Proportional representation
Proportional representation (PR) is any election system which ensures a proportionally representative result of a democratic election, x% of votes should be represented by x% in the democratic institutions, parliament or congress.
In practice, this is often only possible in various multi-winner electoral systems which try to ensure that the proportional support gained by different groups is accurately reflected in the election result. Proportional representation is also used to describe this (intended) effect.
In practice this usually involves ensuring that political parties in parliament or legislative assemblies receive a number of seats (approximately) proportional to the percentage of vote they received. This is known as party-list proportional representation. Another kind of electoral system that strives to achieve proportional representation, but which does not rely on the existence of political parties is the single transferable vote (STV). Some electoral systems, such as the single non-transferable vote and cumulative voting are sometimes categorized as "semi-proportional".
Contents |
Majoritarian systems
Electoral systems that do not result in proportional representation are known as majoritarian systems. These include first-past-the-post (plurality), runoff voting (majority), approval voting, the alternative vote and the bloc vote. Here, parties can receive seat numbers that bear no relationship to the national percentages they received in parliament. This is called disproportionality, and can be measured with the Gallagher Index.
Disproportionality
The constituency magnitude of a system (i.e. the number of seats in a constituency) plays a vital role in determining how proportional an electoral system can be. When using proportional systems, the greater the number of seats in a constituency, the more proportional it can be. Any system with single-member constituency is by necessity majoritarian - at that level. However constituency borders may be gerrymandered to allow for simulation of proportionality at a higher level. This may be achieved by creating "majority-minority" constituencies - constituencies in which the majority is formed by a group of voters that are in the minority at a higher level.
However, multiple-member districts do not ensure that an electoral system will be proportional. The bloc vote can result in "super-majoritarian" results in which, in addition to the normal disproportionality of single-member majoritarian systems, geographical variations that could create majority-minority districts become subsumed into the larger districts.
There is also another cause of disproportionality within some proportional systems. This is when the party does not provide a list with enough people on it to fill all the seats won by a political party. For instance if a party wins 20 seats but only has 15 people on its list then it loses 5 seats. This is termed an underhang.
Some proportional systems deliberately limit the amount of proportionality by requiring a party list to achieve the election threshold - a certain minimum percentage of votes to receive any seats. Typically, this lower limit will be set at between three and six percent of the total number of votes cast. Parties who do not reach that margin will not be represented in parliament, thus making majorities and coalitions easier to achieve. Proponents of election thresholds argue that they discourage voting for what they may see as extremist parties - that are likely to be small. Opponents of thresholds argue that they cause so-called "proportional" systems to unfairly distribute the representation of the supporters of minor parties to the major parties, thus giving the parties which cross the threshold disproportionally high percentages of the seats and creating the possibility that a party or group of parties will assume control of the legislature without gaining a majority of votes.
There are several ways of measuring proportionality, the most common being the Gallagher Index.
History
The PR system was devised in the late 19th century, and was first used in Belgium in the 1900 parliamentary elections. PR was implemented in many European countries during or after World War I (e.g. the German Weimar Republic).
Proportional representation is a much more common system of voting than first-past-the-post. In general, first-past-the-post is only used in former British colonies (and in the Westminster Elections in the UK), but a form of proportional representation known as the mixed member system is now being used in the United Kingdom to elect the members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh National Assembly. Although once an unknown system, proportional representation is now gaining popularity in Canada with five provinces: British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick currently debating whether to abolish the first past the post system, and at the federal level, a Parliamentary Committee is now exploring the issue. Political analysts point out the fact that the current attitude and sequence of events is very similar to what happened in New Zealand when New Zealand opted for Mixed Member Proportional Representation and the analysts conclude Canada is heading down the same route. All of the members of the European Parliament, or MEPs, including those elected from constituencies in Britain, are elected by proportional representation. Proportional representation is also used in many European countries.
Proportional representation does have some history in the United States. Many cities, including New York, once used it for their city councils as a way to break up the Democratic Party monopolies on elective office. In Cincinnati, Ohio, proportional representation was adopted in 1925 to get rid of a Republican party machine (the Republicans successfully overturned proportional representation in 1957). Proportional representation is still used in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Some electoral systems incorporate additional features to ensure absolutely accurate or more comprehensive representation, based on gender or minority status (like ethnicity). Note that features such as this are not strictly part of proportional representation; depending on what kind of PR is used, people tend to be already represented proportionally according to these standards without such additional rules.
In Ireland, PR has resulted in a strange situation whereby a centre party with a large support base (Fianna Fáil) has 45% of the vote but the opposition parties are extremely fragmented with the only thing that unites them being their dislike of Fianna Fail, therefore people do want a strong alternative to Fianna Fail however they differ greatly on what form that should take, thus an extremely fragmented opposition vote.
See Two-Party System: Advantages and Problems for a list of perceived advantages of proportional representation.
Image:Proportionalrepresentationballot.jpg
Methods of proportional representation
There are different methods of PR, which achieve either a greater degree of proportionality or a greater degree of determinate outcome.
Party list system in a multi-member constituency
The parties each list their candidates according to that party's determination of priorities. In a closed list, voters vote for a list, not a candidate. Each party is allocated seats in proportion to the number of votes, using the ranking order on its list. In an open list, voters indicate their order of preference within the list.
