The following are some general characteristics that can be seen in the five main kinds of electoral system. However, different electoral systems will work better in some countries than others. Therefore, it is important to consider the history, population and politics of a country when deciding which electoral system is best.
Q. What are the advantages and disadvantages of First Past the Post (FPTP)? (Simplicity)
A. The biggest advantage of the FPTP is its simplicity. Larger parties get more seats with FPTP. This leads to governments that are controlled by one party. This can make decision making simpler. Also, each constituency has one representative. FPTP does not involve complicated equations to see how seats will be filled.
The disadvantage of the system is that the all the votes for candidates who do not win are wasted. So parties whose supporters are spread several constituencies are represented less proportionately (i.e. They get less seats than votes). On the other hand, parties with a small number of supporters who all live in the same constituency are over-represented (they have more seats than votes).
Q. What are the advantages and disadvantages of Alternative Vote? (Majority support)
A. The alternative vote has the advantage that a candidate must win a majority more than 50% of the votes in a constituency to be elected. Compared to FPTP (where a candidate can win with less than 50%), this helps to make sure that candidates represent most of the people in a constituency. The effect of this is that AV is more proportional than FPTP.
However, it can still stop smaller parties whose votes are spread across constituencies from being represented in parliament. This means it is less proportionate than other PR systems.
Q. What are the advantages and disadvantages of Single Transferable Vote (STV)? (Voter choice)
A. The single transferable vote enables smaller parties to achieve representation. Supporters of a party are also able to choose between its candidates. The disadvantage of this system is that the large size of constituencies can create distance between representatives and their voters. There is a much closer relationship between voters and candidates in FPTP. STV is also more complicated than other systems.
Q. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Party List system (PL)? (Proportionality)
A. In the party list system, the percentage of votes will be the same as the percentage of seats that a party gets. As a result, the PL system can claim to be the most proportionate system.
Its disadvantages that voters do not get a chance to vote for an individual candidate. This can weaken the relationship between voters and representatives. Voters have little or no influence over which candidates are placed higher on the party list. This can reduce the voters choice, but also gives parties the chance to promote candidates from minority groups.
Q. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the mixed member system? (Differential representation)
A. The mixed member system is that it combines the advantages of FPTP and PR systems. This means it can produce more or less proportionate outcomes according to what what people vote for. It could produce single-party government when there was a lot of support for one party. It could also lead to a coalition government if there is a more even distribution votes.
It has the same disadvantages as the list system. However, it also requires two different kinds of representative (those with constituencies and those without them). This can be confusing to voters.
Q. Is coalition government undemocratic?
A. Supporters of proportional representation argue that the FPTP and alternative vote systems are undemocratic because they treat citizens’ votes unequally. They say that votes for unsuccessful candidates are wasted, and so many voters are not represented. They say this goes against the principle of equality. This is because parties who only have the support of a minority of the electorate can control the whole government.
On the other side, critics of proportional representation systems say that they are undemocratic because they usually lead to coalition governments. They say that coalitions are undemocratic because they allow party leaders to choose the government, not the voters. They say this reduces participation and accountability. They also allow small parties to have much more power than their share of the votes.
For example, if there is no clear majority between two big parties, they will try and persuade smaller parties to join them to gain a majority. These smaller parties can ask for a lot of benefits as part of the deal and gives them a lot of power.
Q. How can the fairness of the election process be guaranteed?
A. There are three main sources for threats to the fairness of the election process: interference from the ruling party, electoral malpractice and the influence of wealth. How is interference from the ruing party a threat to free and fair elections? The first threat is that ruling parties will use their power as the government to influence the election. It is impossible to totally remove this threat, but it can be reduced in some ways.
The most important is that the whole election process should be supervised by an independent electoral commission. This commission should be approved by all parties. It should make sure that all parties have equal access to public media. Another way to reduce this threat is to totally separate the roles and responsibilities of party members and government. Party members should be responsible for campaigning, while government workers should focus on running the government.
Q. How is electoral malpractice a threat to free and fair elections?
A. A second threat comes from all kinds of malpractice by candidates, party members and their supporters. Examples of malpractice include: bribing voters, stopping people from registering to vote, threatening voters, harassing opposing candidates, and interfering with the vote counting process.
This requires that enough police and election officials to protect candidates and voters and make sure that no malpractice takes place. It also requires these police and officials to be honest and non biased. International observers can also make sure that malpractice is prevented. International standards for ‘free and fair’ elections and for election monitoring have now become written down, and are widely accepted. If international observers are well trained, they can help to make sure these standards are followed.
Q. How is the influence of wealth a threat to free and fair elections?
A. A final major threat comes from the advantage that personal wealth or wealthy supporters can give to individual candidates or parties. If some parties have much more funds than others, this can reduce the fairness of elections. Richer parties have more access to media, campaign finances and personnel than smaller parties. This reduces voters ability to consider all ideas equally.
The simplest way to prevent this is to set limits to the amounts of money that can be spent by (and given to) candidates and parties. Another solution is to provide all candidates with free access to the public media.
Q. What are the main arguments in favor of public financing of political parties?
A. The main arguments in favor of public financing of political parties include:
• Parties are very important in a democratic system. This should be recognized by financial support.
• Public funding would reduce the influence of rich and powerful supporters. This creates a more level playing field between the parties.
• It would stop wealthy individual sponsors from having more influence over policy and legislative process than the voters do.
• It would make it easier for less wealthy people to become representatives. Often, only personally wealthy can afford the costs involved in standing for public office. Public funding could make it easier for less wealthy people to be representatives.
Q. What are the main arguments against public financing of political parties?
A. The main arguments against public funding include:
• It could mean that the state pays contributions to extremist or undemocratic parties.
• It would make parties dependent on the state. This would reduce their freedom and their ability to criticize the government.
• The no-public funding system means that only parties with enough support can compete in elections. If parties cannot afford an election campaign from donations from supporters, then they do not have enough support to be in government.
• Rather than banning donations to political parties, it is better if voters are aware of where parties get their finances from and make decisions based on that.
Source:Beetham, David and Boyle, Kevin. Introducing Democracy: 80 Questions and Answers (UNESCO 2009)