DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS
ON FEMALE POLITICAL REPRESENTATION

Directorate-General for Research
Working document
WOMEN'S RIGHTS SERIES
- W-10 -


2. Electoral Systems

Two systems of electoral practice exist within the European Union: majority or plurality systems and proportional representation (PR).

The majority system is the oldest electoral system in the world, and was for a long time the only system used. Its advantage is seen to be its simplicity: the candidate who receives the majority of the votes is declared elected. It is also endorsed as promoting parliamentary stability. However, the main criticism of this type of electoral system is that it is often unfair; a very large parliamentary majority can be given to a party which has won only a minor national victory, and in some instances even give victory to a party which received a smaller percentage of the national vote than the defeated party. Problems also arise from the tendency of the majoritarian system to exclude sections of public opinion, including minorities.

There are two types of majoritarian system: Simple majority or "First-past-the- post" and Absolute majority. Simple majority occurs when the candidate who wins the largest number of votes is elected. This means that even if the candidate only obtains a fairly low level of the overall vote (for example, 25%), they are elected as long as no-one else receives a larger number of votes. Within the E.U. this system is only practised in the United Kingdom.

Absolute majority combines the effects of both rounds of voting in an absolute majority vote in a single round of voting. The electorate votes for a single candidate while indicating, in declining order, their preferences for the remaining candidates. If no-one receives an absolute majority in the first count, then the candidate who received the smallest number of votes is eliminated, and the corresponding second choices are counted. This goes on until a candidate obtains an absolute majority as a consequence of transferring votes. This system is used in France, where a simple majority is used in the second round.

Proportional representation was first introduced in Belgium in 1889, and has been promoted as a fairer system of electoral representation. Political groups receive seats in proportion to their electoral strength, and therefore no single political force should retain a monopoly as none is excluded from representation. Proportional representation requires party-list voting, and in this way, it is often "political ideas" rather than "personalities" which are the focus of election campaigns. However, one of the main disadvantages of PR is that it can incite or heighten the fragmentation of the political system, sometimes leading to political instability. The system of a party list also removes the voter from the elected, giving the political party a vital role in selecting its candidates.

Party list systems in proportional representation are either Closed Party lists or Preferential Vote. Closed party lists reflect a political party's control over its candidates, and voters are not given any choice of a party's candidates within a list. The rank candidates occupy on the list indicates their likelihood of a parliamentary seat based on the number of seats won by the list. In preferential vote elections, voters can rank candidates in a different order to that determined by the party. However, voters are limited to voting for one list only.

The principle of proportional representation is that the seats of a constituency are divided on a pro rata basis according to the number of votes cast. In terms of constituency, two basic models apply: Full proportional representation and Limited proportional representation. Full PR occurs only when the whole country is considered as a constituency, thereby creating the closest reflection between electoral results and parliamentary representation. Within the E.U., only the Netherlands uses the full PR system.

Limited PR occurs when elections are carried out in several constituencies and the distribution of seats takes place at this level. This system creates a greater distortion between the number of votes obtained by a party throughout the country and the number of its representatives. As a result, the smaller the number of seats at stake in a constituency, the more difficult it is for the relative strength of each party to be reflected by seat distribution. However, when seats are distributed at a local level, local or smaller parties might gain seats in Parliament that they would otherwise not obtain as a result of distribution according to national strength.

Female Political Representation and Electoral System

Most member states have some form of proportional representation or weakened mixed systems (where PR is weakened by the preference given to parties that receive above a certain level of votes and who are subsequently awarded extra seats) with the exception of France and the United Kingdom who have a single-member constituency system (France has a two-ballot system and the UK has a plurality "first past the post" system). The correlation between a high level of female political representation within a lower or single House(2) and the country's electoral system becomes apparent upon comparing the member states (Table 1). In fact, all countries in Western Europe where the number of women in Parliament exceeds 20% have adopted the proportional system.

As the figures show, there is a strong correlation between the level of female representation and the type of electoral system. The countries with the lowest levels of female political representation (Italy, the United Kingdom, France and Greece) have either a Mixed system of weak PR (where there is voting for party lists and seats are distributed proportionately, but the leading party receives extra seats as a result of reaching a certain level or threshold of votes) or a Majoritarian system.

