters into spreading their votes equally across all a party’s candidates is
paramount.

As SNTV gives voters only one vote, the system contains few incentives for political parties to
appeal to a broad spectrum of voters in an accommodatory manner. As long as they have a
reasonable core vote, they can win seats without needing to appeal to ‘outsiders’. However, they
could win more seats by wooing voters from other parties by putting up candidates acceptable to
them.

SNTV usually gives rise to many wasted votes, especially if nomination requirements are
inclusive, enabling many candidates to put themselves forward.

The Limited Vote (LV)

Like SNTV, the Limited Vote is a plurality/majority system used in multi-member districts.
Unlike SNTV, electors have more than one vote—but fewer votes than there are candidates to be
elected. Counting is identical to SNTV, with the candidates with the highest vote totals winning
the seats. This system is used for various local-level elections, but its application at the national
level is restricted to Gibraltar and to Spain, where it has been used to elect the Spanish upper
house, the Senate, since 1977. In this case, with large multi-member districts, each voter has one
vote less than the number of members to be elected.

Advantages & Disadvantages of Limited Vote

Like SNTV, LV is simple for voters and relatively easy to count. However, it tends to produce
less proportional results than SNTV. Many of the arguments relating to internal party
competition, party management issues, and clientelistic politics apply to LV in a similar way as
to SNTV.

Borda Count (BC)

A final—and unique—example of electoral system design is the modified Borda Count used in
the tiny Pacific country of Nauru. The Borda Count is a preferential electoral system in which
electors rank candidates as for the Alternative Vote. It can be used in both single- and
multimember districts. There is only one count, there are no eliminations and preferences are

Page 45 of 48
simply tallied as ‘fractional votes’: in the modified Borda Count devised by Nauru, a first
preference is worth one, a second preference is worth half, a third preference is worth one-third
and so on. These are summed and the candidate(s) with the highest total(s) are declared the
winners.

Advantages & Disadvantages of BC

The advantages and disadvantages of the Borda Count are similar to the ones of the other
preferential electoral systems. Voters are able to express a detailed set of preferences, but on the
other hand the system requires at least some level of numeracy to work, and it may be hard for
voters to fully understand. The level of proportionality and number of wasted votes will depend
largely on the size of the districts.

2.3. Voting Behavior and Voting Behavior Determinant Factors

Voting behavior means which elements and circumstances influence a voter while making use of
his vote. The elements and circumstances which influence the voting behavior are different in
different states and in different circumstances,

Voting behavior refers to human activity in the context of elections. It is defined as a set of
related personal and electoral actions, which may include participation in electoral campaigns,
voter turnout, and choosing for whom to vote (Bratton 2013). Thus, it encompasses both the
actions and inactions of people regarding electoral participation, as well as for whom to support
if one decides to engage in the voting process (Rule 2014). Therefore, the study of voting
behavior constitutes an attempt at unpacking the context in which voters make decisions about
candidates and parties.

The studies on electoral behavior have shown that voting decisions do not take place in a
vacuum; instead, they are based upon a person’s life experiences. Voters’ choices are likely
influenced by a multiplicity of factors. For example, researches have shown that the electorate
may determine their votes on the basis of one or more of the following considerations:

(1) the performance of the government in power,

(2) the personality of candidates,
(3) the voters’ positions or orientations on specific issues,

Page 46 of 48
 (4) partisanship or party affiliation,
(5) the state of the economy, and/or
(6) the identity or ethnic background of the candidate (Prysby and Scavo 1993).

According to Heywood (2002), these considerations are shaped by short-term and longterm
influences. The short-term influences are specific to a particular election and are susceptible to
substantial shifts from one election to the next. Examples of this include the state of the
economy, the government’s performance, or the candidate’s personality. However, other factors,
such as party loyalty are more stable in the long-run (Hazarika 2015; Prysby and Scavo 1993;
Heywood 2002).

Another potentially strong short-term influence on voter choice is the mass media. The mass
media, particularly radio and television, have grown increasingly important in influencing
electoral outcomes (Ball and Peters 2005). In contemporary times, political parties and
politicians have effectively utilized social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to convey
their campaign messages to the populace. The media plays a crucial role in making information
readily available to the voters, upon which they base their voting decisions (Popkin 1991).
Nonetheless, the media has also become a channel for spreading false stories, which tend to
negatively affect the electoral behavior of voters (Kurtzleben 2017; Gunther, Beck and Nisbet
2018).

The aforementioned factors which influence voter behavior operate within the context of the
three main competing and overlapping classical theoretical paradigms: the Sociological model,
the Psychological model, and the Rational-choice model of voting. The Sociological approach
concentrates on the relationship between the individual and the social structure. It situates voting
in a social context, examining the effects that variables such as area of residence, social class,
ethnicity, and religion have on voting (Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet 1944; Harrop and Miller
1987). The Psychological approach ties voting decisions to the voter's psychological
predispositions and attitudes; such as one’s party affiliation, attitude towards candidates, and
positions on issues (Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes 1960). Lastly, the Rational-choice
approach attempts to explain voting behavior as a rational self-interest decision, stemming from
the instrumental cost-benefit calculus of the individual voter (Downs 1957; Olayode 2015).

Page 47 of 48
Determinants of voting behavior
Determinants of voting behavior
 Castiesm
 Religion
 Region
 Regionalism
 Language controversies
 Programmes and policies
 Ideological commitment
 Class consciousness
Page 48 of 48
 Charismatic leadership and
personality cult
 Desire for political stability and
strong government
 Economic situation
 Performance of government
 Populist slogans
 Political agitations
 Money power