Electoral System Characteristics Advantages Disadvantages Host Countries

1.Proportional - The percentage of the -PR ensures that the
Representation vote a party gets parties would have to
becomes the percentage appeal to their core
of the seats that the supporters, rather than
party secures in the a small number of so
legislature. called ‘swing voters’ in
- One of the central marginal seats.
ways that PR systems -It could be argued that
deviate from their pure PR delivers fairer
form is by setting a treatment of minority
threshold. A threshold parties and
is the minimum independent candidates
percentage of the vote -Under PR fewer votes
that a party must are ‘wasted’ as more
receive in order to people’s preferences
secure even one seat in are taken into account
the legislature. -PR potentially offers
- Large parties also greater and more-
benefit from the representative choice
threshold when smaller for voters.
parties fail to clear it. -PR may encourage
The votes for the turn-out and reduce
parties that do not clear apathy.
the threshold become -PR rarely produces an
void. As a result, the absolute majority for
percentage of the seats one party, however, it
for the parties that do could be argued that
cross the threshold is PR ensures greater
greater than their continuity of
percentage of the vote. government and
requires greater
consensus in policy-
-PR can potentially Belgium, Denmark,
provide a route for Finland, Greece,
extremists to force their Hungary, Israel , Italy,
way into the political Luxembourg, Norway,
mainstream: under a FPTP Russia, Spain, Sweden,
electoral system this and Switzerland
would be unlikely to
happen.
-Some would say that PR
produces ‘weak’ coalition
governments rather than
‘strong’ majority
governments, which
arguably can lead to
indecision, compromise
and even legislative
paralysis.
-PR can also reduce
accountability to voters,
as an ousted party of
government can retain
office by finding new
coalition partners after an
election.
-The adoption of PR list
systems weakens the link
between the elected
representative and his or
her constituency.
-The greater complexity
and choice that PR allows
can put voters off voting,
 making. by requiring them to have
a greater knowledge of
individual and party
positions.
2.Open List PR - In an open list - Open List PR makes - Weak links between Congo, Brazil, Chile,
proportional it more likely that the elected legislators and Colombia, Ecuador, El
representation (open representatives of their constituents. Salvador, Honduras,
list PR) system, for minority - Where lists are closed, Panama, Peru,
example, voters choose cultures/groups will be voters have no Suriname, Fiji,
the party they prefer elected. opportunity to determine Indonesia, Japan,
and also, within that - The parties can be the identity of the persons Jordan, Lebanon, Sri
party, the specific encouraged by the who will represent them Lanka, Albania, Austria,
candidate they prefer. system to craft and no identifiable Belgium, Bosnia,
- This is as opposed to balanced candidate representative for their Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
closed list, which lists which appeal to a town, district or village, Republic, Denmark,
allows only active whole spectrum of nor can they easily reject Estonia, Finland,
members, party voters’ interests. an individual Germany, Greece, Italy,
officials, or consultants -The experience of a representative if they feel Latvia, Liechtenstein,
to determine the order number of new that he or she has Lithuania, Luxembourg,
of its candidates and democracies (e.g. performed poorly in office Netherlands, Norway,
gives the general voter South Africa, and or is not the kind of Poland, San Marino,
no influence at all on Indonesia) suggests person they would want Slovakia, Swede,
the position of the that List PR gives the representing them. Switzerland, Ukraine,
candidates placed on political space which - Excessive entrenchment Kosovo, and Northern
the party list. allows parties to put up of power within party Cyprus
Additionally, an open multiracial, and multi- headquarters and in the
list system allows ethnic, lists of hands of senior party
voters to select candidates. leaderships—especially in
individuals rather than -Open List PR makes it closed-list systems.
parties. Different more likely that -The need for some kind
systems give voter women will be elected. of recognized party or
different amounts of PR electoral systems political groupings to
influence. Voter's are almost always exist. This makes List PR
 choice is usually called more friendly to the particularly difficult to
preference vote. election of women than implement in those
-In its most simple plurality/majority societies which do not
form, List PR involves systems. In essence, have parties or have very
each party presenting a parties are able to use embryonic and loose party
list of candidates to the the lists to promote the structures.
electorate in each advancement of
multi-member electoral women politicians and
district. Voters vote for allow voters the space
a party, and parties to elect women
receive seats in candidates while still
proportion to their basing their choice on
overall share of the other policy concerns
vote in the electoral than gender
district. Winning
candidates are taken
from the lists in order
of their position on the
