Constitutional Design
Institutional Choices for
Democracy
Consensual vs. Majoritarian
Government
Competing goals of democracy:
• Representativeness/Inclusiveness
Include all major groups in government.
Give everyone a voice.
Make sure each group has a fair share of
power, in proportion to their numbers in
society, or to their votes
versus….
Consensual vs. Majoritarian, 2
• Efficiency and Governability
Efficiency= ability of voters to identify a clear
choice, and to obtain alternation in
government
Governability= the capacity of government to
make and carry out decisions. Is facilitated by
coherent (especially one-party) political
majorities.
The Trade-Off
• It is impossible to maximize both
inclusiveness and efficiency.
• The more political parties/voices are
included in government, the harder it is for
government to achieve clear decisions
• The greater the number of political parties
in parliament, and the more fragmented the
power, the harder it is for voters to
determine how their vote will affect who
rules
Consensual vs. Majoritarian cont.
• A highly inclusive system may be very
“fair” but prone to deadlock or slow
decision-making
• Where one party has a majority in
parliament, or control of the presidency
and congress, the system may be very
efficient, but overrun minority rights—or
even the interests of a majority
Dimensions of
Majoritarian vs. Consensus Govt.
1. One-party cabinets
concentration of power
2. Fusion of power,
cabinet dominance
3. Unicameral legislature
or asymmetric bicameral
4. Two-party system
5. One-dimensional party
system
1. Executive power sharing
(grand coalition)
2. Separation of powers
3. Bicameral legislature
with balanced powers
4. Multiparty system
5. Multi-dimensional party
system
Dimensions of
Majoritarian vs. Consensus Govt.
6. Majoritarian electoral
system (single-member
district, plurality)
7. Unitary, centralized
government
8. Unwritten constitution
parliamentary sovereignty
9.
Interest Group
pluralism
6. Proportional
representation
7. Federalism,
decentralization of
power
8. Written constitution
constitutional rigidity, minority
vetos
9. Interest group
corporatism
Four Models of Democracy
Plurality Electoral
System
Presidential Quasi-majoritarian
government,
checks and
balances
Parliamen- Westminster model
tary
(highly
majoritarian)
Proportional
Representation
Less majoritarian
(potential for
extreme deadlock)
Consensus model
(coalition
government)
Parliamentary Government
• Fuses legislative and executive power
• Prime minister may be less powerful than
an executive president: no fixed term,
can easily be brought down by a
fragmented parliament
• Prime minister may be more powerful than
an executive president… if his/her party
has a majority of parliament
Consensus Model of Parliamentary
Government, with PR
• Highly inclusive, large coalitions
• But if parliament is highly fragmented
into many parties and ideologically
opposed camps, may be highly fragile and
volatile; can be brought down easily if a
party withdraws
• Blackmail power for small parties in
forming and sustaining government
(secret protracted negotiations)
Possible adjustments to Consensus
Model
•
•
•
•
Constructive Vote of No Confidence
Direct Election of the Prime Minister
Semi-proportional (mixed electoral system)
But where divisions are territorially based,
SMD/Plurality system may  fragmented
parliament, consensus model (India)
Parliamentary vs. Presidential
Government
Which is Better?
Why?
Parliamentary vs. Presidential Govt.
Critique of Presidentialism Defense of Presidendialism
1. Temporal Rigidity
fixed term of president
prevents adaptation to
unexpected events
2. Plebiscitary
character
personal claim to full
legitimacy
3. Concentration of
power and
legitimacy in one
office 
personalization of power
1. Executive Stability and
predictability,
and greater accountability
2. Unifying symbol for
the nation
3. But pres sys= checks
and balances,
parl sys fuses leg and
exec roles
Parliamentary vs. Presidential Govt.
Critique of Presidentialism Defense of Presidendialism
4. Term limits lead to
chronic lame-duck
status
5. Inadequate means for
succession
6. Zero-sum politics with
unitary executive
Winner take all
4. PM can continue in
office indefinitely
Pres system can be two
terms
5. Succession is unstable
and uncertain in parl sys
6. Ways to mitigate
zero-sum character:
•
•
•
run-off presidential election
preferential voting for presid
special majority requirements
Parliamentary vs. Presidential Govt.
Critique of Presidentialism Defense of Presidendialism
7. Zero-sum nature is
bad fit for divided
society
8. Absence of separate
head of state who
can moderate crisis
9. Danger of deadlock if
pres has no Cong
majority
10. Generates weak
parties
7. Choose difft elec sys
for presid: “vote pooling”
with special majority
requirements
8. Monarchy or Pres is
very weak in parl sys
9. Can have majoritarian
elec sys, &
simultaneous elections
10. Strong parties can be
too strong
How to Structure a
Presidential System
Term Limits?
