Posts tagged electoral systems

From pritheworld: A New York City Council hearing reviewed a proposal that would give legal immigrants the right to vote. New York City Councilman Daniel Dromm sponsored the bill. He is a democrat, and represents District 25 in the city, including the immigrant-rich neighborhoods of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst. http://ow.ly/kVs6X  A number of countries (including Chile) give resident immigrants the right to vote. The logic is simple: They pay taxes, so they should have representation. Besides, another argument is that voting rights will make them stakeholders in holding government accountable.

From pritheworld:

A New York City Council hearing reviewed a proposal that would give legal immigrants the right to vote. New York City Councilman Daniel Dromm sponsored the bill. He is a democrat, and represents District 25 in the city, including the immigrant-rich neighborhoods of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst. http://ow.ly/kVs6X 

A number of countries (including Chile) give resident immigrants the right to vote. The logic is simple: They pay taxes, so they should have representation. Besides, another argument is that voting rights will make them stakeholders in holding government accountable.

Voting Rights Act, in comparative perspective

The oral arguments have started in the Supreme Court on a new challenge to the US Voting Rights Act. In particular, the challenge is to the provision that requires certain jurisdictions (mostly southern states) to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to voter ID laws or redistricting. The New Yorker has an interesting take on this, focusing on some of Justice Scalia’s interesting arguments. 

Apparently, Scalia wonders whether it’s improper (or even unconstitutional) for the federal government to treat some states differently. I agree with the counter argument that voting rights protections are not an “entitlement” (as Scalia defines them), and that the history of racism and segregation justifies such protections. 

Instead, I’m willing to concede Scalia’s argument to him, but with a (comparative) caveat. And I’m drawing here on the example of Switzerland.

For all of its reputation as a “liberal” country, Switzerland is actually rather conservative. In fact, it was one of the last countries in the world to grant women the right to vote, in 1971 (for comparison, women won the right to vote in Iran in 1963).

But there’s an interesting twist: Because of Swizterland’s unique form of federalism, individual cantons have tremendous political autonomy—even on issues of rights. Some Swiss cantons didn’t give women the right to vote for many years after 1971. In fact, the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden didn’t grant women the right to vote until 1990.

So what happened between 1971 and 1990? Well, fairly simple: Women in Appenzell Innerhoden could vote in federal elections, but not in local elections. Why? Because federal elections in Switzerland (and in most countries) are managed by federal agencies, while local elections are managed by local agencies.

Perhaps you see where I’m going with this. See, in the United States, even federal elections are managed by local bodies (either at the state or country level). That’s why we have so many different ballots (remember Florida 2000?) and types of voting machines across the country on presidential elections. But why should local agencies run federal elections? There’s no real reason for it. Certainly not any spelled out in the US Constitution (at least not that I’m aware of). 

So one solution to the Voting Rights Act (at least for the purposes of federal elections) would be to simply announce that federal offices (elections to the House, the Senate, and the Presidency) will be managed by a single federal agency that would proscribe a single, universal voting system for all the offices (a uniform ballot, etc.). States would be free to elect their local offices with whatever rules they choose (subject to some federal oversight to protect civil liberties, of course). This might also require the federal government (not states) to draw the district lines for House seats. Or, more to my liking, we could move to either a list-PR or SNTV system using multimember districts. 

Either way, it simply doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense (to me) for states to have such a significant impact on how federal elections are handled. If they want autonomy from the federal regulations, then the simplest way is just to hand over those responsibilities to a federal electoral authority. After all, most countries (even federal ones) have one. They seem to prefer professional, impartial election management staff to running things by ad hoc assortments of partisans and amateurs. 

Beyond this being a fascinating story about immigration, I’m interested in what this says about electoral institutional dynamics (broadly defined). Can politically engaging young people (even those too young to vote) alter the voting behavior of adults? Seems worth looking into. There’s definitely a good thesis/dissertation project in it.

From 18mr:

The Ali Family, Midlothian, VA
Grandparents Mohammed and Safia Ali have been voters for over 25 years. But in 2008, the enthusiasm of their children, Razi with wife Sumayra, and daughter Nadira, had Grandpa and Grandma not only voting but volunteering! Their grandchildren, Tayyib and Raihaan have already heard many thoughtful and passionate political debates and seen their parents and grandparents proudly wear “I Voted” stickers from many elections.

The Ashraf Family, Brookfield, WI
Dad Ashraf has voted in many presidential elections, Mom Ashraf voted in her first in 2000 after becoming a US Citizen. Both parents voted casually - making decisions based on campaign ads or coworker opinions. But after daughter Zainab became politically active in college, she educated her parents on the importance of state and local elections and the need to really know candidates’ positions before casting their ballot. Today, Mom and Dad Ashraf are volunteers for GOTV efforts in every election and attend every political rally they can get into. 