lists.
3.FPTP - In FPTP, voters -FPTP is a very - The seats a party wins -United Kingdom,
typically do not vote straightforward voting are not reflected by the Canada, India, New
for political parties. system – whoever gets votes each party gets. The Zealand, United States
Rather, they cast votes the most votes in an biggest parties tend to of America, Belize,
for individual political area wins. dominate and smaller Pakistan, Bangladesh,
candidates who are - The nature of the parties gain little or no Nepal, and Malaysia.
running for seats linked FPTP system means representation.
to relatively small that it tends to lead to - Although in a FPTP
electoral districts. The majority governments. election there may be
candidate who receives This means that one several candidates on the
the plurality of the vote party has overall ballot paper for a
—the most votes—in control and so can rule constituency, realistically
that district earns the without having to it is only the big parties
seat from the distinct. “water down” its that have a chance of
 - Pure FPTP systems policies to get support being elected, meaning
use a plurality rule from other parties – that voters have less real
rather than a majoritystrong governments. choice.
rule. The individual - FPTP leads to one - FPTP makes it virtually
selected from the
representative being impossible for smaller
electoral distnet is the
elected to represent parties to gain any
one who receives the one constituency. This representation as they are
most votes, even if that
means there is a direct highly unlikely to win a
person does not receive
link between the majority in a single
a majority (over 50 representative and the constituency.
percent) of the votes.constituency. -Under FPTP, votes cast
As a result, FPTP - Under FPTP systems, for candidates who do not
systems are sometimes bigger parties like gain the most votes in an
called “plurality
Labour and the area are wasted. This
systems”. Conservatives means that millions of
- Another variation indominate. This is good votes essentially count for
the FPTP approach as it prevents extremist nothing.
involves parties from gaining
voters
representation.
selecting a candidate
- In FPTP elections,
from each party in a voters choose a
primary election to candidate rather than a
compete as that party’s
political party which is
the case under some
candidate in the general
election. PR systems. This
means that the voter
rather than the party
gets to choose their
preferred candidate
which is arguably more
democratic.
4.Majority System - The winners need - It favors majorities, -It favors majorities, thus, Afghanistan, Argentina,
more than half of the so more effective shuts out minorities Austria, Bolivia, Brazil,
 votes government - Lots of votes “wasted” Bulgaria, Columbia,
- May need run off or - It provides more - Parties may be over or Cyprus, Equador,
other method to decide stability under represented Egypt, Finland, France,
the winner - Constituency services Georgia, Ghana,
- Often involves 2 as each geographic unit Guatemala, Indonesia,
rounds of elections has a representative Iran, Kazakhstan,
1st round: everyone can - Each representative Kyrgyzstan, Libya,
compete has the support of a Nigeria, Poland,
2nd round: only top two majority of his or her Portugal, Russia,
candidates compete to constituents. Slovakia, Slovenia,
ensure a majority Switzerland, Tajikistan,
Tanzania, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine,
Uruguay, Zimbabwe,
Uzbekistan, Yemen
5. Single Member - Single Membership - It provides voters - Must be redrawn on a Afghanistan, Argentina,
District District elections can with strong regular basis to maintain Austria, Bolivia, Brazil,
involve more than just constituency populations of relatively Bulgaria, Columbia,
adding up single votes representation because equal size. Cyprus, Equador,
to see who received the each voter has a single, - Are usually artificial Egypt, Finland, France,
most. easily identifiable, geographical entities Georgia, Ghana,
- Voters in each district representative. whose boundaries do not Guatemala, Indonesia,
electoral district choose -Encourage delineate clearly Iran, Kazakhstan,
only one representative constituency service by identifiable communities, Kyrgyzstan, Libya,
- It has only one providing voters with as a result, the entities Nigeria, Poland,
winner for each district an easily identifiable have no particular Portugal, Russia,
ombudsman relevance to citizens. Slovakia, Slovenia,
-Maximize -It cannot produce Switzerland, Tajikistan,
accountability because proportional Tanzania, Turkey,
a single representation representation for political Turkmenistan, Ukraine,
can be held responsible parties because of the Uruguay, Zimbabwe,
and can be re-elected tendency to over-represent Uzbekistan, Yemen
or defeated in the next the majority party and
 election. under-represent other
parties.
6. Preference System - Voters are allowed to - The successful - Often found difficult to Australia
rank candidates seeking candidate has to complete because of being India
office in an electoral achieve an absolute a complex system. New Zealand
district. majority so all votes - Very hard to count and Malta
- It does not select one and second votes and recount votes, can take a Ireland
candidate but rank all so on may be used, very long, strenuous time
