POLITICAL

PARTIES AND
ELECTIONS
MAKING SENSE OF
POLITICS TOPIC 4

1
THE QUESTIONS
What is political party?
What kind of electoral system do we have?
So what if we have different electoral systems?

2
POLITICAL PARTIES

3
POLITICAL PARTIES
Political party: a organization that seeks to control and
exercise governmental power

Divergence between political parties

• Organization
• Behavior
• Constitutional role
• Political status
 Very different across time and space

4
POLITICAL PARTY
Q: What is a political party?

Mistake: give a set of stable definition that all

political parties should/ must conform to

Better: lenses for studying political parties

5
FUNCTIONAL
PERSPECTIVE
Playing a crucial role in mass politics

1. Political party as information short-cut

2. Political party as platform for organizing the people
3. Political party organizer of government
4. Political party as organization for identity building

6
INFORMATION Modern politics
SHORT-CUT too complicated
(Direct
democracy
problem)
Understand
society D
un ifficu
Political Parties d e lt
rst to
an
d

Sort and
analyze
information Easier to People
Set agenda/ understand
issue
prioritization
Offer
solution
options

7
ORGANIZING THE PEOPLE
People

Party A
Diverse
L K G E composition
and interest of
L K society
Co arg
m ain

I
B

pe

J
te
/

Co
H

nf
E

lic
F

ts
C
D
Party B A
B
H F D B
Comp
et
Barga e/
in
Aggregation of
Interests Party C
+
Mobilization for J I C A
competition

8
 ORGANIZING
GOVERNMENT Various
government
offices
Executive
(Cabinet)
Form government Winning Party
Legislature

Appoint
judiciary F
(restricted) Opp orm
osit Losing People
io n Accountability
parties

9
IDENTITY CULTIVATION
Talent:
cultivate political
talents
Practice ground
Leader grooming
People

Identity:
Party affiliation
Ideological positions
(Liberal? Socialist?) Political Parties Values:
Ideologies
Political values
Knowledge:
Issues
Systems
Policy options

10
POLITICAL PARTIES
Prevalent phenomenon in modern politics
• Political parties are present in all democracy
• Even authoritarian/ totalitarian regimes form parties
• Parties naturally flourish unless deliberately suppressed
• Once the ban is lifted, political parties return

11
Fluidity of party development
• Political parties are formed in the process of political
development
• New democracy form a party to run election
• Authoritarian rule form a party to resist
• Party develops alongside with political practices and events

Political parties are as diverse as the political world itself

12
PARTY AND PARTY
SYSTEM
Party Party system
Party  the political organization

But how do these political parties interact?

• Their practice
• Pattern of behavior
Party
• Dynamics of interactions
System

13
KINDS OF PARTY SYSTEM
(ROUGHLY)
1. One party dictatorship
2. Dominant party + small parties
3. Two-party system
4. Two-party + small parties
5. Multi-party system
• More than two parties
• No clearly dominant party or parties
• Coalition needed to form government

Remarks: Having parties ≠ democracy (e.g. HK)

It depends on the role and power of the parties

14
IS PARTY SYSTEM A NATURAL
OUTCOME OF THE PEOPLE’S
WILL?

15
LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT
UK

16
IT SEEMS THE PEOPLE WANT
THREE PARTIES… BUT…

Total 646 seats

17
HOW DID ALL THIS
HAPPEN?

Party System is greatly influenced by

electoral system

18
FAMILIES OF ELECTORAL
SYSTEMS

19
I. Majoritarian System
1. Simple Plurality
a) First Past the Post
2. Absolute Plurality (or absolute majority)
a) Two-Round voting (or second ballot)
b) Alternative Voting
II. Proportional Representation
1. Party List
2. Single Transferable Vote
3. And the mess in between
III. Somewhere in between (no time for this)

20
SIMPLE PLURALITY &
FIRST PAST THE POST
First Past The Post (FPTP)
• If you have most votes  you win
• How much or how little you win does not matter
• It is Super simple
• Winner-takes-all system
• Horse race system

21
Electoral district #1 Electoral district Electoral district #3
#2

Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party

#1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3

24 14 12 2 46 2 24 20 6
votes votes votes votes votes votes votes votes votes

Votes Seats Actual vote share

got got
Party #1 50 2 seats 50/150 = 33% (1 seat)
Party #2 80 1 seat 80/150 = 53% = (1.6 seat)
Party #3 20 0 seat 20/150 = 13% = (0.4 seat)

22
LET’S ANIMATE
THE EXPLANATION
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=FLhzslOOPY
B7IdXMRRVQXLsg&index=2

23
EFFECTS OF FPTP
Tends towards Two-party system

But is Two-party system really so bad?