The Khaja Family, Charlottesville, VA
Minhaj and Maryam want public education for their son Musa to better than their own. They want more creative teachers, more diverse classrooms, curricula that consist of real-world preparation and the People’s history over the textbook company’s history. They are both actively engaged in school board discussions and extremely educated about every city council member’s position on public education. And Musa will come with them to the voting booth every year until he’s ready to cast his own ballot.

The Akthar-Khaleel Family, Washington, DC
Newlyweds Wajiha Akthar and Awais Khaleel both come from hardworking South Asian immigrant families who wanted the best for their children. What they got was a political dynamic duo, Awais a lawyer and Wajiha a PhD candidate in public health, who are not only voters but activists in the fields of civil rights and mental health.

Studies show that when children have parental assistance with homework, they perform better in school. I would bet that when parents have children’s assistance with voting, they feel better about life in general. South Asians typically come from close knit families where parents offer plenty of motivation to their children to do well in school. Today, in 2012, we are learning that children are motivating their parents to get involved civically, to become a part of the American political process, to vote.

Many South Asians came to the US in the late 1960s and 1970s with the passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Highly skilled, these folks came to the US in search of economic opportunity and stability. After obtaining citizenship, they built wonderful lives for their children, the first generation South Asian Americans. We reaped many benefits this country had to offer the middle class - quality housing, great education. But we also felt the pains this country could inflict - institutionalized racism, social disenfranchisement.

After working so hard and after contributing so much to the economy, why were we still not seen as an integral part of American society?

While our parents were busy establishing their careers, building stable homes, and guaranteeing us many privileges, they were forgetting the importance of the American political process. They wanted our schools to be the best, but they did not vote for school board.  They wanted our neighborhoods to be clean, but had no idea when city council elections were held. They bought into the American Dream with such fervor - we control our own success, if we work hard enough we will make it - they didn’t realize that actually, elected officials and their policies strongly controlled our paths to success too.

The good news is, us kids, the first generation South Asian Americans, figured this out. We are educating our parents and taking them to the polls. We are questioning their lack of involvement and challenging them to vote - not just for President - but for state and local offices as well. And we are raising kids who will hopefully be even more politically engaged than we are, who will run for office and win and create policies of fairness and equality and continue to educate us, like we did our parents, on how to be real, true, citizens of this American democracy.

Fatima Ashraf is currently a Virginia 18 Million Rising Fellow and a former Senior Policy Advisor on Health and Education to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in New York City. She is currently mobilizing voters in Virginia for All Hands On Deck, a national organization committed to amplifying progressive youth voices in the political process.

18mr

In any other democracy, voters nationwide would have cast their votes on the same kind of balloting equipment, subject to the same rules.


The parties would have had a minimal role in supervising the election, and certainly would not have been allowed to ask for rule changes as the vote occurred.

The voting would have been overseen by a national election commission, not by local judges, who might be nonpartisan — but who very well might not.

Americans worry more about voter fraud than do voters in other countries, because they are the only country without a reliable system of national identification.

In no other country, including federal systems such as Germany, Canada and Australia, does the citizen’s opportunity to vote depend on the affluence and competence of his or her local government.

In every other democracy, the vote is the means by which the people choose between the competing political parties — not one more weapon by which the parties compete.

The United States is an exceptional nation, but it is not always exceptional for good. The American voting system too is an exception: It is the most error-prone, the most susceptible to fraud, the most vulnerable to unfairness and one of the least technologically sophisticated on earth. After the 2000 fiasco, Americans resolved to do better. Isn’t it past time to make good on that resolution?

David Frum, America’s voting system is a disgrace - CNN.com (via dendroica)

—this is completely true (Politicalprof)

This is also why those of us who study electoral systems want to tear our hair out every election day

CNN

One of these weeks I should make a list of countries with low voting ages (some go as low as 15 years old). How would lowering the voting age affect political campaigns? Would we start to focus more on education—and in different ways? From breakingnews: Argentina lowers voting age to 16 BBC: Argentina’s Congress has approved a law to lower the voting age to 16. The move will take effect for key midterm elections next year. Critics say the change is designed to boost President Cristina Fernandez’s party’s chances in the 2013 polls. Supporters say it will widen political participation. Voting is obligatory for those aged 18 to 70 in Argentina. It will be optional for those who are 16 and 17. Photo via AFP

One of these weeks I should make a list of countries with low voting ages (some go as low as 15 years old). How would lowering the voting age affect political campaigns? Would we start to focus more on education—and in different ways?

