Published Article

ABSTRACT

The world of electoral systems is crowded and complex, and becoming more so all the time. The range of variations among the different electoral systems makes life quite difficult for the analyst seeking to produce an acceptable typology. One option might be to simply base a classification of the systems in terms of their outputs, that is, with reference to the process of translating votes into seats where one distinguishes between those systems which have ‘proportional’ outcomes and those with ‘non-proportional’ outcomes. The first stage for a successful electoral system is the identification of its components, which includes district magnitude’, ‘electoral formula’ and ‘ballot structure’, the next stage is to determine exactly how to use them in developing an appropriate classification of electoral systems. There has been a lot of discussion about the precise effects of the three components on the performance of electoral systems. The general consensus is that district magnitude has the greatest effect on the overall proportionality of the result: the larger the district magnitude the more proportional the translation of votes to seats. This might lead us to expect that a classification of electoral systems should base itself first and foremost on this component.