CHAP TER ee bu oa

12 ereueye bio0

egdeAaviigero 2o
H

Political Representation,
Voting and Electoral Systems
in Comparative Perspective
Pushpa Singh orrst o 23trionest

The study of electoral process and systems forms the subject of extensive research engagemens
inthe field of Comparative Politics. Electoral systems shape the wider political processes Of
representative governments and hence their comparative analysis can help in understanding
system profoundly. A cross-national examination of electoral systems enables us to understun
e in
thevariants, their features and functioning. Such explorations would highly informthe and
favour of a particular electoral system design, depending upon the specific requirement
ritarian

political realities of that society, Among the two major categories available are themajortu
rinciple

system(MS) and the proportional representation (PR) System. While MSs work on the pri more
ofplurality and have single-member constituencies, proportional systems areS 0
representative of the diverse societal groups and have multi-member constituenCies. f the
increasing consensus among the scholars in favour of PR, especially from the propo GOUS
consociational approach who find PR as the best way to ensure representationo fminoritynceptof
in a society marked by significant ethnic cleavages. This chapter aims to explore u which

representoation, elections and voting and the different models of electoral systerto withthe
the entire structure of modern democracies and governments rest. It will
also
contemporary debates surrounding the subject of stuudy and analyse how thees
e c t o r d

si
design may bear very dissimilar outcomes for different political
systems.
 Political
Representation, Voting and Electoral Systems in
Comparative Perspective 239
12.1 INTRODUCTION
modern world is
distinctly
marked by the
democratization. At the bottom line
of this global political
of phenomenon
1ies the indispensable idea of magnum discourse of liberal
ng representation. democracy
Through the process of election and
the representatives are chosen
the by
vo ns electoral systems integral partspeople
and
of
to hold
public offices. This makes
syste determineses the representative
arrangement for structuring the process of democracy. Electoral
rhich the votes translate into seats in the election and the way
in
ethat electoral systems can play a powerful parliaments. Scholars and practitioners alike
agree role in promoting both
ccessful conflict management, as they help shape broader norms of
democracy and
Deilly 2002). In this way, the study of elections and political behaviour
electoral
nderstand the political landscape and nature of democracy in anysystems is crucial to
An electoral system, to a great extent, defines the society.
inner functioning of a
Hence, it is important to study it. democracy.
Apparently,
it has become critical reference point in
a
analysing politics of any country. This
explains the growing interest in the study of
electoral systems in recent times, as evident
by the
range of new scholarships on the
subject. The electoral system plays a key role in all defining institutions of politics,
namely elections and representation, parties and party systems and government formation
and the politics of coalitions (Farrell 1995, 3). Reciprocally, it also gets conditioned by the

functioning of all these institutions. It is pertinent to explore the interlinkages between

concept of representation, schemas of different electoral systems, their relative advantage
and disadvantage and the impact they have on political systems. As election and electoral
system emanate from the idea of representation, we will examine this concept in the
following section.

12.2 REPRESENTATION
democracies. It has become the
The idea of representation lies at the heart of modern-day
icrum of the modern political discourse, as everyone wants to be governed by
cause wants representation and every government
presentatives, every political group or form of
Even though direct democracy
as a
ams to represent (Pitkin 1967, 144). of
it was not a widely prevalent system
SVernment existed since Hellenic antiquities, such as
states practised various forms of governments
ehance. The Greek city each other
and democracy, and all these forms replaced
Cracy, monarchy, oligarchy s e e n as a lesser
variant
m a n n e r . Surprisingly,
in those times, democracy was as he believed
yclcal the c a s e ofdemocracy,
in Republic, Book VI, argued against appears to
undermine
Plato, dexterity, and democracy
8Vernance required expertise and The idea was relegated
to the
+ mediocrity and populism. as the
F o r him, it stood for world comfortably settled with monarchy
backy the medieval
a oI history, andw a s rediscovered in the modern world that
was heavily intormed

emulation of direct
democracy
governance. It
b #1 enlightenment.
However,
of the people
to
of r e n a i s s a n c e and and incapacity of
wOLilPlrit population of the process
worked in light of huge growing complexities
Parti have due the overwhelming
g o v e r n a n c e . Also,
everyday it became increasingly in
adminiot in modern times, a system
and governance people developed
Therefore,
n to participate.
cnronistic for masses
 240 PUSHPA SINGH
could
ensure
their interest. Pragmatism and
who
creed
litical
of polit life.
the
e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

which they chose their as

of demmocracy to the
indiiret
rect and
democracy
convenience established indirect form
direct
and the centrality
to

democratic
classical
practice of representation
This shift from the saga
of mak
that
has brought representation

3aging form
less engas idea of nn .signifies
it is the concept
of representatio
the
the
1at deals act of
Unquestionably,
SCOurses. times. The the literature that
significant. with the
modern
function in there. Among
8Overnment
who is not
present work is highly sign
standing for Someone
Hannah
Pitkin's
present. It is estas
states
Concept of
representation,
Fenichel

makes things
present
that a r e
not literally

preferred
c a n d i d a t e s who
t h u
en,
g h through tis
on their
hat representationvast majority choose theirbasis. R e p r e s e n t a t i o n
that the
process day-to-day
politics on a c o m m u n i c a t i o n , projecting aspirations
and
Denalf, engage with
channel of dual anctity too de
It provides san generating
standing mocratic
the people.
that creates a i n s t i t u t i o n s and a n underst
between the state and calls for
responses
institutions.
Representation is a
dynamic process
The key components
of repre etween
resentation inch
representative and the
represented.
represented, (c) something
thatide
the
that is representing, (b) a party
that is
in which it takes place.The demo
being
(a a party interest) and (d) the context
context of political represenecy
represented (opinion, by its specific entation
to a great extent
is shaped rations
explorat of diffe
of a country solicits greater
of a polity relatio
Therefore, a deeper understanding
of representation, about the
like the mechanism between who get represe
facets of this process
representatives,
political esented
and their formal
between citizens
and those who represent (Yadav
2010, 347).