From breakingnews:

Argentina lowers voting age to 16

BBC: Argentina’s Congress has approved a law to lower the voting age to 16. The move will take effect for key midterm elections next year.

Critics say the change is designed to boost President Cristina Fernandez’s party’s chances in the 2013 polls. Supporters say it will widen political participation.

Voting is obligatory for those aged 18 to 70 in Argentina. It will be optional for those who are 16 and 17.


Photo via AFP

BBC

2012 Greek Parliamentary Elections (from themonkeycage.org): This is a historic low for the two dominant parties ruling Greece since the collapse of the Junta in 1974, PASOK and Nea Demokratia.  Together they garnered only 33% of the vote. The result was hard to anticipate—especially the second place for the Coalition of Radical Left (SYRIZA), with 16,77%. Less unexpected was the electoral success of Independent Hellenes (10,6%) on the right and Golden Dawn on the far right (7%). A coalition government seems highly unlikely at the moment if one considers tonight’s statements by party leaders. It is interesting to note that more than 19% (!) of the vote was garnered by parties that did not ultimately make it to the parliament. These include: Popular Orthodox Rally-LAOS, Democratic Alliance, DRASI (Action), Dimiourgia Xana (Recreate Greece), Social Agreement (Koinoniki Symfonia), and the Green Party (Oikologoi Prasinoi). Finally, 35% of the Greek electorate—more than 3 million people—did not go to vote. These people may now be regretting their choice to not participate. There are many messages that one can draw. People voted against the two-party system—that can no longer fulfill its side of the “patronage contract”—and against austerity measures. Yet, they voted—at least nominally—in favor of a European future. Another thing that is apparent is that the current electoral law produces odd and hardly representative results. For instance New Democracy received 2 percentage points more than the Coalition of Radical Left but this difference resulted in 56 more seats for the former party. Moreover, as a result of fragmentation of the party system, parties that did not make it to the parliament have collectively received a higher percentage than the first party, which receives 108 seats! The European leaders are numb and will probably wait and see whether a government can be formed before they react to the result. This electoral result was not really expected and it increases the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Eurozone since a stable government in Greece seems unlikely. If we combine the Greek result with Hollande’s victory in France—and the expected friction in Franco-German relations—the markets will most likely react negatively and remain volatile until things clear out. This is a good overview of the recent Greek elections. As well as an excellent example of the impact electoral system has on results. Case in point: The largest block of votes went to parties that won no seats in the legislature, and equal to 102 seats for the first place part.

2012 Greek Parliamentary Elections (from themonkeycage.org):

This is a historic low for the two dominant parties ruling Greece since the collapse of the Junta in 1974, PASOK and Nea Demokratia.  Together they garnered only 33% of the vote. The result was hard to anticipate—especially the second place for the Coalition of Radical Left (SYRIZA), with 16,77%. Less unexpected was the electoral success of Independent Hellenes (10,6%) on the right and Golden Dawn on the far right (7%). A coalition government seems highly unlikely at the moment if one considers tonight’s statements by party leaders. It is interesting to note that more than 19% (!) of the vote was garnered by parties that did not ultimately make it to the parliament. These include: Popular Orthodox Rally-LAOS, Democratic Alliance, DRASI (Action), Dimiourgia Xana (Recreate Greece), Social Agreement (Koinoniki Symfonia), and the Green Party (Oikologoi Prasinoi). Finally, 35% of the Greek electorate—more than 3 million people—did not go to vote. These people may now be regretting their choice to not participate.

There are many messages that one can draw. People voted against the two-party system—that can no longer fulfill its side of the “patronage contract”—and against austerity measures. Yet, they voted—at least nominally—in favor of a European future. Another thing that is apparent is that the current electoral law produces odd and hardly representative results. For instance New Democracy received 2 percentage points more than the Coalition of Radical Left but this difference resulted in 56 more seats for the former party. Moreover, as a result of fragmentation of the party system, parties that did not make it to the parliament have collectively received a higher percentage than the first party, which receives 108 seats!

The European leaders are numb and will probably wait and see whether a government can be formed before they react to the result. This electoral result was not really expected and it increases the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Eurozone since a stable government in Greece seems unlikely. If we combine the Greek result with Hollande’s victory in France—and the expected friction in Franco-German relations—the markets will most likely react negatively and remain volatile until things clear out.

This is a good overview of the recent Greek elections. As well as an excellent example of the impact electoral system has on results. Case in point: The largest block of votes went to parties that won no seats in the legislature, and equal to 102 seats for the first place part.

