INTRODUCTION

Elections are integral to Modern politics, even in non-democratic regimes where they might lack true
choice. In liberal democracies elections form a crucial link between people and representatives,
ensuring accountability through election is fundamental to modern democracy, distinguishing it from
leaders that are not elected or subject to regular re-election.

ELECTORAL SYSTEM

The electoral system refers to a set rules through which people get to choose their representatives or
political leaders. It helps in deciding the outcome of an election by providing for an election
mechanism and a process through which representation of several political parties is decided in the
legislature. The electoral system is a set of rules that structure how votes are cast at elections and
how these votes are then converted into seats ( Gallagher, 2014)

A transparent electoral system which is responsible to voters creates a democratic culture which
performs best or true to its spirit.

According to comparative political science scholar Brenard Groffman, the following components
are basic and essential in an electoral system

1. defining the eligibility criteria for contesting the election (individual candidates as well as the
parties) : It includes criteria such as age, citizenship, residency requirements, and other qualifications
necessary to be eligible to run for office.

2. To specify the rules within which the party prepares the list of candidates as well as identifies the
various candidates for contesting election

3. specification of the ballot type, : the design and structure of the ballot paper. It includes the
format used for voting, how candidates' names are presented, and instructions for voters on how to
mark their choices.

4. Specification of the constituencies, : defining the geographic areas that elect representatives. This
includes determining the number and boundaries of constituencies, which can significantly impact
the representation of different groups within the electorate.

5. determining the timings of elections: frequency of elections (e.g., every four or five years), the
timing of election campaigns, and any provisions for early or snap elections.

6. method of counting of votes : This involves the rules and procedures for how votes are counted
and how results are determined. Different methods can include first-past-the-post, proportional
representation, ranked-choice voting, and others. It also encompasses the procedures for handling
ballots, recounts, and addressing any irregularities or disputes.

Classification of electoral system

The electoral system is classified into three main categories based on rules which decide the
conversion of votes into seats within the Legislature.

1. Majoritarian system

2. Proportional representation system

3. Mixed system
The majoritarian method refers to a system where larger political parties get to represent a higher
number of seats while in the proportional representation system the seats are decided through the
proportion of votes acquired or gained in the electoral process. the mixed system, it is a combination
of both (the majoritarian and proportion representation system)

1. Majoritarian system
1.1 Single Member Plurality System:

This electoral system, prevalent in India, USA, UK, and Canada, awards victory to the candidate with
the most votes in each single-member constituency. Also known as First Past the Post (FPTP), it can
lead to the marginalization of smaller parties, potential vote wastage, and questions about the
legitimacy of governments formed with only a simple majority.

1.2 Second Ballot System:

Used in France, Austria, and Russia, this system involves two rounds of voting in single-member
constituencies. All eligible candidates compete in the first round of voting. Voters cast their ballots
for their preferred candidate. If a candidate receives more than a specified threshold of votes
(typically an absolute majority of 50% +1), they are declared the winner, and no second round is
needed. If no candidate achieves the majority threshold in the first round, a second round of voting
is held. Voters choose between the candidates( most cases, top two candidates ) who advanced to
the second round. The candidate who receives the most votes in the second round is declared the
winner. It's also known as the mixed majority plurality system.

1.3 Alternative Vote and Supplementary Vote System:

These systems, based on simple majority in single-member constituencies, allow voters to rank
multiple candidates according to preference. The primary vote is crucial, while subsequent votes
serve as alternatives or supplements. Used internally in some countries, like the election of the
London mayor, it struggles in multi-party systems, despite being detailed and complex.

AV SYSYTEM: Voters rank candidates in order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). Initially, only first-
preference votes are counted. If a candidate receives more than 50% of the first-preference votes,
they are elected. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-preference
votes is eliminated. The votes of the eliminated candidate are redistributed to the remaining
candidates based on the voters' next preferences. This elimination and redistribution process
continues until a candidate secures more than 50% of the votes.

