“Do electoral systems explain more about the differences in politics across

Europe than any other institution?”

Introduc)on  

An  electoral   system   can   be   best   described   as   the   rules   determining   how   the   vo6ng   electorate’s  

choices  are  translated  into  the  selec6on  of  their  poli6cal  representa6ves.  This  essay  will  endeavour  

to  discover  “Do  electoral  systems  explain  more  about  the  differences  in  poli6cs  across  Europe  than  

any  other  ins6tu6on?”.  The  focus  of  the  essay  will  be  on  the  effect  of  Ireland’s  electoral  system  on  

its   poli6cs.   Consequently,   it   will   undertake   a   compara6ve   analysis   Ireland’s   Propor6onal  

Representa6on  by  Single  Transferable  Vote  (PR-­‐STV)  and  The  United  Kingdom’s  first  past  the  post  

system  (FPTP).  Furthermore,  it  will  contrast  this  to  the  use  of  the  Mixed-­‐list  system  in  na6onal  and  

subna6onal  elec6ons  in  Germany  and  the  UK;  thereby  encouraging  female  representa6on.  Finally,  

this   essay  will   explore   the   phenomenon   of   Cons6tuency   Clientelism;   a   crea6on   of   the   electoral

system or weak institutions?  

!Ireland

Ireland uses the Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote (PR-STV). The electorate

vote for candidates in order of preference in multi-seat constituencies. The Irish electoral system is

proportional. Therefore political parties’ seats in Dáil Éireann are based on the proportion of votes

received in the General Election. There is a low threshold for entry into Dáil Éireann, this threshold

allows for a reasonable variety of political parties to win seats, therefore allowing for a wide range

of voices to heard in the Dáil. The unique element of the Irish system is the method in which the

proportionality is ensured. After the votes are first counted the candidate with the least votes is

eliminated and their votes distributed to the remaining candidates based on the second preference

choice on their ballots. This process continues, taking into account third, fourth preferences and so

on as is needed, until he desired number of candidates have reached the quota. Or alternatively the

number of candidates remaining after the elimination of the lowest-scoring candidate at the end of a

count equals the number of unfilled seats (Sinnott 2009). The PR-STV system satisfies three

important criteria which set it apart from other systems:

1. Personal representation: the majority of the electorate are represented in Dáil Éireann by at least

one TD for whom they indicated a preference.

2. Proportional representation: Seats allocated in parliament are based on the proportion of votes

received.

3. Accountability: Every member of Parliament can be "voted out”. This ensures that there a

minimal level of respect for public opinion among TDs. The Irish Constitution reflects the

importance of this principle by severely limiting the number of Government members who are not

TDs (Oireachtas 2007).

!The United Kingdom

The United Kingdom, in contrast to Ireland has the first past the post system (FPTP) facilitated by

single seat constituencies. This means only the single most popular candidate can win a seat in their

constituency. This ensures it is difficult for more than two big parties to successfully compete in

such a system. Two party systems according to Lijphart (1999) are a key aspect of the majoritarian

model. Majoritarian systems employ the First Past The Post (FPTP) system while consensus

systems (Ireland) will normally operate on some version of the proportional system. The smaller

parties are forced out while the two biggest namely the Conservative and Labour parties are greatly

over represented. This results in a system dominated by two parties which restricts the choices for

the electorate (Curtice 2010). The foremost strength of single seat constituencies and non-

proportional systems is that they lead to stable government. In the U.K. the current Conservative/

Liberal Democrat coalition is the first coalition there since the Second World War. In contrast to

proportional systems, single party government are largely unheard of, despite single party

governments being formed in the past. Even though coalitions are often considered less stable than

single party governments, they also tend to be more representative of the overall population. This is

on the basis that they include a more diverse range of the political spectrum. In the UK at sub-

national level, a Mixed-list system is used to elect the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

!Mixed-list system

Germany is the first place in the world to use the Mixed-list system, having adopted it after the

Second World War. In recent years the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have adopted it,

As its title suggests this system is a mix of two separate electoral systems. The Electorate are asked

to vote twice, for constituency candidates and for (closed) party lists.

