ELECTIONS 229

S c h u m p e t e r (1883-1950)
J o s e p hS

economist and longterm dynamics of the capitalist system

US
ianborn
sociologist. Following an.
an early academic and in particular the role of 'risk-loving'
Following
Morist. as Minister of entrepreneurs. In Captalism, Soclalism and
a briefspell
post-First-World-War
Austria, Democracy (1942), Schumpeter drew on
careein came professo of economic, sociological and political theories
Finarnce
Schumpeter in 1932.
Harvard University
to advance the famous contention that
SCicS at developed in Theoy western capitallsm was, Impelled by its very
economic thought,
H i se c o n o m i

Development (1912)
and sUCcess, evolving into a form of socialism.
1939), centred on the
Economic

of Cycles
B u s i n e s s

class, gender, race and so on, and only be allowed to vote for
basis of
the
on
from their
Own group.
andidates

Elections
continues to rage about the nature of representation, there
is
lthough controversy linked to
agreement: the representative process is intrinsically
ne noint of universal Elections sufficient condition for
may not in themselves be a
slections and voting. condition.
but there is little doubt that they are a necessary
nolitical representation, the very heart of
have gone further and portrayed elections as
indeed, some thinkers Capitalism, Social-
was the view developed byJoseph Schumpeterin
democracy. This 'institutional arrange-
(1942), which portrayed democracy
as an
ism and Democracy
office by a competitive struggle for the people's
ment', as a means of filling public
people havetheopportunity of
vote. As he put it, 'democracy means only that the In interpreting democracy
the men |sic who are to rulethem.
accepting or refusing in effect identified it with
than a political method, Schumpeter)
as nothing more competitive elections.
While few modern democratic
elections, and specifically with most
reduce simply to competitive elections,
democracy
theorists are prepared to
follow Schumpeter in understanding democratic gOvernment in terms
nevertheless
of elections. This focuses
conduct
rules and mechanisms that guide the
ofthe forms that elections can take.
attention on the very different Although elections
the elective principle?
are subject to
irst,which offices or posts respons-
fill those public offices whose holders havepolicy-making
used are
dre widely to
executive in particular), key
political institutions

(the legislature and chambers

es to second
the
applies, for instance, constitutional monarchs
treated as exceptions. This
mes Canada, and where
as the UK and fran-
ature in states such entitled to vote,
how widely is the
of state.(Second,)who is factors
hchise eas heads above, restrictions on the righttovote.bascd.on
VAS pointed out
abandoned
racial origin have been
ww.c
a V
such as pr ender and practice
ownership, education,
in mos property
restrictions, as in the
be informal
ntries. Nevertheless, there may in the hands of
the citizen,
filling aan
inm entirely Electlon: A device for
registration other
widespread. On the
electoral
States of leaving
choices
office or post through
with
with the and non-voting are designated body of
result that non-registrau ompulsory made by a
hand,inAustralia,Be
BelgiumandItaly,jfor
instancevotiig 1s COmp in the USSR until people: the electorate.
the was
norm

public voting show of

hird how are votescast?
cast Although in the form
of a
1989, and it is still wide y organizations
practised in small

Scanned with CamScanner

 ELECTIONS AND VOTING
REPRESENTATION,
230 11

hands, modern political

elections are gencrally held
it was
on

first
the
uscd
hasis
hads
ot a
Juth SeCrAustra
et ba
as
(sometimes called an 'Australian ballot,
scen as the guarantee of a 'fair
1856). The secret ballot is usually
and intimidation at bay. Neverthaction 10n, in
keepsthedangersofcorruption of how people vote. It is al.Coral
cannot simply be reduced to the issue
voters access to reliable and balanced information, the range of
so
afhoifeccteedthestby
offered, the circumstances under which campaigning is carri ed out,
Scrupulously the vote is counted.
and, hinaliy, t
Fourth, are clections competitive or non-competitive This is usual
most crucial of distinctions, as only about half ofthe countries thatt
offertheir electorates a genuine choice of both candidates and parties.Sinole
elections,for example, were the rule in orthodox communist states. This
public office was effectively filled through a nomination process dominatad
communist party. Electoral competition is a highly complex and often cont
1SSuc. It concerns not merely the right of people to stand for election and th
of political parties to nominate candidates and campaign legally, but also h r
factors that affect party performance, such as their sources of
funding andbroader
access to the media. From this
point of view, the nature of the party system ma thee
Crucial to the maintenance of genuine competition as are rules about
who can c
be as
and who can vote. Finally, how is the election conducted' As will be Stand
discussed t
there are a bewildering variety of electoral
systems, each of which has its own1later,
npar-
ticular political and constitutional implications.