12.2. Theories of Representation

theorists writing on representation, Hobbes's account
Among the plethora of the political Though J.S. Mill (186l) wrote a book on the
of the subject appears as very systematic. Governments, he bypassed discussion onits
subject, Considerations on Representativework The
in her Concept of Representation 1967 offers
conceptual meaning. Hanna Pitkin She also draws attention to the
the most overarching understanding of the subject.
that makes it very prone to all kinds of
complicated, convoluted meaning of the concept
at the best, theorists forward
interpretations. Unable to view the concept in its entirety,
the partial picture of it, depending on what aspect is being captured by them. Ths
cacophony adds to the complexity of its varied meaning and makes it difficult to have a
unified understanding on the subject. Pitkin discusses the following types ofrepresentatol
formal
Formalistic representation: This view perceives representation as a
arrangement which precedes and initiates it. Hobbesian position on the suo
ization,
an example of formalistic representation. It has two dimensions: autho d
neaning
meaning the authority is given to act by the represented; accountability,meca terests

that the constituents can penalize the representative for not

In this arrangement, there is no mechanism for
securing tne ative
Formalistic representation may
evaluating the rep a ucd
not sufficiently be able to prov power

understanding of the working of the concept in wake of diffiusion oP formal

between state and the non-state actors. In the times, the

institutional arrangements of the state may not be contemporary tin

some groups or cause of citizens
able to represen 2-governmenta
as
effectively as international no Olicymaters

mat
organizations, international movements or civic
groups. In fact,
 Political Representation,
Voting and Electoral
Systems in Comparative
ofthe state are also in
informed and influenced Perspective 241
organizations. As the
the by the
conventional
ntation with the mechanism understanding prospects of such
representation
of
of
politics agencies and
may
short of
the electoral
capturing other dimensions democracy exclusively
and the identifies
of politics focuses of nation state, it
analysis

maki
the non-formal
on
dispersed existence
facades of assertion and
representation.
of power in multiple The modern
that may not be advocacy as equally locations
halic representation:possible It
through formalistic
representation. representative
its constituent. In
signifies the ways in
which the
ceded but it works onsymbolic
for
representation, no reflection representative stands
n the level of or
resemblance is
acceptance of the representatives by their
stituents. The representative symbolizes the
the king symbolizes the nation. constituency and stands for it as
Descriptive representation: In this view, the
those it represents is crucial. It resemblance of the representative with
may be defined by the common
shared by the interest or experiences
representative and the represented. This
whether marginalized groups and weaker sections perspective fuels the debate
their essentially need
group to represent them in politics. There can be a
own somebody from
case for or against it.
.Substantive representation: It reflects the notion that the
activities of the
representative must fulfl the interest of its agents in real substance for by acting
others. However, the
question of whether the representative is capable of knowing
her/his constituent's best interest and translating them in policy matters arises.

A representative has to be dynamic in her/his thoughts and deeds, as the immense

responsibility of legislation will require her/his to persistently be in tune with society and
ts changing configurations. The idea of representation does notjust
pertain to government
agents or institutions. It also designates a form of political process that is structured in
terms of the circularity between state institutions and civil society and is not confined to
deliberation and decision in the legislative setting (Urbinati 2006). There are plenty
forces like the public opinion, political parties, interest groups and dynamics of the
SOCiety that mediate this entire process.

12.2.2 Models of Representation

are four different models of representation that
discuss what representatives do or
ere
how
n e y should act: trusteeship, delegation, mandate and resemblance models.

this view of
rustee model: Edmund is seen as the key theorist of
Burke of educated
believes that representation is a moral duty
cpresentation. This model This theory works on
interest of the less fortunate.
aprivileged to represent the to carry
representative is like a trustee who is supposed
understanding that a In other
affairs with mature judgement.
responsibility of other's property or judgement' o n
exercise her/his higher
representative is expected to
the in his liberal theory of representation
of the people she/he represents. J.S. Mill not
r entitled to be represented,
believed that everyone is
identical views. He voting in
POsed value. Mill favoured the systenm of plural
Political opinion is of equal the choosing
votes and, therefore,
more say in
have criticism for its elitist
more
nlearned people will to scathing
of view has been subjected less
This
presentatives. that people are ignorant and
nti-democratic
undertones. It assumes
 242 PUSHPA SINGHo
On the other hand, thoose
educated, and thus incapable
of wise judgement. who are
of politics. However, this 1s
a flawed
argument
importantand
educated have a wiser s e n s e

not be the only

o r the most
ht can
be questioned. Education may
representative to make
appropriate moral judgement ab factor,
about the interest
enabling the concerned with furtherin
ring heir
o others.
f Representatives may get primarily own
supposed to serve, as
interests rather than that of those
whom they
scandals
and
are

in highlighted
developing societies
by the reports of c a s e s of corruption
is required to pursue her/his consti
Delegate model: A representative
representation in contrast to the nre
preferences in the delegate model of revious
discussed trustee model that rests upon
the wisdom of the
entative. In
represent

model, the representative has little o r no room for following her/his own iud
and preferences. Very clear guidance or directive is 1ssued to the person h nent
who
chosen as a delegate. The views and expectations of the represented are consido
as most important in this model. This model presupposes close proximity ofs
representative with the people she/he represents. The positive aspect of this moda
is that there is a wider canvas for popular participation. Many scholars think that
this model comes closed to the practical application of the idea of popular
sovereignty. On the negative side, as this view is based on the understanding that
the delegate will strictly follow the instructions of his or her constituency, it is most
likely to further regionalism, narrowness and conflicts. Additionally, it also limits
the scope of leadership by not allowing the delegate to use her or his own conscience
or judgement.
Mandate model: This is a new model of representation developed after the
arrival
neof modern political parties. Here, the mandate represented by the political party is
the decisive factor, and depending
upon the acceptability of that mandate, a party
wins or loses. In other words, the
representative is chosen based on the mandate or
manifesto she/he presents to the electorate. As in
contemporary times, the political
parties virtually carry on the functioning of the system. Parties contest elections,
and after winning, form
government carry on the task of legislation. This makes
to
partiesmore important compared individual politicians in present-day
to
politics, who only follow their electoral
party programme and policies. Elections are won o
lost based on the mandate of the
political
agenda gets the support of the majority wins party they stand for. The party wnos
the election. The criticism of
is that the voters are not well
informed and sometimes this moaof
habitual allegiance. The mandate show the tendenci
model limits the
policies, as the electorate cannot make choices for combinatio of
accept them in totality or reject them allany change to them. They have to etnc
to

