And The Winner Is......

This post is in response to the same reader to whom I responded in the previous post.  In the second question I was asked: Which method of election is better suited for democracy?

Both the United States and Costa Rica are Democratic Republics with power vested in the President.  Each has an electoral system that relies on majority vote through a “first-past-the-post” system, otherwise known as single-member district plurality.  Greece is a Parliamentary Republic consisting of a President and Prime Minister, who performs all business affairs of the state.  Singapore is also a Parliamentary Republic, with power vested in the President and Cabinet.  Until recently, the President served primarily a ceremonial role but now has authority over extended affairs limited to legislature, budget, and security matter.  The electoral system of both Greece and Singapore relies on proportional representation.

Diverger’s Law is a theory which identifies a relationship between electoral and party systems, claiming that a plurality single-member district election system creates a two-party system and that proportional representation electoral systems create multiparty systems.  This Law is apparent in the United States system as what historically results in an election is a competition between two parties, the Democratic and the Republican. 

The presence of multiparty and two-party systems is clear when comparing countries.  While the United States voters identify with either the democratic or Republican Party, others like Greece and Singapore are significantly diverse having as many as six parties gaining support in an electoral vote.  Thus, the primary difference in the two systems is that while the single-member district plurality has few candidates and a large number of districts, the proportional representation electoral system has little to no districts and a large number of candidates.   

The BBC gives an excellent illustration of proportional representation using the result of the 2009 European elections:

Public election by way of “first-past-the-post” is the manner in which an electorate wins by majority.  Majority in this sense is not constituted by necessarily gaining a percentage of votes, but rather the largest number of votes in comparison to other candidates.  This system is the most plausible means of measuring victory in a multiparty system as the reality that no candidate will receive absolute majority is unlikely.  It is argued that by allowing a party to succeed in the first-past-the-post system grants ultimate responsibility to one party who is expected to work within the system, rather through coalitions or consensus, to propagate the overall good.

Although the United States is representative of a majority or “first-past-the-post” system, it can also be viewed as one that demonstrates proportional representation by allowing for votes to be cast per district prior to be accepted nationally.  However, in a free and fair election it seems realistic to use a majority rule, or first-past-the-post electoral system as it is a true representation of the majority of the people.  Although distribution may be unequal and disproportional, it is representative of the population and therefore the electorate should be a reflection of the majority.  The following depicts a two-party system:

Proportional Representation allows for seats on legislature dependent on the party’s votes which indicate the percentage of the population in which they represent nationally.   In sum, it equates to the percentage of votes received relative to the percentage of the total population.  By allowing this sort of system, direct public representation and party representation is distributed within Parliament.  Minor parties, however, are often excluded as Basic Law provided by some countries stipulates that a party must win at least five percent of the national vote to enjoy a representative voice in office.

This system has its advantages, as well as disadvantages.  First of all, by allowing for proportionality there is a broader spectrum of public interests represented in Parliament.  This consummates a truly democratic system as it is fully representative of the people.   Additionally, it allows smaller parties to enjoy participation and grants them a fair voice in legislation.  Although the” five percent rule (which eliminates parties who have not received at least five percent of the proportional vote)” has been accused of being discriminatory, it prevents extremists groups from influencing policy decisions.  Having a diverse group of representation in Parliament also allows for an open forum to address policy issues and uncover social differences that otherwise might have been neglected under a more limited system.  Conversely, by allowing such a broad mix of representation interests are likely to conflict restricting the expedition of policy choice and legislative action

Either way, governments are functional. Politics are the core of how the government is to function.  While the two are related in the political system, they are significantly different.  Decisions can be made without organization and ineffective if not institutionalized.   Governments, therefore, take the decision and project it to provide a vehicle for the decision to be implemented in the political system. 

Comparing our own situation to that of others and exploring the social, political, and economic processes of states is the doorway to developing a holistic understanding of the world around us.  Comparative study is quite important still today as it is the only way in which we can assess performance and explain variances in a diverse global community.  In order to fully understand the concepts and methods of political systems, we must be able to look through their ‘eyes’ in order to accurately conceptualize and explain political interactions.  In a world that is experiencing globalization, these interactions and how we approach them are increasingly important.  Relationships must be built on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect, and it is only through comparative analysis that we can appreciate the conceptual framework on which their societies are built. Aristotle concurred in that we can only deepen our understanding of politics through thorough evaluation, analysis, and comparison of different systems.

In a comparative analysis of the Democratic Republics (i.e. Costa Rica and the U.S.) and the Parliamentary Republic (i.e. Greece and Singapore) it becomes quite clear that their choice of government is a direct reflection of their cultural attitudes which is transmitted into their political culture.  The United States emphasizes ‘the individual pursuit of happiness’ and therefore freely chooses a government that reflects that value, headed by the sole winner of a two-party system.  Conversely, Singapore is a collective society and chooses its government through a system that is suited to reflect the cultural collective psychology by allowing for a multiparty political system which represents the whole of society. The primary goal of a collective identity is economic efficiency and a system focused on the collective good and overall social welfare of the community.

In the process level of political cultures, the citizen’s play one of three roles: participants, subjects, and parochial.  Participants are usually educated in politics and play an active role in the political process.  Subjects, on the other hand, abide by the laws set by their governments but are not active in the political process.  Parochial's are often ignorant to the political system and live by their own rule ignoring those set by government.

The involvement of citizens in the political process may be voluntary or involuntary, depending on the type of government.  In an industrialized state, participation is high and likewise voluntary, rather it be Democratic or Parliamentary.  Citizens are often encouraged to be participatory in both. However, the large number of illiterate and poor contributes still to the higher level of parochialism in the in the electoral process.    Thus, with an increase in illiteracy rates a country should theoretically experience a decrease in voter turnout. Albeit, to the contrary:

Psychological and economic factors may influence political decisions, but are a separate study from political science.  With the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, the decisions that define politics in its entirety are integrative into the spectrum of political science which includes both the private and public sectors.  The private sphere of politics looks at decisions from an individual perspective, while a collective approach is observed through the public sphere.  Different socio-cultural perspectives view the role of politics as based on the private, public, or effects of both.    The precise role of government is debated across cultures, but again, this is dependent on the nature of the state rather it be collective or individual.  While some argue that the purpose of government is to protect and serve, others see it as a binding force that hinders the freedom of the individual.   In essence, one must weigh the pros and cons of each system with their assessment of democracy which will ultimately define their personal and political preference.