Functions of elections
Because of the different kinds of elections, and the
variety of electoral systems
generalization about the roles or functions of elections is
less, the advance of democratization (see p. 81) in the 1980salways difficult. Neverthe
and 1990s, stimulatedin
part by the collapse of communism, has usually been associated with
the adoption of
liberal-democratic electoral systems, characterized by universal
ballot and electoral suffrage, the secr
competition. The
difficult to determine. As(Harrop and significance of such systems is, however,
more
Miller (1987) explained, there are o
contrasting views of the function of competitive elections.
(Theconventional viewjis that elections area mechanism
can be called to account and forced to introduce policies through which politicians
opinion. This emphasizes the bottom-up functions of that somehowreflect publ
elections: political
ment, representation,
making government, influencing policy and so on. recnit
other hand,a radical view of elections, )developed theorists such as On the
(1982), portrays them as a means through which by and
Ginser
governments political ento
can
exercise control over their populations, making them more
quiescent,
and,ultimately, governable. This view emphasizes top-down functions:maleaps builaig
legitimacy, shaping public opinion and strengthening elites. In reality, howevc
elections have no single character; they are neither simply mechanisms
accountability nor a means of ensuring political control. Like all channels ofotpoild
pu
communication, elections are a 'two-way street' that provides the governmen
the people, the elite and the masses, with the
The opportunity to influence one anon
central functions of elections include the following
Recruiting politicians: In democratic states, elections are the principal source
political recruitment, taking account also of the processes through which partu
 TONS

nominate
oliticians
lidates. Poli thus tend to
possess talents and skills that
231
ch
r e

electioneering,
l a t e d t o e l e c t i o n e

as
charisma (see p. 212), oratorical skills and are

cessarily those that suit them to carrying out good

l o o k s , n o t

on committees, ing government departments and so on.

tees, runinin constituency duties, serving
that
sts that require specialist
Elections are typically
n o t u s e dt o fill posts knowledge or experience, Such as those in
ivil
service or j
the

M a k i
Overnments: Elections make
governments directly only in states such
France and Venezuela in which the political executive is directly
more Ore co elected.
common parliamentary systems, elections influence the formation of
the
In
SOver
ents, most strongly when the electoral
system tendsgive a single party a
to
clearparliam
amentary majority. The use of proportional representation (see p. 232)
C
may mean
a that governments are formed through post-election deals, and that
governments
nments can be
be made and unmade without the need for an election.

PProviding representation: When they are fair and competitive, elections are a
ich
neans through which demands are channelled) from the public to the government.
-
Chort of the use of initiatives and the recall, however, the electorate has no effective
means of ensuring that mandates are carried out, apart from its capacity to, inflict
atunishment at the next election. Moreover, elected governments nowhere constitute
punis
a microcosm of
the larger society.
.Influencing policy: Elections certainly deter governments from pursuing radical
but only in exceptional cases, when a single issue
and deeply unpopular policCies,
said to influence policy directly. It can
dominates the election campaign, can they be
the range of policy options outlined in elections is typically so
also be argued that that
narrow that the
result can be of only marginal policy significance. Others suggest
more by practical dictates such as the
state
government policy 15 in
any caseshaped
electoral considerations.
ofthe economy than it is by
process of campaigning provides the electorate with
an
voters: The
Educating
candidates, policies, the current govern-
abundance of information, about parties, education only
and so on. However, this leads to
ment's record, the political system,
that is provided, and the way it is provided, engages
public interest
information
ifthe to apathy and
alienation. As candidates and parties
and stimulates debate, as opposed incentive to provide
seek to persuade rather than to
educate, they als0 have a strong
information.
incomplete and distorted
authoritarian regimes bother to hold
legitimacy: One reason why even
Building is that elections help to
foster legitimacy
are noncompetitive,
elections, even if they because the
justification for a system of rule. This happens
(See p. 210) by providing election a ceremonial status
somehow confers on an
trual involved in campaigning citizens to participate in politics,
and importance. Most importantly, by encouraging
mobilize active consent.
even in the limited form of voting, elections

can also be a
vehicle through which elites can
otrengthening elites: Elections encouraged(Proudhon (see
control the masses. This possibility
nanipulate and discontent
that 'universal suffrage is counter-revolution'. Political
P: 100) to warn constitutional
be neutralized by elections that channel them in a
dnd opposition can
while the regime itself
survives.
allow to come and go
Tection, and governments
time, they 8ive
Elections are effective in this respect because, at the same
particularly
Citizens the impression that they are exercising power over the governmen
 AND VOTING
ELECTIONS

