Multi-Party Systems: What to Know

While many who have not studied politics may believe that the success of a multiparty system in other governments is due to the people, or the persuasiveness of minority parties, the reality is that a myriad of different causes have been hypothesized to impact the environment of political parties in a specific country. In the following paper I am going to outline the predominant theories in the political space for why this is the case, and give examples that compare different electoral laws to the political party outcomes.

For the sake of argument, there are three predominant theories for what causes a particular party system:

1. Societal Cleavages
2. Electoral Laws
3. Rational Choice

Due to the nature of what CasperLabs is attempting to achieve in its governance model, I will be focusing on electoral laws and the theories behind the influence of those laws on party systems in the world.

Duverger’s Proposition

Mass elections in government came to be in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was at this time that the study of electoral laws and their outcomes came to be a focus in the political science space. A predominant theory is known as Duverger’s Law and Duverger’s Hypothesis. It states the following:

1. The simple-majority single-ballot system [i.e. single plurality rule] favors the two-party system.
2. The simple-majority system with second ballot and proportional representation favors multipartyism.

This idea was born from the observation that obtaining a majority of aggregate votes will usually reduce competition to the two most popular parties, and the two most popular candidates. Even if voters go to the polls in support of a minority party or candidate, they will soon realize their votes will be thrown away trying to support a minority candidate who will not reach the plurality minimum, and therefore might as well support one of the two popular candidates (Droop 1982).

On the other hand, proportional representation, in short, is a system in which voters vote for a specific party, and then seats are distributed proportionally to the amount of votes that specific party receives. In this system parties must meet a specific threshold of votes in order to qualify for a seat(s) in the legislature. Typically these systems have open or closed list candidates that are selected.

Comparative generalization, especially in politics, can be grave when studying such a large population where almost nothing can or should be generalized. Opinions on his ideology have been mixed and highly polarizing. Two of the largest critiques against his claims are as follows:

1. His implied causality is false, and rather than electoral systems causing the number of parties, its actually the number or parties that causes the electoral system.

2. Party systems are not the result of electoral systems but rather the number and types of social cleavages that exist in a particular society.

For the sake of time and relevance I will not get into too much detail over the debates around his claims, but rather will now move on to compare and contrast multiparty systems in the world.

India

India engages in a single member pluralist (SMP) voting and has one of the largest voting populations in the world, with approximately 879 million eligible voters in the country. General elections in India are for the Lok Sabha or the House of the People, the most powerful house.

Elections in India takes place over several weeks. In 2019, elections took place from March to May. Over 35 parties are represented in India’s congress.

Proportional Elections

India has 29 states and 7 union territories. Seats are divided based on the population of the state, the larger the population in the state, the larger number of seats that state receives. One quarter of the seats are then reserved to represent one of the two disadvantaged communities in India: Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and Scheduled Tribes.

The Prime Minister is then chosen by the legislature, who selects the cabinet after election.

Analysis

India is a perfect example of a challenge to Duverger’s law. Although it is a SMP system, the country sustains a multiparty system. This could be due to a myriad of things; societal cleavages in India exist more than any other country in the world. In addition, the extremeness of India’s population provides an exception to most rules. The nature of party competition in local districts can be masked by the overwhelming result at the federal level.

New Zealand

New Zealand’s electoral system follows a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system since the constitutional referendum in 1993 to change the electoral system from First-Past-the-Post voting.

The voters in New Zealand receive two votes: a party vote and an electorate vote. When a voter votes for a party, her or she determines how many seats that party receives in parliament. The larger the number of votes a party receives, the more seats that party receives. Voters also vote for the candidate they want representing their district. The candidate with the most votes, wins.

Political parties must receive at least 5% of the party vote or win an electorate seat before they can have any seats in parliament. Every candidate who wins an electorate vote gets a seat in Parliament. The remaining seats are filled from party lists. Every party has a list, in order from who the party wants the most in office going down to least.

In this system, usually no party wins so much support that they have sole power over governing. Because of this most parties must form coalitions to get legislation passed and make decisions.

Analysis

New Zealand is a typical example of the result of a proportional system and how that translates into a multiparty system. After feeling extremely unhappy and underrepresented by a two party system that did not accurately reflect the population (sound familiar?) New Zealand underwent a change in electoral law to reflect more accurately the population in their parliament.

Take Away

The notes here only scratch the surface of electoral systems around the world. Lebanon separates its seats by religion instead of state or province. Spain is a proportional electoral system with the exception of two districts. America has an electoral college, a system that exists nowhere else in the world.

The result is an imperfect science that has the tendency to look like guessing. In the case of blockchain and decentralization, I warn the community to shy away from using these types of governing models to govern their networks. The priorities are different and constituencies are seeking results that are vastly different than those in the nations described. In order to create a governing model that is effective, we must learn from the lessons of these models and study the human nature behind them, not copy them.