Some strength of a Two-party system
1. Stable party politics
• Stable party government
2. Clear cut victory  certainty on which party forms
government
3. Gain party support for the democratic system
• Obvious chance for opposition to retake government
4. Creates moderate political parties

24
Why are political parties under FPTP usually moderate?
1. FPTP requires winning as many votes as possible
2. Party will send candidates that:
• Has broadest appeal
• Offend least people
3. Parties will race to win the votes at the center
• Rather than far left or far right
• (assuming moderates are the majority in the society)

If the country is very fragmented, FPTP may help pulling the

country together
• Case of India

25
PROBLEMS ARE REAL,
OF COURSE
1. FPTP  disproportional representation
• Labor Party got 30% of vote and returned 50% of seats
• Liberal democrat won 20% of vote and got 10% of seats
2. Votes casted on the third party are wasted
• No chance to influence election results
• It may even lead to splitting votes  weakening the party
with similar interest
3. Votes casted on the losing parties are also wasted
• (Party A 51%) vs (Party B 49 %)
• All 49 % of votes are unrepresented

26
27
4. Safe-seat problem
• In some districts, a party may be too strong to be
challenged
• The opposition in the district is never represented
5. Exclude minorities from representation
• Candidate with broadest appeals is seldom from racial
minority
• Similar effects on women
5. The problem of Gerrymandering
• Let’s watch a video
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Mky11UJb9AY&list=FLhzslOOPYB7IdXMRRVQXLsg&
index=3

28
PARTIAL SOLUTION:
ABSOLUTE PLURALITY
Problem: Voters are unrepresented (their votes wasted)
Solution: Require candidate to get over 50% of votes to win

A. Two-round voting system

1. First round of election  no one gets more than 50% vote
2. Second round of election between two leading candidates

29
ABSOLUTE PLURALITY
B. Alternative Voting system (AV)
• Mentality:
• if I could not get my desired candidate (A) elected
• I would rather let this guy (B) get elected than another guy (C)
• It works like this
• Voters will choose more than one candidate on the ballot paper
• Instead of a she puts down numbers
• (1)  1st preference; (2)  2nd preference; so forth
• After first round of election,
• if no one is over 50%
• Eliminate candidates at the bottom
• Redistribute the vote according to 2nd preference
• Repeat the process until someone has more than 50% of vote

30
Candidate A Candidate B Candidate C

Election

25% 35% 40%

FPTP

31
 Candidate A Candidate B Candidate C

35% 40%
25%

Plus Second Preference

20% for 55% 45%

5% for A
B

32
NEW CHIEF
IN TOWN

33
ABSOLUTE PLURALITY
It solves part of the problems
1. Voters preferences are better represented
2. Candidates will appeal to non-traditional supporters

But it doesn’t solve

3. Disproportional representation
4. Safe-seat problem
5. Exclude minority
6. Gerrymandering

34
PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
A more comprehensive solution: PR
Principle:
1. The seats won by political parties should be proportional to the
votes won by the parties.
2. 20% of vote  20% of seats
3. Usually no parties win majority  Coalition Government

Many Kinds of PR:

4. Party List
5. Single Transferrable Vote
6. Mixed Member Proportional Representation
7. HK’s Quasi Party List

35
PARTY LIST SYSTEM
This is how it works:
1. Multi-member constituencies
• Can be regional or national
• Or both (e.g. South Africa: two-tier system)
2. Political parties compile a list of candidates
• Voters have no direct control over nomination
• Higher up on the list  get the seat first
3. Vote for parties, not individual candidates
4. Allot seats to parties according to % of votes won

36
 5 seats in the district

Socialist Party
Liberal Party Green Party
1. Lenin
1. John 1. Peter
2. Trotsky
2. Mary 2. Alessandra
3. Stalin
3. Bob 3. Gordon
4. Kruschev
4. Henry 4. Ernest
5. Vasili
5. Alex 5. Mike

37
 Voters

Liberal Green Socialist

Party Party Party

38
 5 seats in the district

40% 20% 40%

Socialist Party
Liberal Party Green Party
1. Lenin
1. John 1. Peter
2. Trotsky
2. Mary 2. Alessandra
3. Stalin
3. Bob 3. Gordon
4. Kruschev
4. Henry 4. Ernest
5. Vasili
5. Alex 5. Mike

39
SINGLE TRANSFERRABLE
VOTE
This is how it works:
1. Multi-member constituencies
2. Vote in preference (number, not )
3. Votes counted according to the 1st Preference
4. Candidates are elected if they achieve a quota

40
1. Quota = ( +1 )
• The quota varies in each election
2. After first round of election,
• If someone passes the quota  win
• Redistribute the surplus vote of the winner according to
2nd preference
• if no one is over the Quota
• Eliminate candidates at the bottom
• Redistribute the vote according to 2nd preference
3. Repeat the process until all seats are filled