candidate according to preventing vote to count
your preference. wastage. - Voters have to express a
- If 50 percent of votes - Preference allocations preference for candidates
gained by candidate, he allowing people to that they don’t want to
will be the winner. have their other support at all.
- If not, new counting choices and views
process will occur represented
wherein candidate who - It allows of like-
gained lowest votes minded philosophies or
will be eliminated and policies to exchange
that candidate’s voters’ preferences, in order to
ballot will be deemed assist each other win.
to reallocate their votes - This system allows
to their second choice. voters to fully express
And that process will their preference in
continue until there is a ways that are going to
candidate who has the fully recognized by the
majority of votes. public
- There is an open
space for multiple
candidate to run and
really get their
popularity and
popularity of their
ideas
 - More effective for
democracy and reduces
divisiveness in
campaigns
7. Single Transferable - Also 
called Hare - Under STV - In sparsely populated  Northern Ireland
Vote System system, multimember fewer votes are areas, like the Scottish  Republic of Ireland
district proportional ‘wasted’ In other Highlands, STV could  Malta
representation method words, fewer votes are lead to enormous  Scotland
of election in which a cast for losing constituencies. This was  Australia 
voter ranks candidates candidates or one of the reasons cited by
in order of preference.  unnecessarily cast for a the Arbuthnott
run-away winner. This Commission for not
means that most voters recommending STV for
- The strength of the
can identify a non-local Scottish
parties matches the
representative that they elections.
strength of their support
in the country, and personally helped to
elect. It is argued that- The process of counting
representatives - for
the results takes longer
this, in turn, increases a
example, Members of
representative’s under STV, meaning that
Parliament - have a
accountability. results cannot usually be
strong connection to
 declared on the same
their local area.
 - With STV and night as the vote takes
multi-member place.
- Rather than one
person representing constituencies, parties
everyone in a small have a powerful - A voting system that
electoral incentive to allows voters to rank
area, bigger areas elect
present a balanced candidates can be prone to
a small team of
team of candidates in what has been termed
representatives, such order to maximise the ‘donkey voting’, where
as 4 or 5. These number of higher voters vote for candidates
representatives reflect preferences that would in the order they appear
the diversity of go to their candidates. on the ballot.
opinions in the area. This goes some way to
 helping promote the - Voters only tend to come
- On election day, advancement of into contact with
voters number a list of women and ethnic- candidates at election
candidates. Their minority candidates, time, whereas people in
favourite as number who are often the party know them
one, their second overlooked in favour much better. Some argue
favourite number two, of a ‘safer’ looking that a system that allows a
candidate under ‘first political party to
and so on. Voters can
past the post’. parachute its preferred
put numbers next to as
 candidates into safe seats
many or as few
 - STV offers is better than one that
candidates as they like.
voters a choice of leaves the choice more in
Parties will often stand
representatives to the hands of the voters.
more than one
approach with their
candidate in each area.
concerns once the - In large multi-member
election is over, rather constituencies, ballot
- The numbers tell the papers can get rather large
than just a single
people counting to and potentially confusing
elected representative,
move your vote if your
who may not be at all - For an independent
favourite candidate has
sympathetic to a assessment of your
enough votes already
voter’s views. organization’s electoral
or stands no chance of
Competition to needs and impartial advice
winning.
provide a good and guidance about the
service to constituents electoral system that best
- The Single
has to be a good thing. fits your requirements
Transferable Vote is an
 speak to UK Engage.
electoral system that
 - Elected bodies
puts the power in the
with broader
hands of the public.
representation are more
Evidence from Scotland likely to be both
and Ireland suggests reflective of the
voters use it in quite electorate’s views and
sophisticated ways. more responsive to
them. Parties are broad
- Voters can also coalitions and can be
choose between markedly split on
candidates from the certain key issues.
same party or different With only one party
parties. This means person per
constituency, the
voters can elect all MPs
representatives elected
based on their
may not share the
individual abilities. views of their
Voters can also vote for electorate.
independent 
candidates without - There are no
worrying about wasting safe seats under STV,
their vote.  meaning candidates
cannot be complacent
and parties must
campaign everywhere;
not just in marginal
seats.
 When voters
have the ability to rank
candidates, the most
disliked candidate
cannot win, as they are
unlikely to pick up
second, third and
lower-preference votes.