The count occurs in three stages as follows:

“First, the returning officer counts the FPTP constituency part of the ballot paper. The

candidate with the most votes in the constituency race is deemed elected. However there

is nothing to say that one could not use AV in this part. The returning officer then counts

the list part of the ballot paper, just like in the list electoral system dealt with separately.

This will determine how many seats each party is entitled to overall. The rules as to

what the proportionality is based on can cause very different seat allocations. Given

that this is a proportional electoral system, the focus is on trying to ensure as much as

possible that parties are awarded seats in proportion to the number of votes they win

overall. Therefore, in this final stage, now that it is known how many seats each party is

due, the returning officer has to subtract from that total any constituency seats already

won in the first stage of the count and this determines how many list seats each party is

awarded. This should result in a proportional result” (Constitution 2013).

The consequence of the final calculation is that larger parties can end up having a lot of

constituency seats and far fewer list seats; this happened in a Welsh election, where the Labour

party ended up with only constituency seats (Constitution 2013).

!Female Representation

There is a strong correlation between the level of female representation and the type of electoral

system. The countries with the lowest levels of female political representation such as the United

Kingdom, have a Majoritarian system. However, Germany has a high level of female

representation, as it uses mixed-list electoral system, with both single member constituencies and a

proportional representation system, each of which select half of the members of the Bundestag. In

Germany the vast majority of female politicians are elected through the PR list (European

Parliment, 1997). In Ireland PR-STV may be somewhat inhibitive compared to other systems such

as the German system for female representation. Female candidates appear to systematically receive

less votes than their male counterparts (Galligan 2009). To counteract this was suggested that a

mixed system similar to the German mixed-list system be introduced. There has been some

discussion of mixing STV and List, with some TDs elected in multi-seat STV constituencies and

others elected on national party lists (Constitution 2012). Perhaps the clearest immediate benefit

from such reform would be this ability to increase female and minority representation in the Dáil

through this new closed national list. However it is not clear that this would be justified given that

the..

“…PR is the electoral system of those member states with the highest and lowest levels

of female political representation (Sweden and Greece). Therefore, proportional

representation alone is not responsible for the strength of women parliamentarians in

other European Union countries. An important factor within PR is the placement of

female candidates in eligible positions on party lists.” (European Parliment, 1997)

The current system of broad proportionality and voting for individuals rather than parties allows for

the election of independents or non-party TDs. The election of independents or non-party

candidates does occur in other states, but Ireland stands out due to the election of them such large

numbers. In single seat constituencies, or list based systems, it is extremely rare for candidates to

get elected without the backing of a party. This ability to vote for an individual candidate rather than

a party gives the electorate a choice, even within the major political parties is advantageous.

Constituency Clientelism?

In Ireland constituencies are defined by geographical boundaries, this is to allow for regional

interests are given a voice in the political discussions, thus ensuring that no one region dominates,

whether that be major cities or of rural populations. This system is therefore often said to lend itself

to a highly localised or so called “parish pump” politics especially when compared to other political

systems, such as the UK. As Marsh states:

“The institutional setting encourages candidate-centred voting, and hence, perhaps, local

considerations, and this is reinforced by the small size of constituencies, the nature of the

party system and the political culture.” (Marsh, 2004: 247-8)

!The nature of the PR-STV system means that Irish politicians will often be forced to compete with

fellow party members, as well as with candidates from rival political parties, and the manner in

which they do so often involves them placing a greater stress on local concerns in their election

campaigns so as to encourage as large as possible of a personal vote from their own locality.