41
OK…
THIS IS
FXXXING TOO
COMPLICATED

I am quite sure no one knows what I am talking about

Let’s watch a video…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

42
ADVANTAGES OF
PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
1. Every vote counts
• The seats are proportional to votes won
• Most accurately reflect the preference of voters
2. Minority has a good chance of being
represented
• Minority and women are statistically better
represented under PR
• No need to push the “most acceptable
candidate”

43
3. Gerrymandering becomes very difficult
• However you draw, the proportion remains relatively the
same
4. Incentive for long term policy
• Coalition government  not switching parties with
opposing ideologies
• Easier to keep long term policies
• (IF THERE IS a stable coalition government; e.g.
Germany)

44
 PROBLEMS OF PR
1. Proportional Representation  multi-party
system
• Coalition government
• Serious instability  government keeps
collapsing
2. Fragmentation of party system and
extremist parties
• Multi-party system can create many
small parties
• Small parties are looking after sectional
interest
• No need to cover the moderate voters
• Only need to appeal to a small group of
voters to win seats
• Small scale extremist parties arise

45
PROBLEMS OF PR
3. Difficult to throw parties out of power
• PR enables small parties to keep returning to legislature
• Even though a party lost some seats
• May still be partners in the coalition government
• Very difficult to kick out a party

4. Party List system weakens links between voters and

candidates
• Party choosing candidates
• Candidates need to please the Party center more than the
voters
• Weakens accountability towards voters
• Too much power in the hands of Party leaders

46
5. Single Transferable Vote (STV) is too complicated
• It avoids the problem of “weakening links” in party list
system
• But the numerical model is very complicated
• Difficult for voters to understand
6. Single Transferable Vote also leads to intra-party fighting
• All candidates are competing with each other
• Including candidates of the same party

47
Majoritaria Proportion
n al
Simple Plurality
• Single-member Party list
constituency
• Multi-member
constituency

Absolute Plurality Single

(single-member transferable
constituency) vote (STV)
• Second ballot
• Alternative vote

48
WHICH ELECTORAL
SYSTEM IS BETTER ?

That’s a misleading question

49
BETTER SYSTEM?
A electoral system is good only to the extent that it brings
the effects we want. So…

The question should be 3-fold:

a) What effects can this system bring in general?
b) What effects (or side effects) do we want (or to avoid)?
c) Given the specific context, what adjustments do we need
to bring the effects we want?

In other words… No Text-Book Answer

50
APPENDIX

51
BEAUTY OF PR: CASE OF
SOUTH AFRICA
South Africa ended the Apartheid in 1994
• Going democratic
In terms of population, black people are majority
Before 1994
• Only white people can vote
• Using First Past the Post system
It seems natural that the black people would adopt FPTP
• If stay in FPTP
• Mandela’s party (African National Congress) can easily take
70-80 % of parliament seats

52
BEAUTY OF PR: CASE OF
SOUTH AFRICA
ANC, however, believes that ‘winner takes all’ will destabilize
South Africa in long term
ANC and its allies agreed to adopt Party List PR system
In 1994, the parliament was composed of
• 52% Black
• 32% White
• 8% Indian
• 7% Colored
• Women also made up 25% of the MPs
Any speculation is counter-factual, but it seems that the PR
system worked

53
FPTP NOT SO BAD AFTER
ALL: CASE OF INDIA
India went independent in 1947
Indian Constitution was adopted by a Constitution Assembly
in 1950
• Composed of jurists, lawyers, constitutional experts, political
thinkers
• Worked for three years to design the electoral system
• Proportional Representation was carefully considered
• Adopted FPTP in the end

54
FPTP NOT SO BAD AFTER
ALL: CASE OF INDIA
Reason for FPTP
• India is a developing country
• Widespread illiteracy and poverty
• Proportional representation
•  Fragmented legislature
•  Unstable government

FPTP allows the Congress Party run India until 1977

55
WORLD OF EXCEPTIONS
First Past to Post  Two party system
Proportional representation  multi-party system

Tendency only

Case of UK: Coalition government since 2010

Case of India:
• In 1969, the Congress Party breaks into two
• After 1977, even with FPTP, India failed to have a stable
government
• The ethnic, caste and religious diversity is so fragmentary that no
party can get over 50% of seats
• Smaller parties manage to coordinate and create multi-party

56
system without changing the electoral laws
HONG KONG’S
AWKWARD SYSTEM
Hong Kong:
Party List + the largest remainder method (Hare quota)

Hare Quota = ( )
Hare Quota = ( ) = 20

57
PARTY LIST SYSTEM IN
HONG KONG
Parties Votes Candidat #2 #3 No. of
got e #1 seats
gaine
d
A 52 52 (1) 32 (2) 12 3
(5)
B 28 28 (3) 8 1

C 20 20 (4) 1

58