 - By
encouraging candidates
to seek first, as well as
 lower-preference votes,
the impact of negative
campaigning is
significantly
diminished. STV also
removes the need for
tactical voting.

 - Under STV
there is a more
sophisticated link
between a constituency
and its representative.
Not only is there more
incentive to campaign
and work on a more
personal and local
level, but also, the
constituencies are
likely to be more
sensible reflections of
where community
feeling lies.
8. Second Past the - Yet to be tried in any - First and foremost, - TRS places  France
Post jurisdiction, SPP TRS allows voters to considerable pressure on  Iran
promises a whole new have a second chance the electoral  Cuba
approach not only to to vote for their administration by  Italy
voting but also to chosen candidate, or requiring it to run a   Afghanistan
campaigning. even to change their second election a short  Argentina
- With second-past-the- minds between the time after the first, thus  Austria
post, the second place first and the second significantly increasing
 Benin
finisher wins. This rounds. It thus shares both the cost of the
 Bolivia
ensures that candidates some features in overall election process
 Brazil
will try, but not too common with and the time that elapses  Bulgaria
hard. preferential systems between the holding of  Burkina Faso
- You might get one like the Alternative an election and the  Cape Verde
phone call, flyer or Vote, in which voters declaration of a result.  Chile
front door visit per are asked to rank- This can lead to  Colombia
candidate. But probably order candidates, instability and  Costa Rica
no more than that since while also enabling uncertainty. TRS also  Croatia
no one wants to risk voters to make a places an additional
 Czech Republic
becoming too popular. completely fresh burden on the voter in
 Cyprus
- SPP will result in choice in the second terms of time and effort
 Djibouti
more reserved round if they so required to cast the vote
campaigning, fewer desire. as the voter has to make  Dominican
debates and a new it to the polling station Republic
quintessentially - TRS can encourage twice, and sometimes  East Timor
Canadian rallying cry: diverse interests to there is a sharp decline in  Ecuador
"Let the second best coalesce behind the turnout between the first  Egypt
person win." successful candidates round and the second.  El Salvador
from the first round in  Finland
- The election proceeds
the lead-up to the - TRS shares many of the  Ghana
to a second round only
second round of disadvantages of FPTP.  Guatemala
if in the first round no voting, thus Research has shown that  Haiti
candidate has received encouraging bargains in France it produces the  India
a simple and trade-offs most disproportional  Iran 
majority (more than between parties and results of any Western  Indonesia
50%) of votes cast, or candidates. It also democracy, and that it  Kyrgyzstan
at least some other enables the parties and tends to fragment party
 Liberia
prescribed percentage. the electorate to react systems in new
 Lithuania
to changes in the democracies.
- In the second round,  Malawi
political landscape
usually only the two  Moldova
that occur between the - One of the most serious
candidates who  NorthMacedoni
first and the second problems with TRS is its
received the most rounds of voting. implications for deeply a
votes in the first round, divided societies. In  Peru
or those candidates
  Poland
who received above a
- TRS lessens the Angola in 1992, in what  Portugal
prescribed proportion
problems of ‘vote- was supposed to be a  Romania
of the votes, would be splitting’, the common peacemaking election,  Russia
candidates in the situation in many rebel leader Jonas  Senegal
second round. Any plurality/majority Savimbi came second in  Serbia
remaining candidate is systems where two the first round of a TRS  Slovakia
free to withdraw from similar parties or presidential election to
 Slovenia
the second round. candidates split their Jose dos Santos with 40
 Togo
- The two-round combined vote per cent of the vote as
 Turkey
between them, thus opposed to dos Santos’ 49
system is widely used  Ukraine
allowing a less per cent. As it was clear
in the election of  Uruguay
popular candidate to that he would lose the
legislative bodies and  Zimbabwe. 
win the seat. Also, run-off phase, he had
directly elected because electors do little incentive to play the
presidents, as well as in not have to rank-order democratic opposition
other contexts, such as candidates to express game and immediately
in the election of their second choice, restarted the civil war in
political party leaders TRS may be better Angola, which went on
or within companies. suited to countries for another decade. In
where illiteracy is Republic of the Congo in
widespread than 1993, prospects of a
systems which use government landslide in
preferential the second round of a
numbering like the TRS election prompted
Alternative Vote or the opposition to boycott
the Single the second round and take
Transferable Vote. up arms. In both cases,
the clear signal that one
side would probably lose
the election was the
trigger for violence. In
Algeria in 1992, the
 candidate of the Islamic
Salvation Front (Front
Islamique du Salut, FIS)
led in the first round, and
the military intervened to
cancel the second round.
The results of the 2011
election in Liberia led to
violence when the
candidate from the
opposition, Winston
Tubman, called to boycott
the second round alleging
fraud during the first one.
However, both rounds
were won by then
president Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf.

