ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND POLITICAL PARTIES
1. Electoral System
As described previously, electoral systems, simply put, are voting systems; an
electoral system provides a set of rules that dictate how elections (and other voting
initiatives) are conducted and how results are determined and communicated.
Elections are the mechanism through which leaders get chosen around the world.
Rules that are relevant to an electoral system can include those that lay out when
elections occur, who is allowed to vote, who is allowed to run as a candidate, how
ballots are collected and can be cast, how ballots are counted, and what constitutes a
victory. Usually, voting rules are set forth by constitutions, election laws, or other legal
mandates.
1.1 Types of Electoral System
There are a number of different types of electoral systems. First, the
plurality voting system is one where the candidate who gets the most votes,
wins. In this system, there is no requirement to attain a majority, so this system
can sometimes be called the first-past-the-post system (FPTP). The
consequence of this system is that a candidate can win an election with less
than 50% of the vote, especially in a multiparty system (discussed below). This
is used in the U.S., and it is the second most common election type for
presidential elections and elections for legislative members around the world.
First-past-the-post systems are also common in single-member district systems
(SMD). Simply, all electoral systems depend on the creation of districts, which
are territorial boundaries from which representatives are drawn.
Representatives are chosen from these districts. In a single-member district,
only one person represents each district. Second, the majoritarian voting
system is one where, as the name suggests, candidates must win a majority in
order to win the election. If they do not win a majority, there needs to be a runoff
election. Many single-member districts have instituted a runoff in order to make
sure that the eventual winner has received the support from the majority of
voters. Next, another voting system is called ranked choice voting (RCV) or
instant runoff vote (IRV). The simplest version of this system allows voters to
rank candidates in order of their preference, rather than having one choice.
Voters’ first preference are counted and if no candidate gets a majority, the
candidate with the lowest total is eliminated, and the votes for the last place
candidate are redistributed to those voters’ second-choice. A second round
commences, following the same pattern. This process continues until one
candidate has a majority.
Growing frustration with the electoral process in the US has led to
increased demand for electoral reform. Ranked choice voting has become an
increasingly popular suggestion. RCV is compatible with single-member
districts, which the US has, and it is believed by some that using this system
would better reflect the will of the people over the current plurality system. Two
states use RCV statewide: Alaska and Maine. Several other states and
municipalities use it for local elections, but not statewide. At the same time,
however, two states have banned the use of RCV: Tennessee and Florida
(Richie et al., 2021).
Finally, the proportional voting system is one where seats are allocated
according to the percentage of the vote. For instance, if 10% of the population
vote for Political Party A, then the country’s legislature will allow for 10% of its
seats to be allocated to representatives from Party A. Because the number of
seats is allocated by percentage of the vote, most proportional voting systems
are also multimember district systems. This simply means that multiple people
represent each district, rather than one. The number of representatives from
each district will vary greatly. This is called district magnitude.
2, Political Parties
Political parties also play a very important role, not only in elections, but in how
a political agenda get accomplished in different countries. Political parties exist in
almost every sovereign state today, even North Korea, although the influence and
power of parties varies greatly. Political parties are groups of people who are organized
under shared values to get their candidates elected to office to exercise political
authority. Beyond getting candidates elected, political parties also provide a training
ground for future political leaders and develop loyalty among citizens and voters.
At this point, it is interesting to consider political parties in the context of US
democracy. American Founders didn’t plan for parties; in fact, they warned against
them. Political philosopher Edmund Burke (2002) was very influential in early America
and he considered parties to be good. They protect the people from an abusive
monarch or factions within the government. James Madison in Federalist 10 offered
this definition of faction: “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or
minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of
passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and
aggregate interests of the community.” He believed that if factions must exist, it is
better to have too many than too few. That way, as President George Washington
stated in his farewell address, myriad factions, and by extension multiple political
parties, make it “less likely…that a majority of the whole will have a common motive
to invade the rights of other citizens.”