(Kavanagh 2005). PR-STV is said to focus “clientelistic” relationships cemented on constituency

work and a political culture which promotes this localism and faction fighting between candidates

from the same party. This is believed to in turn inhibit meaningful ideological debate on a national

level and strengthens the catch-all character of Irish politics (Byrne, 2009). Byrne (2009) argues that

the dominance of localism has reinforced the delegation of political decisions to extra-parliamentary

State institutions such as the courts, State agencies, social partnership, tribunals, the European

Union and the increased use of referendums. difficult or controversial decisions are avoided, thus

escaping any unnecessary confrontation. Promotion to the ministerial ranks is often determined by

geographical considerations to produce a national government inherently compromised by regional

lobbyists. Byrne (2009) argues that the geographical meritocracy has now trickled down to the

appointment by party headquarters staff of local election candidates rather than their election by

party members at convention. She argues that the PR-STV system

“…facilitates a perverse electoral logic which abdicates responsibility for robust decision

making. There are no consequences to elections because by their nature they present

indecisive choice. The opportunity to vote for everybody, through the ranking of your

preferences, means that in reality,you vote for no one” (Byrne, 2009)

This 'clientelism', a term with a multitude of unfavourable connotations largely due to its private

and individual, rather than public and collective nature of the interaction between TDs and their

constituents. However it is clear that Irish politics is not clientelistic in the conventional sense of the

term. As with the UK and other countries, constituency work has both negative and positive

consequences. It may weaken the ability of parliament to provide effective scrutiny of government

and to make an input to policy making. But it provides a vital link between citizen and state,

reduces alienation, and provides feedback on the effects of government policies. The constituency

role of TDs is a central aspect of the political system, and its consequences continue to generate

much argument and discussion (Gallagher & Komito 2009). Considering the constituency role of

TDs, it is all too easy to exaggerate the influence of the electoral system. Cross-national research

would suggest that the causal connection between the electoral system and the constituency role of

TDs is much weaker than is imagined (Gallagher & Holliday 2003). It is very likely that the work

demanded by the constituencies from their TDs, and TDs' willingness to respond to this, would be

altered little by the move a different electoral system in Ireland (Gallagher, 2013). Perhaps the

demands that the constituents the place on TDs are demands that by and large are a result of the

frustrations with the public service, and the political vacuum on the ground resulting from our weak

and ineffectual local government (Gallagher & Komito, 2009).

!!Conclusion

In conclusion, electoral systems do have an impact on the proportionality of electoral outcomes, and

to a lesser degree on the shape of intra-party politics. It must be stated however, that an electoral

system’s impact on the many aspects of politics in a country is not as strong than is sometimes

assumed. The disadvantages of the proposed Constitutional Convention changes to electoral system

appear to outweigh the advantages when the alternative system was examined. All the same, the

recommended reforms of the system (e.g.. increasing the size electoral constituencies) could be

expected to improve it. It is argued that frustrations with the public service, and Ireland’s weak and

ineffectual local government give rise the perception of clientelism. Nonetheless, even differing

electoral system will not remove fully the localism or clientelistic nature of politics in any country.

Consequently “Do electoral systems explain more about the differences in politics across Europe

than any other institution?” No.

!!!!http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/parlij/gsq018.pdf !!https://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/IrishElectSys.php

http://www.nzasia.org.nz/downloads/NZJAS-June03/5.1_7.pdf

https://www.constitution.ie/AboutUs.aspx !!!Kavanagh, Adrian. "The Problem–The 2005 UK General Election.”!!!Marsh, Michael (2004) ‘None of that postmodern stuff around here: Grassroots campaigning in the 2002 Irish General Election’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties (British Elections & Parties Review) Vol. 14, 247-8 . Sinnott, Richard (2009), ‘The rules of the electoral game’ in Coakley, John and Gallagher, Michael (eds), Politics in the Republic of Ireland – Fourth Edition, Routledge, London and New York. !Gallagher, M. and Komito, L. (2010), "The Constituency Role of Dáil Deputies‟, in J.Coakley and M. Gallagher (eds.),Politics in the Republic of Ireland (Fifth Edition), pp 230-262, New York: Routledge. !Byrne, E , 2009. PR System Promotes Non-Decision Making And Inertia. Irish Times, 28 April. debate. www.irishtimes.ie

!Lijphart, Arendt Patterns of Democracy Accessed on 7 March 2014