9. Hybrid System - Some electoral - While MMP retains - However, where voters  Andorra
systems combine FPTP the proportionality have two votes—one for  Armenia
and PR approaches by benefits of PR the party and one for their  Bolivia
dividing the total seats systems, it also local representative—it is  Georgia
of the legislature into ensures that elected not always understood  Germany
two groups. representatives are that the vote for the local  Greece
- Which representatives linked to geographical representative is less
 Guinea
hold the seats in the districts.  important than the party
 Hong Kong
first group is - Proportionality vote in determining the
determined by the overall allocation of seats  Hungary
- Inclusiveness  Italy
outcome of FPTP -Geographic in the legislature.
district voting. - Furthermore, MMP can  Japan
Representation
 - The remaining seats - Accountability create two classes of  Jordan
are distributed based on - Few wasted votes legislators—one group  Lesotho
the results of a separate - May be easier to primarily responsible and  Lithuania
PR vote. agree than other beholden to a  Mauritania
- Voters cast two alternatives constituency, and another  Mexico
separate votes, one in a from the national party  Monaco
FPTP race and the list without geographical
 Mongolia
other for a political ties and beholden to the
 Morocco
party in a PR contest. party. This may have
- In the PR vote, voters implications for the  Nepal
do not have to support cohesiveness of groups of  New Zealand
the party of the elected party  Philippines
candidate they chose in representatives.  Russia
the FPTP district vote. - Complicated System  San Mariano
- It benefits voter who - Requires boundary  Scotland
like a particular party in delimitation  Senegal
general but feel a - Often need for by-  Seychelles
strong attachment to a elections  South Korea
candidate of another - Can create two classes of  Sri Lanka
party. representatives  Taiwan
- Strategic voting  Tajikistan
- More difficult to  Tanzania
arranger absentee voting  Thailand
than List PR
 Ukraine
 Venezuela
 Wales
 Zimbabwe

References:
Electoral Reform Society (n.d.). Single Transferable Vote. Retrieved from https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-
of-voting-system/single-transferable-vote/
Martin, D. (2016). Second-Past-the-Post and Other Innovative Ways to Vote. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-
martin/voting-systems-federal-election_b_8174234.html

The Electoral Knowledge Network (n.d.). Electoral System. Retrieved from https://aceproject.org/ace-
en/topics/es/esd/esd01/esd01e/default
UK Engage (2013). What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Using the Single Transferable Vote (STV) System?. Retrieved
from https://www.uk-engage.org/2013/06/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-the-single-transferable-vote-stv-
system/

UK Engage. (2018, March 08). What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Using A Proportional Representation, (PR) Electoral
System? Retrieved from https://www.uk-engage.org/2013/08/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-a-proportional-
representation-pr-electoral-system/
Proportional representation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/proportional-representation
Wikipedia. Two Round System. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system#:~:text=The%20two%2Dround
%20system%20(also,vote%20for%20their%20preferred%20candidate.

Wikipedia. Mixed Electoral System. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_electoral_system

https://youtu.be/2RKFpgZIBDg