REPRESENTATION,

11
controversies
debates and
Electoral systems:
Concept that governs
the conduct ofelection
fclections
An clectoral system is a set of
rules also, in many countri Not orly &
Proportional
representation these rules across the
vary
world, but they are
These rules vary umber of ways
in a num the subiect ck
argument.
fierce political debate and
The principle of proportional candidates or betwecen Da-
representation is the Voters may beasked to choose
between parties.
principle that parties should
be represented in an Voters may either select a single
candidate, or vote preferentiall.
tially, ranking
assembly or parliament in Candidates they wish to support
in order. the
direct proportion to their into electoral units or
not be grouped or constituenc e

overall electoral strength, T h e elcctorate may or may

their percentage of seats member or a number of membere ers.
Constituencies may return a single
equalling their percentage
The level ofsupport needed to elect a candidate varies from a plurality (st.
of votes. The term is
generally used to refer not to an Overall or 'absolute8
he lerga
to a single method
of
single nunmber of votes or a relative majority) te majoiny
election but to a variety of or a quota of some kind.
electoral mechanisms,
those able to secure For general purposes, however, tlhe systems available can be divided into to
proportional outcomes, or categories on the basis of how they convert votes into seats. On the one hand
at least a
high and reliable are majoritarian systems, in which larger parties typically win a higher pron there
degree of proportionality.
The best known PR
systems
of seats than the proportion of votes they gain in the election. This increat roportion
are the
party-list system,
the single-transferable-vote
chances of a single party gaining a parliamentary majority and being:
able to govwthe
on its own. In the UK, for
system and the additional example, single-party government S
very firmly ecta
lished despite the fact that no party has achieved an electoral
member system, although
the other hand, there are proportional
majority since 1935
the dividing line between systems, which guarantee an equal, or at la
proportional and more equal,
relationship between the seats won by a party and the votes gained in th
majoritarian systems is election. In a pure system of proportional
Sometimes unclear. cent of
representation (PR), a party that gains&
per the votes would win exactly 45 per cent of the seats.
Commonly used in PR systems
therefors
continental Europe, PR make single-party majority rule less
likely, and are commonly associated with
systems are concemed party systems and coalition government. The electoral mult.
more with the
following Focus boxes range from the most majoritarian systems described in tha
representation of parties type of proportional system. type ot system to the purest
than of individual
candidates, and may be Although in some countries the electoral system
particularly suitable for in others it is
an issue of provokes little debate or interest
divided pressing political and constitutional
or plural societies. instance, has changed its electoral
system so many times that
significance. France, for
runs therisk of being out of date. The any
statement about it
second
elections in 1985, when France switched to ballot was abandoned for parliamentar
duced for the 1993 election. In the
a
regional-list system, but it was reintro
UK, although the
system continues to be used for
general elections,
majoritarian first past the post
a number of
systems have since 1999 been introduced for more
proportional
land, Wales and Northern Ireland, the elections to the devolved bodies in Scot
Parliament. The confusing Greater London
thing about Assembly and the European
the electoral reform
that have occurred reflect no debate is that the shits
consistent pattern. In 1994,
proportional representation in while New Zealand
adopteu
direction, replacing the party place of the FPTP
system, Italy moved in the
list with
system (75 per cent of members of the the less proportional additional
opposie
system) Chamber of Deputies are mem
elected by the
Electoral systems attract FrI
attention in part because
party performance, and they have a crucial impact on
particularly
sharing) power. It would be foolish, on their
then, to denyprospects
of winning (or
system are shaped that a
largely by party advantage. attitudes towards the elect
President Mitterrand's twists and tu
 were
in Tiu

Socialist resentation in the National dictated mainly by his desire

in electoral retorm since the
1980sAssembly,
interest electoral reform to
strengthen
Similarly,
has waxed and the UK Labour
waned
ned Party s
according toto whether
FOcUs on.

soral syst
ectoral systems: single-member plurality
past the post') system (SMP) ("first
he
Used: The UK (House of Commons), the USA, Canada and India, for
Type: M a j o r i t a r i a n . example.