Resemblance model: Resemblance modeltogether.

of
only those belonging to a particular representation affirms the De that an
est group and having
represent its interests. Therefore, a experience ot tnat
semble orsngbelong to
the section that representative must resemble
she/he claims to represent, or for
microcosmic Inherent in this idea is cerni

representation.
microcosm of larger
It means
that the the cO prestent
I nits
society andshould mirror the government
shou trum
purest sense, this would mean that
social traits gender, social class, religion, diversity of the societal spectruln
societal e same
the ethnicity and so fort same
ame
representative should havc
constituents and
extrapolating from the social so forth-as
eviews and attitudes
(Bara and Pennington psychological perspective, the
same

parochial speculation that only 2009, 971. This model

those who is criticizc
for
can

belong to the particular e

 Political Representation, Voting and Electoral Systems in Comparative
Perspective 243
Politics if convened only on the
eent it.
separating lines
repdivisions, conflicts and bickering. There of discrete
groups will
always
are
af service to a community even though they do not belong to it.where cases
people do
great

2.3 ELECTION AND VOTING

are
ElectionsS are the defining institutions of modern democracy (Katz 1997, 3). They have
sine qua of present-day representative democracies,
on
non
become providing political
legitimacy to the government. Elections invoke huge interests, excitement and curiosity
mong the citizens. In fact, in some countries, elections turn into the biggest public
atre, generating the greatest public debate, strong public opinions and sometimes even
od to extreme polarization of the society. The functions of elections are of two types:
hottom-up functions like representing the society, political recruitment, formation of
oovernment and moulding policy and top-down' functions like creating legitimacy, framing
public opinion, etc.
The concept of election as we understand it today is entirely distinct from its past usage.

Tthas resulted from the vigorous demands for representative government in 17th-century
The most remarkable effort in this regard has been the Reform
Europe and North America.
Parliament that expanded the base of enfranchisement significantly,
Act of 1832 of British shift
voters. The newly created electorate signified the gradual
thus creating a large pool of
House of Lords to the Commoners in the British
of political power from the elitist class and women were still deprived of franchise
Parliamentary democracy. The working extension of the suffrage
movements took up the cause for
right. Subsequently, the Chartist obstacles like literacy rules to debar
some counties employed
to all. Electoral politics of the deepening of democracy has made the c o m m o n
Nevertheless,
some groups from voting. them opportunity to get
recruited as political
It offers
people the stakeholders in politics. These developments have
and become part of governing machinery.
Tepresentatives it more participatory and egalitarian.
widened the horizon of politics, thus making

SPECIAL INSIGHTS

Referendum and Plebiscite of voting

electorate. It is a way
matter by the
voting on a public Derived trom
direct importance.
erendum signifies a matter of crucial
called to vote on a Its earliest useis
traced
the entire electorate is assembly.
ch or to be
submitted to an modern
m e a n s to carry
the 4th-century be,
though in the
Word refero, it around of
Dack city-states and
Rome
the 16th century
as integral part an
ancient Greek Swiss Canton in that difterent
practised in through voting
di has been widely rarely, and generally, it is concerns
Such a s
R e f e r e n d u m is used issues of national
lel nocracy, However, when
there are
referendum. They
are most
are filled. is sought in though there are
Deerd Eovernment changes, then the popular vote Zealand and Australia,
Onstitutional New and Argentina.
Com Denmark,
Israel, Germany
Ireland, France, Italy, such as India, Japan, The decision
of
COUmt it
Countries
s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n .

v e r used
that have never of
o n issues
r e f e r e n d u m held be so.
Plebis cite denotes:a kind of
while that of
plebiscite may
not

referendum may be gally

binding,
 244 PUSHPA SINGH
behaviour are best
iologicalexplmodel,
ained
determine the voting
influence and the socioj
Numerous factors that model, (b)
party-identification
(a)
by different theories
model isrational
the oldest
of
model
voting:
in which the dominant
electors
(d) identify
ideology model.
themselves with
Party-identifwh
specific nacation
(C the choice model and
specific parties and
role in the political socialization
important
Sociological model reflects thereby
a n
vote accordingly. Family plays
decides the choice of the party. and region the0Cla of
partisanship ethnicity, religion
alignment and divisions such as class, gender,
associate th.
themselves with. sOciety
On the
that people the group which they
vote who makes her/hi other
It suggests a s a rational agent 'his choice
rational choice model sees the voter
Dominant ideoln oice
hand,
based on the policies preferences and manifesto of a
party.
inclination. Elections and vo
ideology
e
vote based on the ideological are
suggests that the voters and their interplay, one of
of crucial factors them
conditioned and determined by a variety
the entire political process. It is meass
is the public opinion, which acts as a guard
on sured
etc. However, it may keen
or focus group, on
through opinion poll, a sample survey inaccurate information
and judgement of
based on he
Swinging and is sometimes Today's politics
becomes a dicey variable of the electoral process. ics is
Scenario. Hence, it watchful of it.
influenced by the social media, and
the parties are
greatly