Table 1

Number of Women in the Lower or Single Houses of National Parliaments of the European Union and the type of Electoral System

Order

Country

Last Election

Total Seats

Women

%W

Electoral System

1

Sweden

09 1994

349

141

40.4

Mixed (Closed lists)

2

Finland

03 1995

200

67

33.5

Mixed (Preferential)

3

Denmark

09 1994

179

59

33.0

Proportional (Preferential)

4

Netherlands

05 1994

150

47

31.3

Proportional (Preferential)

5

Austria

12 1995

183

49

26.8

Proportional (Closed lists)

6

Germany

10 1994

672

176

26.2

Mixed/Two (Closed lists)

7

Spain

03 1996

350

86

24.6

Proportional

(Closed lists)

8

Luxembourg

06 1994

60

12

20.0

Proportional (Preferential)

9

Ireland

11 1992

166

23

13.9

Proportional

(Multi seat)

10

Portugal

10 1995

230

30

13.0

Proportional (Closed list)

11

Belgium

05 1995

150

18

12.0

Proportional (Preferential)

12

Italy

04 1996

630

70

11.1

Mixed (Weak PR)

13

United Kingdom

04 1992

651

62

9.5

*

Majoritarian (Plurality)

14

France

03 1993

577

37

6.4

**

Majoritarian (Two ballot)

15

Greece

09 1996

300

19

6.3

Mixed (Weak PR)

Figures from Inter-Parliamentary Union (1997:90-92, 136) and Inter-Parliamentary Union "Electoral Systems: A Worldwide Comparative Study" (1993).

* Last elections: 05.1997: 18.2%

** Last elections: 06.1997: 10.92%




This correlation is reinforced with the example of Germany, which uses a double or mixed electoral system, with both single member constituencies and a proportional representation system, each of which select half of the members of the Bundestag. However, the majority of female politicians in Germany are elected through the PR list.

On a worldwide level, this pattern is repeated: of the five countries in the world who have 30% or more female parliamentarians in their single or lower house (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands), three have a proportional electoral system, and two have a mixed electoral system (with none having a majoritarian system). Of the eight countries that have 29-25% female M.P.s in their lower or single house (New Zealand, Seychelles, Austria, Germany, Iceland, Argentina, Mozambique and South Africa), all have either proportional or mixed electoral systems (again, none have a majoritarian system). At the lowest worldwide level of female political representation, in those countries with 10% or less women in the lower or single house of Parliament, a far higher proportion have a majoritarian electoral system, with nearly 90% of countries that have no female parliamentarians using a majority system.

The apparent strength of proportional representation over the majoritarian system in terms of greater female political representation has been partly explained as being:

"... found in the multi-member constituencies necessitated by PR. Under a single- member constituency system, the candidate selectors might be reluctant to pick a woman as the party's sole candidate, using the excuse, genuine or otherwise, that they believe some voters will be less likely to vote for a woman instead of a man. But when several candidates are to be chosen, it not only is possible but also positively advantageous for a ticket to include both men and women, for an all-male list of five or more candidates is likely to alienate some voters."
Gallagher, Laver and Mair quoted in Council of Europe, 1996:36.

The majoritarian system is seen to be unfair to women because with such an electoral practice, the success of the party heavily depends on the single candidate it selects. This candidate will have been selected on tightly defined criteria, as part of what makes a "successful" nominee; the selection process has been criticised for the emphasis given to "male" characteristics. Female candidacy is often questioned on the assumption that the electorate is less likely to vote for a woman. However, in proportional systems, the selection of candidates for the party list depends on other factors in addition to a candidate's personal appeal. The most important of these is the party's wish to appeal to as many voters as possible, which includes listing female candidates, as the absence or small number of women on a national electoral list could be a negative factor for some of the electorate.

Effect of party lists on female political representation

As Table 1 showed, PR is the electoral system of those member states with the highest and lowest levels of female political representation (Sweden and Greece). Therefore, proportional representation alone is not responsible for the strength of women parliamentarians in other European Union countries. An important factor within PR is the placement of female candidates in eligible positions on party lists.

Table 3: Method of Voting in a worldwide comparison of the twelve countries with 25% or more women elected to the lower or single House in 1996

Order

Country

Percentage of women elected

Electoral System

1

Sweden

40.4

Mixed

(Closed lists)

2

Norway

39.4

Proportional

(Closed list)

3

Finland

33.5

Mixed (Preferential)

4

Denmark

33.0

Proportional (Preferential)

5

Netherlands

31.3

Proportional (Preferential)

6

Seychelles

27.3

Mixed

7

Austria

26.8

Proportional

(Closed lists)

8

Germany

26.2

Mixed

(Closed Lists)

9

Iceland

25.4

Proportional

(Closed lists)

10

Argentina

25.3

Proportional

(Closed lists)

11

Mozambique

25.2

Proportional

(Closed lists)

12

South Africa

25.0

Proportional

(Closed lists)

Figures taken from the Inter-Parliamentary Union (1997:136)




As Table 1 showed, the six member states of the European Union with the highest level of female political representation (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, Austria and Germany) are evenly split between those PR electoral systems with closed lists and those with preferential voting.

However, on a worldwide comparison, out of the twelve countries with a proportion of 25% or more women elected to parliament (See Table 3), eight have a system of closed lists, including the two highest ranking countries: Sweden (40.4%) and Norway (39.4%). While other factors such as the socio-political context of each country must be taken into account, it can be said that preferential systems, where the electorate is left to choose, is a potential barrier to female political representation. However, it also implies that political parties themselves have a vital role to play in terms of putting female candidates forward in eligible positions; this is especially the case with electoral systems of closed lists.


European Parliament: March 1997