SVS: Voters select a first-choice and a second-choice candidate only. All first-choice votes are counted
initially. If a candidate receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, they are elected. If no
candidate achieves a majority, all but the top two candidates are eliminated. Second-choice votes of
the eliminated candidates are then redistributed to the top two candidates. The candidate with the
highest combined total of first and second-choice votes wins.
Majoritarian System Case Study:

In the United Kingdom, the majoritarian system, also known as First Past the Post (FPTP), has been
traditionally used for general elections. In the 2015 UK general election, the Conservative Party won
a majority of seats in the House of Commons despite securing only 36.9% of the popular vote. This
result illustrates how the majoritarian system can lead to disproportionate outcomes, where a party
with a minority of the overall vote can secure a majority of seats, potentially marginalizing smaller
parties and raising questions about the representativeness of the government.

2. Proportional Representation:
Proportional Representation (PR) is an electoral system designed to allocate seats in a legislature in
proportion to the number of votes each party receives. The primary aim of PR is to ensure that the
composition of the elected body closely reflects the distribution of votes among the electorate.
There are several methods to implement PR, with the most common being the List PR system and
the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system. Here's a detailed look at these systems:

2.1 Single Transferable Vote System:

Utilized in Ireland, this system features multi-member constituencies, where voters rank candidates
by preference. Votes are transferred based on preferences until candidates secure a defined quota.

Voters rank candidates in order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). A quota is established, which is
the minimum number of votes a candidate needs to be elected. All first-preference votes are
counted. Candidates who meet or exceed the quota are elected. If a candidate receives more votes
than the quota, their surplus votes are redistributed to remaining candidates based on voters’ next
preferences. If no candidate meets the quota, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and
their votes are redistributed based on next preferences. This process continues until all seats are
filled.

2.2 Party List System:

Found in countries like Belgium and Luxembourg, voters cast ballots for parties rather than individual
candidates. Parties present lists of candidates, with voters needing awareness of all candidates for
effective participation.

Proportional Representation System Case Study:

In Germany, the proportional representation system, specifically the Mixed Member Proportional
(MMP) system, has been in place since the end of World War II. In the 2017 federal election, the
Alternative for Germany (AfD) party secured 12.6% of the popular vote, translating to 94 seats in the
Bundestag. This outcome demonstrates how proportional representation ensures that parties
receive seats in proportion to their share of the vote, allowing for diverse representation and
preventing the marginalization of smaller parties.
Mixed System

A mixed electoral system combines elements of both majoritarian/plurality systems and proportional
representation systems. This hybrid approach aims to balance the strengths and weaknesses of each
system, providing both local representation and overall proportionality.

In a mixed electoral system, voters typically have two votes:

1. **First Vote (Constituency Vote)**: This vote is used to elect a representative for their local
constituency using a majoritarian/plurality method, such as First-Past-The-Post (FPTP).

2. **Second Vote (Party List Vote)**: This vote is used to allocate seats proportionally among
political parties based on their share of the vote across a larger region or the entire country.

3.1 Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) System:

The total number of seats a party receives in the legislature is determined by the proportion of votes
they receive in the party list vote. If a party wins more constituency seats than its proportional share
from the party list vote, additional "compensatory" seats are added to balance the representation.

1. *Compensatory Mixed System (MMP):*

- The list and constituency parts are integrated.

- List seats correct for disproportionalities in constituency results, ensuring overall proportionality.

- Small parties usually gain more from the list seats as they often win few constituency seats.

- Large parties may receive few or no list seats if their constituency wins already match their vote
share.

Example: Germany, New Zealand.

3.2 2. Parallel Voting (Mixed-Member Majoritarian, MMM):

The results of the constituency vote and the party list vote are determined independently. Unlike
MMP, there is no compensatory mechanism to balance the overall proportionality based on the
party list vote.

2. *Parallel Mixed System (MMM):*

- The list and constituency parts are separate.

- List seats are awarded based solely on list votes, independent of constituency results.

- Benefits large parties, maintaining their constituency-based over-representation.

- Smaller parties gain less than under compensatory systems.