12.3.1 Women and Electoral Process

corridors of power were highly restricted
It is true that the access to political domain and
medieval times. Feminists make the
to the m e n of aristocratic class in the ancient and
contention that women have been systematically and deliberately kept out of politics.t
movement in the United States, the
is only after consistent struggle of vigorous Suffrage
that resulted in
United Kingdom, France and other countries of the western hemisphere
to extend franchise
granting of female enfranchisement. New Zealand was the first country
to women in 1894 shortly followed by Australia. Norway and Finland granted their women
franchise in1914. Paradoxically, the United States and Britain, the largest democraciesot
the world, did the same as late as in 1920 and 1928, respectively. This shows the inherent
patriarchal bias of the society and the institutions it shapes. Even today, ensurnng
participation and representation of women is one of the biggest challenge as legislatur
remains as gendered institution. Women are under-represented in elections an
parliaments across the governments in the globe. They are hardly able to make to thetu
tiers of government. While some nations like that of Scandinavia may portray a
nt
better picture, the situation in the postcolonial societies is worrying. Even in pre
times, voter turnout is generally equal among women and men in most areas ofthe w
but other forms of political participation, such as party activities and involveme
protest activities, are dominated by men (Adman 2009, 315). In 1995, women were
rthest
9.4 per cent of national legislators worldwide, and women have usually lagged nr
behind in countries using majoritarian systems (MSs) (Norris 1997). the
The rising level of education and employment among women has surely na and
gender gap. Given an equal opportunity, women and men participate similar with
perform similarly, Sometimes, women tend to participate more actively compar pared
2008,
man as in the case of presidential elections of the United States between 1980 have
which witnessed a higher proportion of voter turnout of women. Different countrieso
come up with their own strategies to ensure the incorporation of more womendef
engendering parties and politics. More than hundred countries have adop gen
 Political Representation, Voting and Electoral Systems in
Comparative Perspective 245
uotas i.the
nt form of reserved seats to
d Harrop 1982, 135). improve women's
(Hague and Argentina has legally participation in legislatures
such a s Pakistan and Rwanda mark binding
special seats reserved for women gender quotas. Countries
Europe
omploys voluntary party quota where women in their
governments.
aDpear gender sensitive. Whereas there is a
parties toa as candidates are
brought on board
women in Latin America that applies to all
in Latin legally mandatory legislative by
tord parties there. Similar quota
to accommodate
dopte regional, linguistic, ethnic or
religious mechanism
hese
al mechanisms to wiaen the
contours of electoral political minorities. Despite
gements find ways and means to evade them
arrangements democracy, parties and political
ctoral system fo ensuring women's
for effortlessly. In terms of the choice of
Lh we will discuss in detail in the higher participation politics is the PR system,
in
following section. It will show us
minorities find greater chances of making to the legislature with the PR as how women and
electoral system.

12.4 ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

Electoral system denotes a frame of rules that governs the conduct of election, and these
rules vary across the countries in the world. It specifies the arrangements of the electoral
process and the method of translating the votes into seats in parliamentary elections.
Electoral system uses the aggregate of individual votes to work out the winners, the losers
and their respective share of spoils (Bara and Pennington 2009, 94). Many voting formula
and framework have been worked out in the past based on the following four principles,
namely lottery, unanimity, majority and proportionality (Colomer 2004, 14). The principle
unanimity worked for small close-knit homogeneous societies like the earlier small1
of

town hall assemblies in England and America, the ancient civilization of Mesopotamian,
in
etc.
Choosing the representatives by lottery can ensure was
rotation and
medieval local democracies. Although majority rule was used in ancient times, it was
practised
Tediscovered in recent times with the arrival of modern form of democracy. The
in the past but
PIOportionality rule is associated with fair representation. It was prevalent
ds been formalized in France in the 18th century. Of all the four bases, the majority and

proportionality foundational
basis have become the present patterns of
principles in
electoral systems.
electoral system conducts this task is called electoral
Specific ways in which the
. An electoral formula decides whether the
seats fetched by a party are directly
h this very feature, electoral systems
have
to the votes it s e c u r e s . Based on
bee nal proportional systems and
mixed system. This
clacSSified into three categories: MSs, Electoral
formula I, Electoral Formula II and
been named a s Electoral
FormulanIII,arespectively
s
(Evans 2009, 98).

12.4.1 Majorif
**.I Majoritarian Systems: First Past the Post
countries
MS is the and is followed by many
and oldest model of electoral system system or single
in the p l e s t
is First Past the Post (FPTP)
world. Its popular variant horse racing,
most derived from its
similarity to
ember plurality
t y system. The
term FPTP is
winner. Many
countries,
here f is declared the
n e to pass a particular point
India, Bangladesh,
Canada and
cludinn e United States,
United Kingdom, the
 246
PUSHPA SINGH a lower chamber. The
their
vei
It Works eis
of
countries, use
it for the
election
government ion. Tt
formation,
in a
for the from smaller ne
majority
Commonwealth

to win the effective

parliamentary
eliminating any
competition
rties and
all', entire country is
c divided into
way in which
winner takes
The territory
of the
v o t e r s are supposed toca
st
ngle
their
them to the
periphery. size. The
pushing
districts, generally
of equalballot 1or only one
candidat
member legislative
meant
t h e winner, Thi
The
candidate in single be d e c l a r e d
vote for their preferred
+ 1 vote share would setup
50 per cent
contender securing minimum
threshold of votes.
oices
choice between the contest
does not have It offers clear
usually
candidates or the political parties. aThis
re system also maintains the
many. principle of one neectoral
The advantages of FPTP system
the entire
area or electe
geographical

o n her/him. This fosters dire

candidate represents
one vote. Since, only
one
constituency lies
direct
of that vield
district in this system, the onus
constituency, ensuring greater
representative and her/his
Connection between the context has a clear mandate and
formed in this
from the former. The government
without any unwanted pressure,
unlike in
work m o r e efficiently system
will offer greater stability to the
therefore, is able to
such government
coalition government. Naturally, It does not allOW extreme orradical
chances of internal bickering.
as there are minimal
FPTP always inclines towards
moderation and
seats and win elections.
parties to secure

centrist views. MS. As this arrangement

The evaluation of functioning of
FPTPhighlights problems of
votes for winning, the
does not need absolute majority, only
a simple majority of
be winner: 35 per cent, the
three contesting candidates c a n
proportion of votes among such case, MS may not be truly
other two 34 per cent and 31 per cent. In
contestants:
it does not have mandate of even the half of the
representative of people, as in reality
undesirable as the e s s e n c e of representative politics gets
electorate. Such a scenario looks
electorate may feel left out and unrepresented which may
diluted. Considerable portion of
not be good for the system.
FPTP ends in huge wastage losing candidate and those ca
of votes, those cast for the
plurality
the mark. This is also the reason why the vote
for winning candidates, over
in tactical votng
participation is low in those countries who employ FPTP. It results
Let take an example of a hypothetical case where there are
compromise voting. us
ublic
contestants, A, B, C, D and E. If A and C are expected to win according to tne n t voter

opinion, there may be a situation where a voter prefers D to A, B, C and E, stillthe and

will vote for either A or C instead of D, as she/he will not like to waste her/his voential idential

thus have no impact on the final verdict of the elections. (For example, the US pres nt of
election of 2002 in which Al Gore lost very closely to G.W. Bush.) The other vapTP
majoritarian electoral system is the second ballot system, which is very similar tooit
The difference lies in the fact that the candidate is required to secure anoverall ma
ajorily
of votes cast for winning the first ballot., In case no
candidate gets a bau ded
ecided first
the prime two candidates undergo a second, run-off ballot by which the winner
Iran, Mali and Vietnam have this second ballot system or two-round system to
Plurality system sustains large parties with mass support and auto leads Sionof
matically