Features:

The country
divided into
is div single-member constituencies, usually of equal size.
tors
Voter
select a single candidate, usually marking his or her name with a cross

on the ballot paper.

The winning candidate needs oniy to achieve a plurality of votes (the 'first past

the post rule).

Advantages:
The SVstem establishes a clear link between representatives and constituents,
duties are carried out.
ensuring that constituency
I t offers the
electorate a clear choice of potential parties of government.
to be formed that have a clear mandate from
the
I t allows governments the electorate.
often on the basis of plurality support amongst
electorate, albeit
difficult for small radical parties to
at bay by making it more
I t keeps extremism
and credibility.
gain seats that a single party usually
has
and effective government in
I t makes for strong
of the assembly
majority control rarely collapse
in that single-party governments
stable government
I t produces internal friction.
of disunity and
as a result

Disadvantages: those cast for losing

most) votes,
many (perhaps plurality mark.
The system 'wastes ones over
the
for winning
candidates and those cast small parties and
ones
'under-representing'

electoral preferences
by third-party effect).
Itdistorts distributed support (the
With geographically evenly (two-majorparties)

because of its duopolistic

It only
offers limited choice
often enjoy only
tendencies. that governments
of government in
legitimacy
undermines the of plurality rule shift
a system a radical
Support, producing can lead to
Orty change in
government
because a
eateS instability usually
of policies and direction. is
legislature
government
in that the members
are
its
majority of
unaccountable
stO because the
to the executive,
ate
CSupporters in
Tavou
of the governing party. spread of
candidates

socially broad
of a
o ourages the selection body of
voters.

of those who are attractive to a large

Scanned with CamScanner

 il, and

Focuson
Electoral systems: second bailot system
Used: in France (although changes in France's electoral system!
Traditionally have
been common). Type: Majoritarian.

Features
There are single-candidate constituencies and Single-cn0Ice voting, as in the
first-pastthe-post (FPTP) system.
To win on the first ballot, a candidate needs an overall majority of the votes cast
I f no candidate gains a first-ballot majority, a second, run-off ballot is held
between the leading two candidates.

Advantages:
The system broadens electoral choice: voters can vote with their hearts for their
preferred candidate in the first ballot, and with their heads for the least-bad
candidate in the second.
o As candidates can win only with majority support, they are encouraged to make
their appeal as broad as possible.
o Strong and stable government is possible, as with FPTP systems.

Disadvantages:
oAs the system is little more proportional than the FPTP system, it distorts
preferences and is unfair to 'third' parties.
of
o Run-off candidates are encouraged to abandon their principles in search
short-termpopularity or as a result of deals with defeated candidates.
and intere
o The holding of a second ballot may strain the electorate's patience
in politics.

Scanned with CamScanner

FOCUS on..

alGVstems:
E l e c t o

alternative vote
vote (SV system (AV);
Used: Aus tralia (House of
Supplementary
Type: Majoritarian.
Representatives (AV)), and the UX
(London mayor (SV).
Features

There are single-membe constituencies.

a r a is
preferential votin8. In AV voters rank the candidates in order of
ference: for
preference: 1 fo their first preterence, 2 for
their second
In SV there is onlya single 'Supplementary' vote. preference, and so on.

Winning candidates must gain 50 per cent of all the

votes cast.
Votes are counted accoraing to the tirst preferences. If no candidate reaches
50 per cent, the bottom candidate is eliminated and his or her
votes are
redistributed according to the second (or subsequent) preferences. This
continues until one candidate has a majority. In SV all candidates drop out
except the top two.

Advantages:
Fewer votes are 'wasted' than in the FPTP system.
Unlike the second-ballot system, the outcome cannot be influenced by deals
made between candidates.
Although winning candidates must secure at least 50 per cent support, single
party majority government is not ruled out.

Disadvantages: is still
ne system is not much proportional than the FPTP system, and so
more
Diased in favour of largeparties.
T Outcome may be determined by the preferences of those who support
C
Small, possibly extremist, parties.
have oniy tne
support, and
i Candidates may enjoy little first-preference
O r being the least unpopular candidate available.