Teaching About Electoral Systems

This semester I had a chance to develop and teach a seminar on electoral systems and party systems. The course has been heavily metrics based, with a strong emphasis on how to calculate a number of metrics used in the study of elections and parties. 

So far so good, with most of the students successfully learning how to calculate the effective number of parties and electoral volatility. They were tested on this on the midterm: I was pleased that, given a table of data (for a fictitious country, Oz), they were able to calculate both measures in under an hour (while also working on a short essay question).

For the final exam, I’m upping the ante: Given a table of election results, they’ll have to calculate the seat distribution using a “largest remainder” system (Imperiali) and a “highest average” system (pure Sainte-Laguë). They’ll then have to also decide wether a 7% electoral threshold would alter the seat distribution in any way.

You know, the saying in France is that in the first round you vote for your friends, you vote for your heart, and in the second round you vote against your enemy. That is to, say what motivates to you go to vote is to eliminate the candidate that you really do not want to see as a president.

Justin Vaisse, Brookings Institution, on President Nicolas Sarkozy taking second place to socialist candidate Francois Hollande in France’s first-round elections Sunday. (via newshour)

A great explanation of the two-round voting system used in France. I wonder how well it applies elsewhere?

Will the far right be the kingmaker in France’s presidential election? (+video) The Christian Science Monitor, csmonitor.com French President Nicolas Sarkozy told roaring crowds last night that it is “crunch time” now that the presidential election has been narrowed down to a May 6 runoff between him and Socialist challenger François Hollande, to whom he lost by one point in the first round of elections yesterday. A high 81 percent turnout rate in national elections combined, unusually, with low voter enthusiasm captured something of the political disillusionment. But also the high stakes for the future at a time when five governments in Europe have collapsed over fallout from the ongoing debt crisis.  Continue reading An interesting look at the French presidential election—with an emphasis on strategic party behavior. What is in Le Pen’s best interest? To push the French government further to the right (her policy preferences), but risk strengthening her center-right competitor? Or to allow the Socialists to win the presidency (contrary to her policy preferences), but weaken her only competitor on the right—and set herself up for a stronger position at the next election?

Will the far right be the kingmaker in France’s presidential election? (+video)
The Christian Science Monitor, csmonitor.com

French President Nicolas Sarkozy told roaring crowds last night that it is “crunch time” now that the presidential election has been narrowed down to a May 6 runoff between him and Socialist challenger François Hollande, to whom he lost by one point in the first round of elections yesterday.

A high 81 percent turnout rate in national elections combined, unusually, with low voter enthusiasm captured something of the political disillusionment. But also the high stakes for the future at a time when five governments in Europe have collapsed over fallout from the ongoing debt crisis. 

Continue reading

An interesting look at the French presidential election—with an emphasis on strategic party behavior. What is in Le Pen’s best interest? To push the French government further to the right (her policy preferences), but risk strengthening her center-right competitor? Or to allow the Socialists to win the presidency (contrary to her policy preferences), but weaken her only competitor on the right—and set herself up for a stronger position at the next election?

Talking about the single transferable vote (STV) electoral system in INST 316 (Electoral Systems & Party Systems). STV is used in only a small handful of countries in the world—one of which is Ireland. We went over how it works on Monday, took a break to talk about linear regression on Wednesday, and today will have a student report on how STV affects Irish elections.

I thought it might be useful to help explain the Irish political system—and particularly its deep roots in the Irish Civil War of 1922-23—through music. The war came on the heels of Irish independence, which began in earnest with the Easter Rising of 1916 (which inspired the famous ballad, “Foggy Dew”). If you’re looking for a great Irish history site, there’s none better than the National Library of Ireland, which has a great online exhibit of the 1916 Rising.

So I’m playing for my students the Black 47 song “Big Fellah.” I think the song does a good job of laying the groundwork for the basic framework for understanding post-independence Irish politics: The Irish rose up in 1916 using the [Dublin] GPO (General Post Office) as headquarters, fought together against the “black & tans” (the English), but then became divided over the terms of the peace treaty (which “came back with an Ireland divided up in two!”), then fought a civil war amongst themselves. The song also focuses on Michael Collins (the subject of a recent film, staring Liam Neeson), who was later killed by his former partisans because he backed the partition settlement.

If you want to watch a more powerful film on the subject, I highly recommend The Wind that Shakes the Barley. It’s the tragic story of two brothers who fight for Irish independence, then end up on different sides in the Irish Civil War. That film, perhaps more than any other, shows the political divisions between what later became the two most powerful parties in Ireland: Fianna Fáil (the party that opposed the partition treaty) and Fine Gael (the party that supported the partition treaty).