dissemination of smaller partiesS with narrow base. This may lead to sma
minorities, thus alienating them irom politics. In that sense, it p r e s e n t sg a m e i n

narties due to its alignment towards duopolistic politics, tilting under-repr ral
favour of two major parties. No doubt, the advantage of this system electo
the is that it
appea
dlhe

uncomplicat and lucid compared with other On

megative side, it fails to capture the representation variants of electoral Sys

Society. When

of wider spectrum of
the so
 Political Representation, Voting and Electoral Systems in
Comparative Perspective 247
evaluated
terms of their
representative functions, majority system
le choice for a society
wth many may not appear as
s e n s i b l e

eTed representation of women in

leads t o s k e w
competing groups. In particular, this system
keeping womer out of olitics and power. parliaments and adds on to the
practice of
greatest disadvantages of
One of the plurality system is the practice of
It is aa
defining electoral districts with an
prOcess
of de
cess of
objective to give
jerrymanderingto
It 1s or a group by playing up with the district
political advantage
a party boundaries. Usually, the party in power
manipulate the drawing of electoral districts in such a way s0 as to derive
ts from it. This has been partisan
benefi
a
rampant practice in many countries following the FPTP
em
Syste
Election can be easily manipulated by creating the constituencies based on the
ncentration of the supporters ot the party in power. Jerrymandering has emerged as a
conc

corrupt practice symbolic of unfair MSs.

12.4.2 Proportional Representation Systems: Party List System and

Single Transferrable Vote
Proportional representation (PR) systems are different from the MSs. Here, the electoral
formula is designed to ensure that the proportion of vote received by the party would bee
reflected in the proportion of the seats held in the legislature as far as posible (Evans
2009,99). The major advantage of the PR system is that while it encourages the formation
of parties, it also facilitates t h e diverse representation o f t h e society. The disadvantage is

that since there is less probability of any party getting the majority, this arrangement
produces a coalition government which may not be stable. This system is more recent
Compared with the non-proportional system and is particularly followed in European and
Latin American countries. It emerged in cotinental Europe towards the end of the 19th
and has become the
century, stimulated by associations dedicated to electoral reforms, In
choice for most democratic countries (Hague and Harrop 1982, 195).
a truecommon
OSt proportional system, parties are accorded share of seats corresponding to the
20 per cent of votes, it will
vOLesthey fetch in the elections. For example, if a party gets
to expect the PR systems to
ecelve 20 per cent of the seats. It would be too ambitious
dthe result in a purely proportional manner. The largest party still has the upper
practices. PR systems have
while smallest parties are discriminated by designs or
num electoral thresholds that indicate minimum
a vote percentage or a minimum
num O1 seats to be won by a party to get seats
in the parliament. The cardinal purpose
n small and radicalized parties that
o l d is to prevent the concentration of too many
T the threshold of 10 per cent,
CesSively fragment the assembly. Turkey practises
C cent, while Denmark and Israel have the
ny practises the threshold of 5 per
smaller parties are decimated
thres O1 2 per cent. By the logistics of the system, many Such
#L single party to win the majority of seats.
Process. It is very difficult for a
an government and can only
produce coalitions.
POst 8tment cannot produce majority in order to form government.
Therefore,
uon negotiations become usual norm and not the
man method of electing the
parliaments
8OvernPCthink that PR system is a
transferrable vote
and single
forms of PR system are party list system the
T In ninant Political parties prepare
(STV). the List PR system,
sys there multimember districts.
are
slate in the descending
candidates in the form of block o r
order of
the n a m e s of their
the individual candidates,
rather they vote
electors do not vote for
ererence. The
 248 PUSHPA SINGH
of votes is
party.
the
Whatever
percentage

party. Candreddby
garne
the entire block of allocated to the
ne
slate or
of seats is ates are
the list. For example, in a
percentage
the party, the corresponding

elected based on their order

of appearance in votes, it would fetch 20 seate
cent of
100-seat
if a political party polls 20 per the assembly.
These will be . d the
be tthe
assembly,
be supposed to send
20 members to
20 first
of these winning candidates withdraw en
if some
t h e m . There are two ma the
he
members of the list and in
case
replace
down in the list
can
candidates whose names are
list system and closed list system. In the open t
list system operates: Open for the candidates within
in which indicate their order of preference
System, voters can
vote for the complete
list. The rankingnt
whereas in the closed list system, the voters like Finland, Sweden the
Older democracies
candidates is determined by the party. Newer democracies like Russiaand
Netherlands and Norway practise open list system.
South Africa practise closed list system. Countries like Belgium, South Africa, el

Portugal, Spain and Germany employ closed party lists,

where Darh
only for a party.
electors vote

Israel, the Netherlands and Slovakia, the whole country

In PR
is treated as
one constituenc
system promotes unity in the sense that electors tend to identify with their nation
as a whole. It is bound to produce fair outcome for all parties. Additionally, it also bolsters
the representation of marginalized communities such as women and minorities, by
making their chances of election higher, if they are part of the party list. It has been
observed that the smaller parties have more women candidates in their list in orderto
attract vote and appear gender sensitive. On the other hand, the stability of the
government is jeopardized due to the looming risk of breaking up of understanding inthe
coalition. List system also leads to centralization in political party as the task of drawing
up the list procures great power to the party officials who decide which candidates to be
placed on the list and with what order of ranking.
Another variant of the PR system is the STV system in which there are
multimember
constituencies. A voter has one vote in which she/he ranks the candidates
according to
her/his preferences. The candidates who achieve the quota are elected. The excess votes
of the elected candidates go to the other candidates
ballot. If candidates fail to achieve the according next preteren
to the
indicated in the quota, those with lowest votes a
eliminated, and their votes are transferred to the next
paper. The process of eliminating candidates and transferring preference indicated on lot
required number of winners emerges. ballots is repeated unu
Itis also called Hare Clark system. This system
Droop formula to elect the candidates employs a threshold of quota