Despite some of the skepticism of America’s founders regarding parties, they
have become an indispensable tool for modern democracy. Being able to freely vote
for and participate in competing parties is considered one of the cornerstones of
democratic states. In less democratic states, parties may be illegal or barred in some
other way from fully participating in government, with the exception of a few preferred
parties. The best way to compare different countries regarding their political parties is
by looking at a country’s party system. This simply refers to how many political parties
are typically active at any given time, as well as any patterns these parties display in
a state.
2.1 Types of Party Systems
2.1.1 Dominant and Single Party System
A dominant party structure is one in which one party tends to win
elections over a long period of time. Exactly how long is not defined. This can
happen for several reasons. First, it can happen in a democracy where a
particular party wins frequently simply because its agenda and messages
resonate with the most people. South Africa is an example of a democratic
dominant party government. The African National Congress (ANC) has
governed the country since 1994, when apartheid was officially disbanded.
(See Comparative Case Study: South Africa and Iraq for more on South Africa
and the ANC). Second, it can happen in less democratic states when parties
are banned, or other barriers are put in the way to prevent rival parties from
competing meaningfully. If these measures go so far as to functionally make it
impossible for other parties to operate, a dominant party system may for all
intents and purposes become a single-party system. For example, the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) is by far the most dominant party in National People’s
Congress, China’s unicameral legislature. At nearly 3000 members, it is the
largest legislative body in the world. As represented in red in Figure 73 below,
the CCP (in red) has a clear and overwhelming majority. Importantly, we
wouldn’t consider a single-party state a democracy, and most dominant-party
states would be considered weak democracies or democracies at risk of
backsliding. Yet, the other parties represented in the NPC should not be thought
of as “opposition” parties in the same sense as democratic parliaments. The
other eight parties are the only parties legally allowed and technically fall under
the direction of the CCP. The grey seats are “independents,” but each works
seamlessly with the CCP.
The reasons for dominant and single party systems often lie in the
regime type as well as historical context. States that fought for independence
from colonial powers often did so through a nationalist movement, which often
become a political party upon independence. Because postcolonial states do
not have a history of sovereignty, and its people have been divided into various
hierarchies to make it easier to govern by outside powers, and have often been
economically ravaged through colonization, it is difficult for a new postcolonial
state to quickly transition to democracy with multiple freely competing parties.
Therefore, postcolonial states tend to be authoritarian which also favors
dominant and single-party systems. An exception to this trend is India, which
has dozens of parties (although two parties tend to dominate federal elections—
the BJP and the INC).
2.1.2 Two Party System
A two-party system is, of course, a party system in which only two parties
meaningfully participate over multiple election cycles. Two party systems are
often the result of singlemember districts and plurality electoral systems. The
reason for this is intuitive: if only one person can win, then there is little incentive
for multiple parties to try and compete because that will split the vote amongst
citizens with compatible views. Instead, candidates with similar ideologies and
policy goals will strategically band together into a larger bloc to increase their
chances of getting the most votes. Parties that form by trying to attract as much
support across a large range of positions and voters are called catch-all parties.
The US is not the only example of a two party system, although most of
the other examples of two party systems might more accurately be described
as “two party plus” systems in which two 217 dominant parties perform the best,
but minor parties are still elected and can wield some mild degree of influence.
The United Kingdom is dominated by the Conservative Party and Labour Party.
These two parties typically get first or second place in general elections, but
there are no less than 11 other parties represented in the UK parliament in
2023. Spain was once a solid two party system, with the dominance of Partido
Socialista and Partido Popular, but have since become a two party plus system
with the success of the populist party Podemos. There are also several others
minor parties that serve in the Cortes Generales (Spanish Parliament).
Therefore, it is important to note that party systems can ebb and flow.
