Democracy - Elections
Electoral Systems in International Perspective
(1044)
The U.S. Electoral College has features common to other election systems around the world but combined in a unique way.
Andrew Ellis is director of operations for the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) in Stockholm, Sweden.
This article will appear in the forthcoming September edition of eJournal USA, The Electoral College.
By Andrew Ellis
There are many criteria that can be used to judge electoral frameworks. Some examples are how representative they are, the stability and effectiveness of government, the accountability of government, the accountability of individual elected members, the encouragement of strong political parties, and the promotion of legislative opposition and oversight. But no electoral system can maximize all of these.
In designing institutional frameworks, the question to be asked by any society is which criteria are important -- and why. Depending on the answers, institutional design can seek to respond. However, the impact of any electoral system and framework depends on many features and on how the details interact with each other.
Different electoral systems can produce different winners from the same votes cast. The U.S. presidential electoral system has a set of features none of which are unique or even necessarily remarkable in themselves, but which are unique in their combination and effect.
Major Categories
Almost all electoral systems worldwide can be divided into three major categories: plurality/majority systems, proportional representation systems, and mixed systems. In the 199 countries and territories with an identifiable electoral system at the end of 2004, 91 used plurality/majority systems for legislative elections, 72 used proportional representation systems, and 30 used mixed systems. The systems in six other countries fall outside these categories.
The first-past-the-post, or winner-take-all, system is the most common type of plurality/majority system: It was used in 47 of the 91 cases. In established democracies, proportional representation systems are more common, but the use of first-past-the-post by India and the United States means that more people live in countries and territories that use such a system.
In choosing a president, there is, by definition, one winner. The electoral system used is bound to be of a plurality/majority type. At the end of 2004, there were 102 countries and territories in which the people voted to choose a president. This total includes countries with one of two types of systems: a presidential system, in which the president serves both as head of state and head of executive government, serves for a fixed term, and is not dependent on the confidence of the legislature to stay in office; and a parliamentary system, in which the president is head of state with few or no substantive powers, and executive government is headed by a prime minister who depends on the confidence of the legislature.
Of these 102 countries, 78 used some form of two-round system. And of those 78 countries, 22 used a first-past-the-post system; one used the alternative vote, in which voters number their preferences; and one used the supplementary vote, in which voters show their first and second choices. The first-past-the-post system is a known and accepted model, although not the most commonly used.
The systems used in 101 of the 102 countries that select a president involved the overall totaling of the votes for each candidate/ticket across the entire country. The United States is, however, unique in also using an electoral college. Votes cast by the people in each of the states and the District of Columbia are counted separately to choose electors for each, and the president is then chosen by these electors. The practical difference brought about by this system is that it creates the possibility that the candidate who wins the most votes across the whole country will not be elected president. This has happened, in practice, on three occasions out of 55 U.S. presidential elections (1876, 1888, and 2000).
Electoral Colleges
Electoral college systems are also sometimes used for elections at the local level. In Paris, each of the 20 arrondissements (city districts) elects members of the city council using a two-round electoral system that tends to give the biggest proportion of seats to the leading political party or that party's list of candidates, but that system often also enables representation of a second party or list. The list is likely to feature the name of the mayoral candidate prominently: The list of the current mayor campaigned in the 2008 elections under the official description "Paris, a time of advance with Bertrand Delanoë."
After the results are declared, the newly elected Paris city council members convene and vote to elect the mayor. An absolute majority is required for the mayor to be elected in the first or the second round of voting. If the voting goes to a third round, the mayor is elected by first-past-the-post and may therefore have only a plurality.
The city council members thus form an electoral college. The important feature of this electoral college, however, is that the city council members also form the city legislature through the mayor's period of office. The election of the mayor by the legislators serves to maximize the possibility that the mayor will have the support of a working majority of the city legislature during the term of office. In contrast, the members of the Electoral College for the U.S. presidency have no other function, and there is no link built into the electoral system between the presidency and the membership of the Congress.
In discussing electoral colleges, some writers include countries such as Estonia, India, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago, where the president -- usually a head of state in a parliamentary system -- is elected by the members of both houses of a two-chamber legislature, or by a combination of representatives elected at the national and local levels. In these countries, the voters for the legislature choose their legislators, and the candidates for president do not appear on the ballot in either general or municipal elections. These systems are perhaps best described as indirect electoral systems rather than as electoral colleges.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.
(This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://www.america.gov)
Reports of confusing ballots and other irregularities led to demands for statewide and county recounts in Florida. The national Democratic and Republican parties dispatched teams of lawyers and political operatives to make their case in the courts and media. Acrimonious and widely publicized disputes over the recounts dominated the news for weeks, and both parties filed suit in Florida state and federal courts. Meanwhile, the clock was ticking: Federal law required Florida to declare its electoral vote by December 12.
After a series of starts and stops and conflicting lower court decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled five to four that Florida's recount procedures violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and that, since there was no time to devise and implement a different plan, the vote would stand. The court's decision was assailed by Gore supporters as politically biased in favor of the Republican Party, but the recounts ended and George Bush was declared the winner in Florida with a margin of 537 votes. Nationwide, Bush won 271 electoral votes to Al Gore's 266, but Gore had received about 540,000 more popular votes.
Although bitterly disappointed, Vice President Gore accepted the results and urged his supporters to respect the Supreme Court's decision in the best interests of the nation. A number of representatives contested the results when Congress met to count the electoral vote on January 6, 2001, but they lacked Senate co-sponsors and were disallowed by Gore, who as vice president presided over the session. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, the first U.S. president in more than a century who failed to win a plurality of the popular vote.
The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government or the policies or findings of the Congressional Research Service.
(This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://www.america.gov)