Why Should We Care So Much About How Votes Are Translated into Seats - Essay Example

Running head: European Politics European Politics s European Politics The government of a country is at the core of the nation, which not only decides how the nation will be run, but is also responsible for the way a nation depicts itself to the world. Because of the fact that a government affects all of the nationals of a country, it is crucial to include the nationals in the process of electing a government. Therefore, in modern world democracies, elections are a major part of a nation’s domestic stability. In a representative democracy, elected officials make decisions on behalf of the people.  However, no electoral system is unbiased and perfectly represents the public. Therefore, there are usually differences in the electoral formulas of all nations as to how exactly every person’s vote is translated into a seat in a political party. There are usually three electoral formulas, which are Majoritarian, Plurality, and Proportional Representation. The Majoritarian method relies heavily on the idea that if fifty percent of more of the votes are directed to a certain political party, then that party is declared the winner of all the seats. Plurality focuses on the idea that the party that gets the most number of votes, even if they are less than fifty percent of all the votes, will win the seats. The last method is that of proportional representation in which the seats are allocated between the parties in proportion to the percentage of votes they have received. Generally, many countries follow a Proportional Representation (PR) method rather than the other two. There are various reasons for why PR method is preferred over the other two. There are major benefits for applying the PR method. It gives representation to smaller parties that are not so popular. It also leads to coalition governments. Also, the concept of thresholds plays a major role in the PR method. Ever since its introduction, the danger of fragmentation has been banned. The PR method also allows for openness, fairness, and more variety. Openness allows new parties to easily enter the electoral process. Fairness allows governments to claim that they have majority of the votes. Also, with greater number of parties, voters have more choices to decide from when voting. As a result of all these benefits, there have generally been greater turnouts during elections than before. People have increasingly become concerned with the way their votes are translated into seats. Every single voter wants to make sure that his/her vote is equal in weight as compared to the rest of the voters. There are three ways in which the public can vote and thereafter convert their votes into seats. The first type is that of a ballot structure, in which people cast their votes in ballots and then one of the three afore-mentioned electoral systems is implemented. The second type is that of electoral constituency called the constituency structure. The third type is called the electoral formula in which votes are converted into seats in parliament. Currently, when considering the European countries, all the various governments have their own electoral systems. For example, France has a two-ballot system. Finland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark all follow the ballot structure system, while Germany follows the constituency structure system. On the other hand, Switzerland, UK, and Italy follow the electoral formula. There are two types of democracies present in Europe. One of the types is Adversarial Democracy, while the other is Consensual Democracy. The difference between the two must be understood. The ideal function of the political system of adversarial democracy is that it “should promote government accountability, transparency of decision-making, and responsible parties through single-party executives, effective opposition parties, vigorous parliamentary debate, and decisive elections,” (Jacques 2005, pg 69). On the other hand, the ideal function of the political system of consensual democracy is that it should promote decision-making based on a consensus, bargain, and compromise between multiple parliamentary parties. In adversarial democracy, the electoral system “should maximize electoral decisiveness by directly linking the votes cast to the parties and members elected to parliament, thereby providing an indirect link from voters to the party in government...,” (Jacques 2005, pg 69). In comparison, consensual democracy suggests that the electoral system “should maximize electoral choice among multiple parties, fairly translate vote shares into seat shares, and be socially inclusive in parliamentary representation,” (Jacques 2005, pg 69). Consensual democracy gives greater empowerment to the public by allowing them to have more direct say exactly in how their votes and transformed into seats, assuming that the seat holders in the end present themselves as spokespersons on behalf of the public. It is necessary for people to care about how their votes are converted into seats, because it they should understand thoroughly who represents them nationally and internationally, and how they came to power. In Europe, changes in electoral behaviour have been eminent. These changes have largely been a result of “modernization” on the part of the voters, which has eventually transcended into “modernization” of the electoral process. This “modernization” is usually related to pure democracies, which are generally advocated by other Western countries, particularly the United States. Individuals are increasingly becoming more concerned with the identification of political parties and how they plan on addressing the everyday issues of the people, such as education, religion, etc. before voting for them in elections. If the specific examples of Germany, Sweden and Italy are considered, all three nations have over time adopted two-tier districting for PR systems. Germany has faced much turbulence in deciding their electoral system. After the First World War, proportional representation was promoted by the Weimar Republic. However, after the rise of Hitler, the PR system was abolished and an autocratic form of government was established, which eliminated the idea of the public having any opinion in the way the government was formed. Post-World War 2, however, Germany was divided into two parts, Western and Eastern Germany in order to establish a more efficient administration. In Western Germany, the methodologies of the Weimar Republic were dispensed with. A constituency system was organized and followed for many years, including after the unity of Western and Easter Germany. Soon after, a mixed electoral system was established between the PR system and the constituency system, known as the Personalized Proportional System. This resulted in Germans always having to place two votes instead of just one. The number of parties in Germany has also increased. “Two new parties were added to the parliament in the period of differentiation [post 1983]. The Greens first gained seats in the 1983 parliament and the Party of Democratic Socialism entered parliament in the 1990 all-German election,” (Jacques 2005, pg 30). As a result, of such strong representation of the people, and in Germany’s case almost twice, the turnout ratio has been very high during election times in Germany. Sweden has strongly advocated the PR system since the 1910s, focusing on fairness and efficiency in the electoral process. Also, the number of parties present in Sweden has increased dramatically over the years, especially with the focus on a multiparty system eminent in government since the 1970s. There is however, controversy behind whether or not the PR system of Sweden represents true democracy or not. This is because of the fact that the allowance of multiple parties reduces the amount of representation of each individual party. The only benefit of the multiparty system has been that the voters including liberals, conservatives, and centre parties now have a greater amount of choices, which has increased voter preference and resulted in greater turnout ratio over the years. Between 1946 and 1993, Italy made use of an electoral system which was similar to that of a pure PR system. However, two thresholds were put in place, but the lack of difficulty involved in achieving those thresholds allowed the system to benefit small parties. Between 1991 and 1993, the Italian electoral law was greatly altered, mainly as a result of two referendums. Between 1946 and 1991, electoral law was determined by the Parliament, not the constitution. In 1991 a referendum was passed that asked voters if they wished to decrease how many preferences there are for ensuring correct entrustment of parliamentary seats to candidates popular with voters.  Around 1993, the Italian Parliament enacted a new electoral law that provided for single-member districts, but their efforts failed and they were removed from power. Thereafter, a mixed system called the Additional Member System was established, which was a combination of the First Past the Post electoral system and the PR system, with greater empowerment given to the First Past the Post system. However, in 2005, the Additional Member System was eliminated and a Party-List Representation system, with multiple thresholds to encourage parties to form coalitions, was established. The Proportional Representation System in Europe has continually gained popularity. This has been as result of increase in the realization that the public needs to be aware of how their votes are converted into seats. Voters need to know exactly what role they play in the way their country is run and the seats in parliament should closely reflect the preferences of the public. References Thomassen, Jacques (2005) The European voter: a comparative study of modern democracies (Oxford: OUP). Read More