- This system is used in Israel (where the whole country is one closed list constituency), the Netherlands (open list) and for elections to the European Parliament in the United Kingdom (closed list) as well as in Finland using multi-member districts and open lists.
Additional-member system, mixed-member system
Main articles: Additional Member System (Mixed Member Proportional); Parallel voting or Supplementary Member; Alternative Vote and Alternative vote top-up (Alternative Vote Plus)
The country is divided into one-member constituencies, but a further bloc of seats are reserved for proportionality - the additional members bloc. In some versions voters have two ballot papers: the first is a "first past the post" ballot for their local constituency. The second is a Party List ballot as above. The additional member seats are allocated in proportion to the number of party list votes. In other versions there is only the "first past the post" ballot electing constituency representatives; additional member seats allocated in proportion to the votes a party's candidates receive nationally. It is criticised on the grounds that a significant number of deputies are not directly answerable to constituents and are difficult to vote out of office.
- This system (or variations of it) is used in Germany, New Zealand, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Italy has changed between sub-systems.
Single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency
Main article (with worked examples): Single Transferable Vote
A constituency elects at least three, rarely more than five representatives. (Consequently the constituency is three to five times larger than a single member constituency in "first past the post".) The major parties may offer as many candidates as there are seats, the minor parties and independents rather fewer. Voters mark their ballot, giving their preferred ranking for some or even all the candidates. Consequently, it is the voters, rather than the party, who have final say over which candidates succeed - it is not a good system for party apparatchiks. A successful candidate must achieve a quota of one-fourth plus one of the preferences in a three-member constituency, one-fifth plus one in a four-member, and so on. Only in a few cases is this achieved at the first count. For the second count, if a candidate wins election his surplus (votes in excess of the quota) is transferred to his voters' second choices; otherwise, the least popular candidate is eliminated and his votes redistributed according to the second preference shown on them. This process continues for as many counts as are needed until all seats are filled. Although the counting process is complicated, voting is clear and most voters get at least one of their preferences elected. All deputies are answerable directly to their local constituents. Some political scientists argue that STV is more properly classified as 'semi-proportional' as there is no assurance of a proportional result at a nationwide level.
- This system is used in Australia, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Malta.
Shared-candidate democracy
This is a system where each candidate who gets a minimum proportion of the votes (such as 5% of the total votes available) is allowed a seat, or the votes are given to each candidate based on a system similar to Instant Runoff Voting, where the votes are runoff to a persons most preferred candidate of the top four or so candidates that have the most preference. However, when a representative votes on an issue on behalf of his constituents, his (or her) vote is weighted based on the percentage of citizens (s)he represents. If all citizens in a constituency vote, the sum of the votes from all the representatives from that constituency sum to 100%, or one full vote. Usually this is accomplished simply by having every person in the legislature cast the amount of votes that they received, instead of a complex system of percentages of votes that would confuse the electorate. Typically, all powers of the candidacy, including speaking time and salaries, are also linked to the percentage of the candidacy that each representative shares. In this way, every vote literally does count. There may also be a system in place in which a person can vote for no candidate, or every voter who does not vote has their vote counted for no candidate, essentially a vote for the status quo.
Benefits of this system include simplicity (all the voters vote, and each candidate just divides his total votes by the total number of voters to decide his share of the representation), direct proportionality (representatives get exactly the proportion of power that the voters give them), resistance to gerrymandering (political parties can't gain a significant advantage by moving voting district borders), and minority representation (minority groups get a voice; but the majority still rules). It also remains neutral on the issue of party politics; independent candidates are not favoured nor punished. Voters may perhaps feel less disenfranchised with this system: even minority parties with only 10% popular support still have a chance to speak and vote.
Potential drawbacks include added complexity for computing representative vote results, and variability in the number of representatives that may be in power after any given election. This is not as much of an issue in the IRV system, as only four or so people from each district would be allowed, but it does suffer from some of the drawbacks of IRV itself, just to a much lesser extent. There is also the problem that it would add complexity to the legislature. Many people point out, though, that other systems are perhaps more complex, that this greater amount of complexity is a small price to pay for every vote to count, and that it would be easy to simply use a computerized system, so that it would at least make it easy to count up the votes.
One variant of this system allows for fractional voting. If a constituent likes Candidate A 30%, Candidate B 30%, and Candidate C 40%, he can give each candidate the appropriate fraction of his vote. In this way, the trust of the voter in his representatives can be more accurately portrayed.
In mixed member systems, candidates from the first-past-the-post districts are given 100% of a districts vote (or 100 votes, depending on the variant) to be added cumulatively with the shared member districts.
- This system remains theoretical; no known nations use this method today.
Further reading
- John Hickman and Chris Little. "Seat/Vote Proportionality in Romanian and Spanish Parliamentary Elections" Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans Vol. 2, No. 2, November 2000
See also
External links
- Quantifying Representativity Article by Philip Kestelman
- PR page from old CVD web site.
- PR page from new CVD web site.
- Electoral Reform Society
- Proportional Representation Society of Australia
- Voting methods survey Describes 19 multi-winner systems
cs:Poměrný systém de:Verhältniswahl nl:Particratie ja:比例代表制 zh:比例代表制