Quota= Total number of votes

casst
Number of seats to be +1
filled +1
For example, if there 20,000 votes cast
will be 20000/ (4+1) +1 for 4 seats in a
4001, After achievingat this
In case all seats are not filled, the candidate the end of the
quota,
constituency,
list gets are the electe
eliminate
declared
his vote is transferred to candidates de d her

This process continues other candidates based on the second o f t h ev o t e r

till all seats are filled. preference o enables

shment of highly proportional results. As it is evident, this

accomplishm mechanism
to win their most desired It provides
candidate.
Opportuniy

the electorate the o leads

higher turnou than the plurality Since there are no wasted
qenerates inner party compeuuon system (Hague and Harrop votes, PR syst
among the 1982, 200) towo
candidates, thus motivating
 Political Representation, Voting and Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective 249
d
I and
nerform better. Since there are many representatives chosen from the sa
harerifuency, people have options to approach any one of them, with whom they feel
c o n s t i t

comfo for redressal of their grievances. At the same time, since there are many
ortable, fo
represent
the same district, they may try to evade their responsibility, passing the
k
ers. STV is used in the following three countries: Australia, Ireland and Malta.
to other
ture of this system is that high degree of proportionality is achieved
best featur
from a
along with political diversity in constituency and candidates
The
eously
s i m u l t a n e o u s l y

mber of
political afiliations are elected (Evans 2009, 102).
parties or
(DM). It signifies the
Another important concept in PR system is District Magnitude the degree of proportionality
erumber of seats or representatives per constituency. DM defines
basic
district. The proportional factor for all systems is that the
reflected in any electoral more proportional
result
constituency siZe, the larger the DM and thus the
larger the
The system would be considered more proportional
if there are more
(Farrell 2011, 79). less discrimination
districts. Minority parties also tend to face
candidates elected from the are the Netherlands and Israel,
where 150 members of
The best examples list
in this setup. nationalist party
Kamer and 120 members of
Knesset are elected by the single elections
Tweede 2009, 100). The 2009
mostproportional system possible (Evans
and brings the several of these parties had less
than 5 per

of Israel
witnessed winning of 12 parties, and
cent of the vote.n

Member System
12.4.3 Mixed System: Additional Whereas
system.
both, the MS and the proportional
This system combines the element of procures party-based
c a n d i d a t e - b a s e d votes,
the proportional system
the MS generates rewarded with the advantages
makes it possible to be both
votes. The adoption of
mixed system ensuring best of
district electoral arrangements benefits geographical
of both PR and single-member
In order to incorporate
the of
worlds' (Shugart and Wattenberg 2001).
countries especially
in Europe have
representation and party representation,
many
conducts its election
following the
where half the country mechanical effect of
FPTP is
the mixed system, PR. The
aaopted follows the Newer
remaining half orientation of PR system.
purality system, the encompassing electoral
inclusive and
ounterchecked by the Taiwan have adopted mixed
Russia and
Ecuador, Hungary, and MSs (Norris 1997)
OCraces like the best of both proportional
the members
of the
believed to combine where half of
stems, of mixed system the single
member
Gern presents a classic case
half for the are elected by
any list and rest one vote
destag are elected by closed party two votes,
The electors have
This s e r v e s
plurality of votes.
candidate under FPTP.
ency based o n constituency smaler
Do vote for the plurality system,
party
S t System and
another
is retained through parliament.
link
constituency to the
p u r p o s e . While the their way
chance of winning
still find
t n
meagre

Law
Duverger's
System:
12.4.4 Elect
Electoral System and Party and party
. 4 correlation
between the
electoral syystem

as
Duverger's Law
is known
Maurice Duverger proposeu
uverger proposed
direct
His
affected by
conceptualization
are
the

syster in the
1960s.
political parties is shaped
S WTitings n u m b e r and strength of
that escribes how 1the system of
a country

that nature of party

electoral sys c . Duverger
proposed
 250 PUSHPA SINGH

of electoral system practised there. According to him, plurality rule elenss

n e pattern
system/FPTP tends to produce two-party systems, whereas PR tends to favour multiparts ection
system (Duverger 1954, 239). The double ballot MS promotes multiple parties alignedinte rty
wo camps. In other words, MS having single member districts tends to produce a bi-na
system, whereas PR system with multimember districts is most likely to give rise to
multiparty system. However, this interpretation would be a matter of debate. Comparative
politics scholar Stein Rokkan observes that the case may be otherwise as the PR electoral
system is the product of party system. He states that social cleavages produced multiparty
system in Europe long before the introduction of PR system (Rokkan 1970). Similarly
Raymond Miller in his study of party politics of New Zealand states that political
fragmentation and fracturing of the two-party system preceded the adoption of a PR-based
voting system, and not otherwise (Miller 2005, 13). This also hints towards the fact that
electoral systems get influenced and even reconstituted, as in case of New Zealand, by
party system and other political circulations. On the other hand, there are interesting
exceptions like India and Canada who, despite following the FPTP plurality system, have
yet not gravitated into neat two-party systems. They remain vibrant multiparty systems
with numerous national and regional parties. The recent developments in party politics
in India tend to generate two poles represented by the BJP and the Congress and rest of
the smaller parties adhere to one or the other pole. However, this would not amount to
the two-party framework that Duverger is referring to.

12.5 ELECTORAL DESIGNS, REFORMS AND REPRESENTATION:

SOME THEORETICAL REFLECTIONS
Charles Boix in his interesting paper 'Setting the Rule of the Game: The Choice of
Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies (1999) states that as long as the electoral
arena remains the same, and favours the ruling parties, electoral
system is not changed.
If there is change in electoral dynamics due to coming of new voters or
alterations in
voter's preference, then the ruling party reshapes the electoral setup to suit
their choices
(Boix 1999, 603). Therefore, the design and pattern of electoral scheme is not
frequenty
prone to changes unless the need for it is realized by the government. However, recently
there have been a lot of debates on the reforms in the electoral systems.
There have been
rising demand, particularly from minorities sections to make electoral systems more
proportional. The unfairness of plurality, MS and the disproportionate result they produce
has been a cause of constant worry in many countries. The Electoral
Reform Society
political pressure group of the United Kingdom, has been asking for doing away with
for all elections, national and local. For a long time, this group has been emphasizing to
FPTP is neither able to capture the political imaginations of all people nor
the diverse spectrum ot society. Similarly, electoral reform
conducive
organization Proportuo
Representation Society of Australia has been persistently advocating for PR VO
svstems and STV, In Canada, many provincial and national organizations have een

insisting on adopting party PlR. Many countries have already started the

direction reforms.
of For example, New Zealand started its electoral
moving s it

shifted from FPTP Mixed Member Proportional Representation.