- More commonly used.

- Examples: Japan, Mexico, Russia, Venezuela.

Mixed System Case Study:

New Zealand adopted a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system in 1996. In the 2020 general
election, the Labour Party won a landslide victory in the single-member constituencies, securing 64
out of 120 seats in the Parliament. However, under the proportional representation component,
smaller parties such as the Green Party and the Maori Party gained representation in Parliament,
each winning multiple list seats despite not winning any single-member constituencies. This example
highlights how the mixed system combines elements of majoritarian and proportional
representation, providing a balance between local representation and broader party proportionality.

In conclusion, the choice of the electoral system plays a pivotal role in shaping the dynamics of
democratic governance. Whether it be proportional representation, plurality, or mixed systems, each
carries its own advantages and drawbacks. While proportional representation fosters inclusivity and
reflects diverse political views, plurality systems can lead to majority rule but may neglect minority
representation. Ultimately, the effectiveness of an electoral system depends on its ability to uphold
the principles of fairness, representation, and accountability, ensuring that the voices of all citizens
are heard and their votes truly count in the democratic process.
### Comparative Analysis of Electoral Systems

When comparing different types of electoral systems, several key dimensions are considered:
representation, fairness, government stability, voter engagement, and the impact on the party
system. Below is a detailed comparative analysis of First Past the Post (FPTP), Proportional
Representation (PR), and Mixed Representation systems.

#### 1. Representation and Fairness

- **First Past the Post (FPTP):**

- **Representation:** Tends to favor larger parties and can lead to significant disparities between
the percentage of votes received and the number of seats won. Smaller parties often struggle to gain
representation.

- **Fairness:** Often criticized for being unfair to smaller parties and for producing "wasted votes,"
where votes for losing candidates do not contribute to the final result.

- **Proportional Representation (PR):**

- **Representation:** Provides a more accurate reflection of the electorate's preferences. Seats are
allocated in proportion to the number of votes each party receives, allowing smaller parties to gain
representation.

- **Fairness:** Generally considered the most fair in terms of translating votes into seats.
Minimizes wasted votes and better reflects the diversity of voter preferences.

- **Mixed Representation:**

- **Representation:** Combines elements of FPTP and PR, aiming to balance direct constituency
representation with proportionality. Can offer both local representation and fairer overall results.

- **Fairness:** Attempts to mitigate the unfairness of FPTP by incorporating proportional elements.

Still may not be as fair as pure PR systems but improves fairness compared to FPTP alone.

#### 2. Government Stability

- **First Past the Post (FPTP):**

- **Stability:** Often results in single-party majority governments, which can be more stable and
decisive. However, this can also lead to significant policy swings if different parties alternate in
power.

- **Coalitions:** Less common, as the system typically favors the largest party gaining a majority.
- **Proportional Representation (PR):**

- **Stability:** More likely to result in coalition governments, which can be less stable but more
inclusive. Policy continuity can be better, but coalition negotiations can lead to compromises and
slower decision-making.

- **Coalitions:** Common, as no single party often gains a majority.

- **Mixed Representation:**

- **Stability:** Strives to balance stability and inclusiveness. Can produce either single-party or
coalition governments, depending on the mix of systems and electoral outcomes.

- **Coalitions:** Moderately common, balancing the frequency of coalitions found in PR systems

with the potential for single-party dominance in FPTP.

#### 3. Voter Engagement and Accountability

- **First Past the Post (FPTP):**

- **Engagement:** Voters have a direct link to their representatives, enhancing accountability.

However, the prevalence of "safe seats" can lead to voter disengagement.

- **Accountability:** High for individual representatives but low for overall proportional fairness.

- **Proportional Representation (PR):**

- **Engagement:** Voters feel their vote has more impact, as every vote contributes to the overall
result. However, the link between representatives and specific constituencies can be weaker.

- **Accountability:** High for party accountability and proportional fairness but can be lower for
individual representatives.

- **Mixed Representation:**

- **Engagement:** Provides both a direct constituency link and proportional representation, aiming
to enhance voter engagement and accountability.