Scanned with CamScanner

 FoCUSon

etoral systems: additional member system (AMS)

Electora

Cermany, Italy, Russia (State Duma), New Zealand, and the UK (Scottish
UsCuent and Welsh Assembly). Type: Proportional.
U s e d :

Parliament and

Italy, Scotland and

Features

of seats (50 per cent in Germany, but more in

proportion
A system using single-member
Wales,
for instance) are filled by the FPTP
constituencies.

The remaining seats are tilled using a party list (as explained in the party-list
system box).
two votes: one for a candidate in the constituency election, and
Flectors cast
theother for a party.

Advantages:
balances the need for constituency
hybrid nature of this system
The
electoral fairness. The party-list process
.

representation against the need for

the whole assembly is proportionally representative.
ensures that it keeps
is broadly proportional in
terms of its outcome,
Although the system
of single-party government.
alive the possibility party and
representative from one
electors to choose a constituency
It allows
a government.
another party to form
yet support constituents and holding
account of the fact
that representing
talents and
It takes different jobs that require very different
ministerial office are very

experience.

Disadvantages: achievement of
constituencies prevents the
I n e retention of single-member
high levels of proportionality. one burdened by
insecurity
of representative,
of
Te system creates two classes higher status and the prospect
duties, the other
having
Constituency
holding ministerial office. constituencies
because of the size of
representation
suffers
ency
large as in FPTP systems). asthey
rally twice as under this system,
and powerful has to fight
Parties DeCome
become more centralized

being on the list

and who
decide of
decide Or t only who has the security list are placed. candidates
the
constituenci but also where on

Scanned with CamScan

 FOCUS on..
Electoral systems: single-transferable-voto system (STV)
V)
Used: The
Republic of Ireland and the UK (Northern Ireland Assembly). Type:
Proportional.
Features
e
multimember constituencies, each of which returnS up to five
members.
m a y put forward as many candidates as there are seats to fill.
iectors vote
preferentially, as in the alternative vote systel
andidates are elected if they achieve a quota. This is the minimum number
of
Voles heeded to elect the stipulated number of candidates, calculated

according to the Droop formula:

total number of votes cast
quota =
(number of seats to be filled+ 1)

For example, if 100 000 votes are cast in a constituency that elects four
members, the quota is 100 000/(4 + 1) + 1 = 20001.

The votes are counted according to first preferences. If not all the seats are
filled, the bottom candidate is eliminated. His or her votes are redistributed
according to second preferences, and so on, until all the seats have been filled

Advantages:
The system is capable of achieving highly proportional outcomes.
o Competition amongst candidates from the same party means that they can be
judged on their records and on where they stand on issues that cut across pa
lines.
o The availability of several members means that constituents can choose wno
take their grievances to.

Disadvantages:
The degree of proportionality achieved varies, largely on the basis orthe
system.
Strong and stable single-party government is unlikely.
Intra-party competition may be divisive, and may allow members
constituency responsibilities.
FOCUs oN meprpular

ctoralsystems;
party-list system
and in
Used: srael, and countries throughout
and S itzerland, and the European Europe, including,
Parliament. Type: Belgium, Lgxembeurg
Features Proportional
entire countiy
ither the entire cou is treated
as a
regional party lists, there are a single constituency, or,
number of large in the case of
ase of
Parties ompile lists of candidates to place mutimember constituencies
order of preference. before the electorate.
Flectors vote for parties, not for descending in

Doties are allocated seats in

candidates
direct
election. They fill these proportion to the votes they
seats from their
party list. gan the in
A
threshold' may be imposed (5 per
cent in Germany) to exclude smail.
DOssibly extremist, parties from representation.
Advantages:
This is the only potentially pure
system of proportional representation, and is
therefore fair to all parties.
The system promotes unity by
or region rather than with a
encouraging electors to identity with their nation
constituency.
The system makes it easier for
women and minority candidates to be elected.
provided, of course, they feature on the party list.
Ine representation of a large number
of small parties ensures that there is an
enphasis upon negotiation, bargaining and consensus.

Disadvantages:
The existence of many small parties can lead to weak and unstable govemment.
The link between representatives and constituencies is entirely broken.
Unpopu
rom office.
candidates who are well placed on a party list cannot be removed

Parties
Junior ecome heavilycentralized, because leaders draw up party lists, and
junior men to be loyal in the hope of moving up the list.
S have an incentive