to reform in 1980,
At present, there is a strong consensus in favour of PR nding
based on the understatnd
that it will usually mitigate the impact of skewed
representation. Parties represc
 Political
Representation, Voting and Electoral Systems in
Comparative Perspective 251
inority grOups and
ideologies will be
parties
argaining for reforms allowingsafeguarded.
bar
PR
all parties the appears to be the safer choice for
s y s t e m .
for
The push fo
representative
models of electoral
to retain ability
their stake in the
ontemporary thec eoretical
and
philosophical
sources like from the
is designs
from various coming
Iris Marion Yo
oung, Anne Melissa Phillips, works of scholars such
pleads for a system that can Williams,Jane
Mansbridge, etc. Iris Marion
Young capture the descriptive
Young 1990), while
inorities (You Phillips
sees the possibility representation of racial
5heration by representatives belonging to minority racial groupsof enhanced legislative
dems the author of Voice, Trust, and Memory: (Phillips 1995). Melissa
Willia
Marginalized
heral Representation1998), elaborates the basic problem Groups and the Failings of
with
nresentation. She strongly believes that a constituency with minority the of
models cann
population
repr
connect and pursue its aspiration through a
belongs to that race or ethnicity. As the members ofrepresentative
best
herself/himself who
the racial/ethnic groups share the
same social perspective and their lives are grounded in similar experiences, it becomes
more sensible for them to demand for an electoral scheme that can best capture their
Specificities. Jane Mansbridge, professor at Harvard, has meticulously worked in the area
of democracy and models ofrepresentation discussed in her co-authored book Deliberative
Sustems (2012). She rallies for having a large number of minority representatives that
should be able to consolidate common minority interests, simultaneously displaying the
in her seminal
internal diversity of the group (Mansbridge 1999). Elizabeth Anderson
out the dilemmas of politics of
work The Imperative of Integration (2010) brings discrimination,
representation. Her extensive research showcases how the racial
lives of people
oppression and injustice pervading in all corners of the everyday
are still
not deliver racial
American society. She believes that the politics of segregation may
inthe and all other aspects
instead comprehensive racial integration in legislative bodies
justice, neighbourhood) will surely hold
the key to a more
of

lives workplace,
(like in and
schools
(Anderson 2010).
equaland representative society believe that in ethnically divided societies like that of
Scholars, like Arend Lijphart, electoral system. It would
PR a s the most appropriate
appears as all diverse small groups
developing countries, in the political system,
consociational approach ethnic conflicts,
Strengthen the their voices. Despite deep-rooted
find political space for asserting
and
mutual sharing of power
will able to arrive at a c o n s e n s u s for
in instilling
Lnese groups will be also believes in the remarkability of PR
Benjamin Reilly c o n s o c i a t i o n a l i s t s argue

DEnefits. Like Lijphart, terms of electoral

systems,
all sections. In ethnic groups, including
CIUSiveness among
it enables all significant
best choice, as and thereby gain
lat party-list PR is the themselves' into ethnically based parties the community as a
Lorities, to 'define to their numbers in of 13
in proportion comparative study
esentation in the parliament carried out a
with PR
Lijphart the systems
whe L i j p h a r t 1990, 10). Arend he discovered that these
and 1980 in which of their society. Of all
der
OCracies between 1960
of different groups countries, Belgium, Finland,
representative
m o r e Scandinavian member
a s much
PR (three used single
Co
Countr under study, nine
used
and four
democracies
c o u n t r i e s with
PR
Es and the
Netherlands) The Canada). voter
e r m a n y , Italy Britain and witnessed higher
pluralk S y s t e m (New Zealand, Australia, minorities and also
and
Dro of w o m e n based
roduced higher representation

so.
Robert G. Moser,

turnout (Lijphart 1994, 79). who might

not be
convinced

may
not
necessarily

scholars that PR system ethnicparties.

iowever, there a r e system in
Russia, says
system
minimal
with
on his study of electoral in
representation
a
,udy
translatento
increased
minority
252 PUSHPA SINGH

and cultural characteristics of the minoritie.

ies
He further says that it is the demographic and minority representation (Mose
between electoral system
that will shape the linkages
2008, 273).

SPECIAL INSIGHTS

Consociational Democracy
or representation
is associated with Arend
The concept of consociational model of democracy
Politics. In his work Patterns of Democracy
Lijphart, an eminent scholar of Comparative Yale University
Countries (New Haven, CT:
Govermment Forms and in
Performance Thirty six of accommoda-
Press, 1984), he proposes that consociational democracy based on the politics
it develops mechanisms of
tion of diverse voices works best for deeply divided countries,
as

and social groups of that society. It

elite power sharing across all major religious, cultural
also includes the feature of decentralization of political power to subnational groups.

electoral system. The shift in the

Many countries keep on experimenting with their
electoral system would bring drastic changes in the political institutions of a country.
France adopted a highly proportional system from 1946 to 1958, thereby allowing
representation of smaller and highly diverse parties in the legislature. This resulted into
a very unstable and ineffective government. To overcome this problem, France reverted
back to two ballot plurality systenm in 1959. The impact was profound. Overal, the
number of parties in France decreased, smaller parties vanished away, some merged into
the larger ones creating two strong parties on the left: communists and socialists and on
the right UDF (Union for French Democracy Party) and Gaullists. The effect was equally
visible on the office of president, making the charismatic Charles De Gaulle very strong
and forcing the other parties to regroup. However, newer dynamics is again reshaping the
electoral arena of France in the wake of globalization, the growing dominance of the EU,
and redundancy of old political divide in old part systems (Evans 2009, 110). The example
of France proves that the electoral system and party system are intrinsically linked, and
change in one is bound to cause change in the other.