2.1.3 Multiparty System
Multiparty systems are by far the most common party system within
democratic states worldwide. Multiparty systems can describe any state with
three or more parties that meaningfully participate and have a chance at
winning elections at any given time. Some states, like India, have an enormous
number of parties. Still the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National
Congress (INC) tend to win the most seats in parliament. They must form a
complex coalition with a number of smaller parties, however, in order to govern.
In recent years, however, the BJP has become even more dominant,
comprising 300 of the 543 seats in India’s lower house of parliament, with the
INC maintaining only 49.
Multiparty systems tend to appear in proportional electoral systems as
well as multimember districts. Again, the reasons for this may be obvious: if the
seats are distributed according to percentage of the vote, there is no incentive
to join forces with similar parties unless a party faces the possibility of not
exceeding the threshold to get a seat in the legislature. Because multiparty
systems often go hand-in-hand with proportional electoral systems, even clear
“winners” usually to form a coalition with other smaller parties.
We will now turn to a case study of Israel, which demonstrates a number
of issues within a democratic system of government that we have explored in
this chapter. Israel allows us to better explore the parliamentary system of
democracy, well as proportional electoral systems within a multiparty system. It
can also help us to understand some of the major challenges to a democracy,
such as religion, history of colonization, and democratic backsliding.
Snapshot Case Study: Israel
Full Country Name : State of Israel
Head of State : President Isaac Herzog
Head of Government : Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu
Government : Parliamentary Democracy
Official Language : Hebrew, Arabic, English
Economic System : Market-based
Location : Middle East
Capital : Jerusalem according to Israel and several other states
including the US; Tel Aviv according to most members of
the United Nations; some states recognize West
Jerusalem such as Russia
Total land size : 21,937 sq km; 8,469 sq miles
Population : 9,043,387 (includes Golan Heights and East Jerusalem)
GDP : $393.861 billion
GDP per capita : $42,100
Currency : The new Israeli shekel
Israel is a representative case of parliamentary democracy, with a few unique
quirks. While most parliamentary systems use some form of hybrid arrangement,
Israel’s electoral system is rather straightforward. Studying Israel is also an opportunity
to explore the challenges of democracy in a state founded by religion, as well as a
potential case of democratic backsliding. The State of Israel is relatively new, being
established in 1948 in the wake of the second World War. Prior to this, the area now
under control of Israel was known as the British Mandate for Palestine. This land was
being administered by Britain after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World
War I. The majority of the population of Mandatory Palestine was Muslim during British
administration, with smaller but substantial numbers of Jews, Christians, and others
such as Bedouins (Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1945). The Mandate
required Britain to provide for a national homeland for the Jewish people. Thus, Jewish
immigrants from a variety of ideologies were moving there, many with hopes of
establishing a state in the area of their ancestors. This immigration increased
drastically because of World War II, and following the war, Holocaust survivors began
arriving in Palestine among other Jewish immigrants, which the British opposed. This
resulted in a war against the British. Exhausted from World War II, the British
eventually referred the problem to the newly created United Nations, which devised a
partition plan allowing for a Jewish state and an Arab state. This angered many Arabs
since it would mean losing land and power. A civil war commenced, which the Jews
won (Laqueur, 2009).
Upon independence, a parliamentary republic was immediately established.
Since then, several reforms have taken place, which we will note later. Israel’s
legislature is called the Knesset and it is a unicameral body. There are 120 members
of the Knesset all elected through party-list proportional representation. A party list is
a list of candidates provided by each party running for seats in the legislature. Israel
uses a closed list, which means the parties have determined in advance who will
appear on their lists and in what order (Czudnowski, 1970). After the final percentage
of the vote is determined and the corresponding number of seats in parliament, the
candidates that will fill each seat is determined by their position on the party list.
Therefore, those at the top of the list are likely to get elected, and the chances of
getting elected goes down the lower the candidate appears on the list. In a closed list
system, voters typically only vote for the party—they have no say over the individual
candidates. An open list is a system where voters have some control over the position
of candidates on the list. Legislative elections take place every four years unless there
is a vote of no confidence. In fact, few Knessets have survived their four-year term. In
order to be elected, a party must get at least 3.25% of the vote (this has been
increased over time). This is known as an electoral threshold.