- **Accountability:** Balances individual representative accountability with overall proportional

fairness.

#### 4. Party System

- **First Past the Post (FPTP):**

- **Party System:** Encourages a two-party system due to the "winner-takes-all" nature, often
marginalizing smaller parties.

- **Diversity:** Limited, with major parties dominating the political landscape.

- **Proportional Representation (PR):**

- **Party System:** Encourages a multi-party system, providing representation for a broader range
of political views.

- **Diversity:** High, with smaller parties having better chances to gain seats and influence policy.

- **Mixed Representation:**

- **Party System:** Can accommodate a moderate multi-party system while maintaining elements
of a two-party structure in constituencies.

- **Diversity:** Balanced, supporting both larger parties and giving smaller parties a fairer chance
compared to FPTP.

### Positives and Negatives of Different Types of Electoral Systems

**First Past the Post (FPTP):**

**Positives:**

1. **Simplicity:** Easy for voters to understand and for authorities to administer.

2. **Clear Outcomes:** Often leads to a decisive result, with one party gaining a majority, leading to
stable governments.

3. **Strong Constituency Representation:** Voters have a direct link to their representative,

enhancing accountability and responsiveness.

4. **Encourages Two-Party System:** Simplifies voter choice and often leads to a clear government
opposition dynamic.

**Negatives:**

1. **Disproportional Representation:** Parties can win a large number of seats with a relatively
small percentage of the vote, leading to a lack of proportionality.

2. **Wasted Votes:** Votes for losing candidates do not contribute to the election outcome, which
can discourage voter participation.
3. **Marginalization of Smaller Parties:** Smaller parties often struggle to win seats, leading to
underrepresentation of diverse political views.

4. **Potential for Gerrymandering:** Manipulation of constituency boundaries can distort

representation.

**Proportional Representation (PR):**

**Positives:**

1. **Fair Representation:** Seats are allocated in proportion to the number of votes each party
receives, leading to a more accurate reflection of the electorate's preferences.

2. **Inclusiveness:** Smaller parties and minority groups have a better chance of gaining
representation, promoting political diversity.

3. **Higher Voter Turnout:** Voters feel their votes are more impactful, which can lead to increased
voter engagement and turnout.

4. **Coalition Governments:** Often results in coalition governments, encouraging consensus and

collaboration among parties.

**Negatives:**

1. **Complexity:** Can be more complicated for voters to understand and for authorities to
administer.

2. **Fragmented Parliaments:** Can result in a large number of parties in the legislature, making it
harder to form stable governments.

3. **Weaker Constituency Links:** Individual representatives may not have a direct link to specific
constituencies, reducing local accountability.

4. **Possibility of Extremist Parties:** Easier for fringe or extremist parties to gain representation,
which can complicate governance.

**Mixed Representation (Mixed Electoral Systems):**

**Positives:**

1. **Balanced Representation:** Combines the benefits of FPTP and PR, ensuring both local
representation and proportionality.

2. **Stable Governments:** Mixed systems like Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) can produce
stable coalition governments.

3. **Voter Choice:** Voters often have two votes, allowing them to choose a local representative
and a preferred party.
4. **Reduces Wasted Votes:** The proportional component ensures that more votes contribute to
the final outcome, reducing wasted votes.

**Negatives:**

1. **Complexity:** Can be more complicated to understand and implement than single-system

methods.

2. **Potential for Confusion:** Voters need to understand two different voting systems, which can
be confusing.

3. **Dual Mandate Issues:** Representatives elected under different systems (constituency vs. list)
might have different mandates and responsibilities, which can create tension.

4. **Coalition Dependency:** Like PR systems, mixed systems often result in coalition governments,
which can be less stable than single-party majorities.

### Summary

Each electoral system has its strengths and weaknesses, impacting how representative and stable a
government can be, how inclusive the political process is, and how much voters feel their votes
count. The choice of an electoral system depends on a country's specific needs and historical context,
and often involves trade-offs between different democratic values.