12.6REFLECTIONS FROM POSTCOLONIAL SOCIETIESsoilt

It is quite fascinating to analyse the ways in which
representative
politics have unfoldea
inthe postcolonial societies of Asia, Africa and Latin America. These societies have beet
under colonial subjection for a prolonged time, and the impacts are still visible on the
institutional and political processes, Unfortumately, most of these
extension of colonial state apparatus in terms of their countries appear to
oversized state under small ruling elite. institutional functioning, with
Though these countries started their jour
with representative democracy, the political
leadership has been largely confinea
handful of leaders who command their allegiance
a

to the system due to their

linkto the country's independence movement. foretatn
Also, the nature of representation 1n se

u
 Political Representation, Voting and Electoral 5ystems in Cormparative Perspeaive
253
countries has been
i e s has formal, focusing more on the procedural aspects
of democracy, With
phases of democratization, all groups in such societies,
subsequent p.
who have been
t access to mainstream, started asserting their
ightful claims on public
drtunities and institutions. Since these societies are ethnically and culturally
Op one to violence, the majoritarian forms of democracy accentuate such divided
and pr
ally excluding the minorities (Linder and Bachtiger 2005 In
problerns
many developing
Dyties, electoral competition is a bid for ownership of the state and
groups minoríty
eing an election does not account to simply losing office, but to having no access to the
Lurces of the state and thus losing the mneans for protecting the survival of the group
(Makinda 1996).
From the time of their independence in the early 19th century, most of the Latin
American countries made their attempts to establish electoral processes and dernocratic
regimes.
regn
These efforts failed, unfortunately, and dictatorial and oligarchic groups took to
Dower. Only three major electoral democracies could sustain themselves between 1900
d 1930, Argentina (1916-29), Mexico (1911-13) and Uruguay (1919-33). Surprisingy,
some of the most affluent nations witnessed the subversion and breakdown of dernocracies
inLatin America: Brazil in 1954, Argentina in 1955, and again in 1964, Chile in 1973 and
Uruguay in 1963. However, by 1980, global political changes started catalysing the
process of democratization in Latin America. The internalization of the finance market,
receding impact of revolutionary threat, constrains of domestic policy choice and political
learnings have converged at reduction in incentives and opportunities for authoritarian
reversals (Remmer 1993). The mid-1980s the shift of Brazil and Argentina
saw civilian to
regime; in 1989, the dictatorial regime of Pinochet in Chile buckled under public pressure.
Jennifer L.
This process of transition has been intermittent and incomplete as pointed by
in making democracy
McCoy. She captures the failure of the Latin American state
entitlements to people. Latin American
inclusive by granting citizenship rights and other with the system after two and
Citizens arebeginning to express their growing frustration
that promised an improvement in living
a half decades of democracy and market reforms these efforts. It is only upon the
standards (McCoy 2008). The challenge lies in sustaining forms of
and accountable institutions that new
1oundations of strong representative
2005).
political participation would be instituted (Panizza
have showcased different trajectories of their
interestingly, in Asia, different countries Countries such as Kazakhstan,
tngagement with democracy and electoral process. with
continue to reel under authoritarian regimes
ZDekistan, North Korea and Myanmar case
On the other hand, India presents
a
no presence of representative politics.
or ritualism around elections, while
celebratory
per anchoring of democracy with huge Scholars assign the reason to
other societies have faltered on this aspect in Asia. Mass political
politics and
electoral
accommodative framework of the country.
Dorant the democratic
marginalized sections in the electoral politics has expanded
Cipation of social justice and ensuring equity
to all must
narp of the country. However,
e
delivering
e
Temain the
In c a ,prim
commitment of the regimes.
achieved independence vanished away
in thin air, a s
the promises of newly powers and
Cha life figures after amassing
harismt c leaders started playing larger than
withholding elections
and other
Tesource The subver ersion of democratic politics
began by face
w e r e held for the
elections w e r e held, they
institut
Valuens of representation. If
at all
continued to rule their countries
Leaders
as

w e r e regularly
manipulated. treated a s treason
in many
heir ffeudaland
their fiet of criticism or opposition
kind
was
1efdoms. Any
 PUSHPA SINGH
254
such regimes. The dictatorial lineage and wanton brutality were renli
of colonizers were replicated
in actions of postindependent leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, SekouSekou TToure
of Guinea Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia and Arap Moi of Kenya (Nwauwa 1992, 378)
example, President Honsi Mubarak continued to play with the system in Egypt. He wa
vas
later overthrown after Arab uprising. The changed scenario
increased domestic pressu
sures
for change for better governance and to end corruption. Greater democratization requir
protection and promotion of civic and human rights and making the entire svst uired
conducive for a free economy (Decalo 1992, 15). Now that many African states hae
started afresh, electoral democracy must not remain administrative formalities. It is i
this context that prospects of democracy are reshaping in African continent as ripnie
effect of democracy has led to greater stress on encompassing all ethnic groups and tribes
in the development process in contemporary times.
At
same time, one must be also cautious of the discernible politics
the
overenthusiastic push for democratization from the western hemisphere.
behind the
The implicit
agenda of the West is to manage the global capitalism. However, the capitalist forces
understand well that in order to make the globe more conducive to their
utmost necessary to forge
interests, it is
democracy in the Third World. This will immediately draw
developing countries into the vortex of international capital, and at the same time will
allow the West to manoeuvre such
engagements to their own benefit.

12.7 CONCLUSION
We cannot ascertain
any particular model of electoral
and perfect for all countries. It will system universally applicable
as

which will decide about the

depend
on the context and
requirement of that system
suitability.
electoral process, and if that becomes Every society adopts a discrete method of
institutionalized. The discussion in thiswidely acceptable and stable over time,
it becomes
is increasingly favoured chapter elaborated how the proportional
by many societies as it
appears to be more
system
whereas MSs generate risk of
systematically excluding the aspirations representative,
percentage of electorate, by the very
rooted ethnic, religious or ethnic design of it. For societies, which are of substantial
raven by deep
system may prove more inclusive divisions,
like Mali, Russia or
(Lijphart 2007). At the same time,Israel, the proportional
may also reinforce rather than proportional systenm
ameliorate these
arrangements must work towards that cleavages (Tseblis 1980). The institutional
aspirations of all groups of the society, optimum where it can
capture the discrete
and responsive. yet at the same time,
keep the system eficien
r

KEYWORDS
Consociationalism
Elections Mixed system
Electoral systems
Majoritarian system
DProportional system
Representation o
oVoting