Interestingly, Israel does not have a codified constitution. A codified constitution
simply means one that is written down in an easily identifiable document. When Israel
declared its independence, the new government was supposed to write a constitution.
However, it never happened, and instead the “constitution” is considered to be a series
of individual “Basic Laws.” Hazan (1997) argues that Israel’s lack of a codified
constitution stems from its origin as a state: as a sovereign with theological
underpinnings. He also argues that in a heterogeneous state such as Israel, popular
sovereignty (meaning, sovereignty with the permission of the people) and religious
sovereignty are incompatible. Religious parties have traditionally opposed the creation
of a constitution out of a fear that such a document would undermine Israel’s religious
identity.
After a general legislative election, members of the Knesset elect the president
to a single sevenyear term by an absolute majority. The president is a ceremonial role,
but they have an important job: the president nominates the prime minister after
receiving recommendations from the Knesset. This is slightly different than many other
parliamentary democracies, in which the ruling party gets to appoint the head of
government directly after negotiating with its coalition partners. As a matter of
procedure, however, the prime minister is usually selected from the ruling party in
Israel since that party is believed to have a mandate from the people to govern. Once
a prime minister has been nominated, they must form a coalition, present an agenda,
and receive a vote of confidence from the Knesset. Once the prime minister is
appointed, he or she forms the rest of the executive branch by appointing cabinet
ministers.
This modification of the classic parliamentary system is a result of a reform that
was attempted starting in 1996—a new Basic Law was passed to allow for the direct
election of the prime minister. During this time, Israel was the only parliamentary
democracy to directly elect its prime minister (Hazan, 1997). This experiment ended
after only three elections, in which the current model emerged. There are around 12
parties in Israel, making it a solidly multiparty system. These include several religious
parties and a few parties representing Arab interests. The current prime minister,
Benyamin Netanyahu, became prime minister for the sixth time after his party, Likud,
won the most seats in 2022. However, in order to govern, he had to form a coalition
which consists of six parties. Likud is considered a secular conservative party. The
coalition consists of mostly religious right and far-right parties, but also one non-Zionist
party. The more parties that are involved in a coalition, the more difficult it might be to
govern, since passing a law requires the consent and compromise amongst all
coalition partners.
This government has come under widespread criticism due to several
controversial policies, especially its proposal to modify the judicial system. The reforms
would essentially override the independence of the judicial branch. As discussed in
the section entitled Judiciary above, the independence of the judicial system is an
important feature of strong democracies. In 2022, Freedom House ranked Israel a 4/4
with regard to judicial independence. Many fear that this will be undermined should
Netanyahu’s proposals pass.
Furthermore, Israel’s democratic backsliding is captured in EIU’s 2022 report
on democracy. Here, Israel is classified as a “Flawed Democracy,” with a score of 7.9
out of 10 (10 being the strongest democracy). This represents a drop in rank by six in
one year. The most important variable bringing Israel’s democracy score down is its
civil liberties. (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2023). Its failure to protect civil liberties is
also reflected in the legislative branch. Several laws have been passed that some
believe are meant to disqualify Arab Israeli citizens and parties. Defenders of these
laws contend that it is not directed at Arabs but rather at people who contest the
existence of Israel or are terrorists. Some, particularly Palestinians, contend that the
increase of the electoral threshold from 2% to 3.25% was an attempt to limit the
number of small parties, some of which are Palestinian Arab. (Interactive Encyclopedia
of the Palestine Question – Palquest, 2023). Thus, not only is Israel a useful case to
better understand the proportional electoral system and parliamentary democracy, but
it also demonstrates that democracy is not a static condition of states. In fact,
democracy may be quite fragile, which we will explore in subsequent chapters.