What other restraints?
Electoral System Alternatives
The basic choice:
Majoritarian vs. proportional
Or something in between
Majoritarian Electoral System Options
Winning candidates or party receive the most
votes (not necessarily the absolute majority;
sometimes plurality)
Types of Majoritarian Systems:
• Single Member District Plurality
• Alternative Vote
• Two Round System
• Block Vote
• Party Block Vote
• Single Non-Transferable Vote
Single-Member District, Plurality
• in Single-member district plurality (SMDP) systems
individuals cast a single vote for a candidate in a
single-member district. Candidate with the most
votes is elected
• E.g.: United States, Britain, Canada, India,
Jamaica
• Advantages:
• Simplicity; easy to administer and low in cost
• Accountability
• Clear majortities (see UK elections results)
• Disadvantages:
• Potential for unrepresentative outcomes
• Encourages strategic rather than sincere voting
• May not discourage ethnic voting where ethnic groups are
territorially concentrated (Africa)
Alternative Vote (or Preferential Vote)
• Used in single member districts; voters
mark their preferences by rank-ordering the
candidates.
• Essentially, an “instant run-off.”
Candidate who receives absolute majority is
elected; if no candidate wins absolute majority
then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated
and his/her votes are reallocated to next
peferences until one candidate has an absolute
majority of the valid votes remaining.
• E.g.:Australia, Fiji, Ireland Presid. elections
Alternative Vote:
alternative views
Advantages:
– Similar to SMDP; only one representative 
accountability
– Less strategic voting
– encourages broad based appeals to gain
‘second preference votes’ of non-core voters:
“vote pooling” across ethnic lines
Disadvantages:
– Complicated (literacy requirement), expensive
– possible for majority of voters to prefer
alternative candidate
Two-Round System
• Potential for two rounds of elections. Candidates
or parties are automatically elected in first round if
they obtain a specified level of votes (typically
majority). Otherwise second round in which
parties or candidates with the most votes win.
• Ex: France (presidential [i], legislative [ii])
Argentina, Nicaragua
Two Round System
two views
Advantages:
• TRS allows voters more choice than SMDP;
voters can change their minds for second
round
• Less incentive for strategic voting (e.g.
France – LePen)
Disadvantages:
• Costly on administration and voters (may
have to vote twice)
• Disproportional results; hurt minority
representation
Single Non-Transferable Vote
• Equivalent of SMDP in multi-member districts
• Voters cast a single candidate-centered vote in a
multi-member district; individual candidates with
the highest vote totals are elected
• Ex: Japan (1947-1993),Taiwanese parliament
– • Advantages:
• more proportional than SMDP
• better representation of small or minority parties
– • Disadvantages:
• incentives for intra-party fighting and factionalization
• few incentives for broad based coalition
• Strategic issues for parties and voters (parties don’t want to
nominate too many candidates in district; voters want to elect
as many candidates as possible from preferred party)
Proportional Representation
Quota- or divisor-based electoral system employed in
multimember districts. Parties win seat shares in
proportion to their shares of the vote.
Advantages over majoritarian systems:
• More accurate translation of votes into seats, more
proportional
• Smaller parties can win representation (minority rep.)
• Weaker incentives for strategic voting; instead, coalition
governments and power-sharing
Disadvantages:
• Less accountability (hard to identify policy makers, difficult
to punish parties)
• Coalitions governments are more unstable; may need to
include small, extreme parties
PR Type: Closed Party Lists
• The parties decide the order in which candidates
receive the seats. (Party leaders and important
figures will be placed at the top of the list)
• Political parties tend to be more important than
individual candidates.
• Generates highly disciplined political parties in
parliament:
Examples: Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Israel,
South Africa.
Open List PR
• Open party lists: Voters determine which
candidates on the party lists get the seats
allocated to the party.
• In some countries like Finland, voters have to
express a preference for a specific candidate.
(However, in Denmark voters can vote for a party
or a candidate.)
• Increases voter choice and accountability of
representatives….
• But reduces the importance of party labels, and
the level of party discipline.
• E.g.: Brazil, Finland, Netherlands, Sri Lanka
Single Transferable Vote
• Essentially the same as the Alternative Vote, but
applied in multimember districts
• Candidates that get a specified quota of firstpreference votes are immediately elected; in
successive counts, votes from eliminated
candidates and surplus votes are reallocated to
the remaining candidates until all seats are filled.
• Very complex but many of the advantages of the
AV system, yet more proportional.
• E.g.: Ireland, Malta, Australia
Mixed Electoral Systems
Plurality Plus PR
• Voters elect representatives through two
different systems, one majoritarian and
one proportional.
• Majoritarian rules may be used in one
electoral tier, and proportional rules in
another electoral tier. Most mixed systems
have multiple tiers.
• Mixed electoral systems come in two
types: Independent & Dependent
Independent Mixed System
(or Parallel Mixed System)
• Voters cast two ballots, one for a party
list, one for a candidate in their district.
• The majoritarian and proportional
components of the electoral system are
implemented independently of one
another.
• E.g.: Japan Diet: 300 seats from SMPD,
and 200 from closed-list PR seats (later
reduced to 180)
• Minor parties usually only win PR seats
Dependent Mixed Electoral Systems
(Mixed Member Proportional)
• In most dependent mixed systems, individuals
have two votes (eg. Germany, New Zealand).
One vote is for the representative at the district
level (candidate vote). One vote is for the party
list in the higher electoral tier (party vote).
• After the winners in the districts are established,
each party wins seats from its party lists
sufficient to give it an overall share of seats in
parliament proportional to its party-list vote.
Problems with Mixed Systesm
(dependent)
Two issues come up with dependent
mixed systems
1. Some candidates compete for
constituency seats but are also placed on
the party list.
2. Some parties win more constituency
seats than is justified by their party list
vote. This leads to Overhang Seats.
•
The degree of proportionality in PR
systems
PR systems vary in their degree of
proportionality. This is shaped by several
factors:
1. The electoral threshold
2. District magnitude (how many members
per district)
3. The technical electoral formula for
allocating seats to votes
Electoral Thresholds
The minimum percentage of the vote a party must
win in order to have representation in parliament
• Germany requires that parties win 5% of the
national vote or at least 3 constituency seats to be
eligible to receive votes from the upper tier.
– Turkey has a 10% threshold, while Poland has a 5% threshold for
parties but an 8% threshold for coalitions.
• “Pure PR”: No electoral districts and no
threshold: Since there is only one district in the
Netherlands, there is a natural threshold of 0.67%
of the votes i.e. 100% divided by 150 legislative
seats.
• In Jan 2005, Iraq also opted for no districts and
no thresholds (switched to districts in Dec 2005)
Side-Effects of Thresholds
• Can reduce the fragmentation of parliament into many
parties, but can also produce majoritarian outcomes.
• In the Turkish legislative elections of 2002, so many
parties failed to surpass the 10% threshold that fully
46% of all votes cast in these elections were wasted.
Only two parties won seats. In 2007, only three
parties won seats. AKP won 62% of seats with 47% of
the vote.
• In the Polish legislative elections of 1993, fully 34% of
the votes were wasted because of the 5% threshold
for parties and 8% threshold for coalitions. In the
Polish case, these wasted votes were crucial in
allowing the former communists to return to power.
District Magnitude
• Average District Magnitude is the key characteristic
that determines how proportional or permissive an
electoral system will be.
• In PR systems, the bigger the district, the more
proportional the system. In a three-seat district, a
party would need to win +25% of the vote to
guarantee getting a seat. In a nine-seat district,
a party would need to win only +10% of the vote
to get at least one seat.
• District magnitude: number of members elected
from the district. One nationwide district in:
Netherlands (150), Israel (120), Iraq-Jan 2005
(275).
District Magnitude cont.
• In Majoritarian systems, the bigger the
district, the more disproportional the
outcome. E.g.: U.S. States vs.
Congressional districts.
• California has 2 Democrats elected to the
Senate, but 33 Dems and 20 Repubs to
Congress (in 2003).
Why Iraq needed and now has electoral
districts
• Purely national lists privilege national-level
ethnic and sectarian identities
• Districts give voters the option to vote for
local notables and independent candidates
• Districts promote more local-level
accountability in the voting decision
• Districts enable voters to know who their
representatives are in Parliament (same
problem in South Africa)
Two (or more) Tiered PR Systems
• Local tier: Divide the country up into districts of
moderate size (e.g. 3 to 15 members). Most of
the seats (e.g. 70-80%) are drawn from the
districts.
• National tier: Then parties draw from national
lists to “top off” their parliamentary delegations
and achieve greater proportionality.
• Iraq system, Dec 2005: 230 district seats (based
in provinces), 45 seats (16% of total) from
national lists.