[EM] real-world consequences of election methods

[Jonathan Lundell]

At 12:47 AM -0800 2/28/06, Steven Hill wrote:
>From: Steven Hill, New America Foundation
>
>Dear friends and colleagues,
>
>I thought you might be interested in my recent op-ed published in 
>the Hartford Courant, Prague Post (Czech Republic) and elsewhere 
>that makes the overlooked point that Hamas actually did not win a 
>majority of votes in the recent  Palestinian elections -- yet they 
>won nearly a super-majority of seats. What happened is that the 
>U.S.-style winner-take-all electoral system used in the elections 
>broke down, installing into power a party that did not have majority 
>support. If the Palestinians had used a proportional representation 
>electoral system like that used by most of the established 
>democracies in the world they would have ended up with no party 
>winning a legislative majority, and a coalition government forming 
>(probably a grand coalition between Hamas and Fatah) that would have 
>been more stable for the peace process there.
>
>It's important to understand these dynamics, because at the very 
>least it shows that there is not overwhelming support (though there 
>is strong support) among Palestinians for Hamas' point of view.  But 
>that perspective is being lost right now in the post-election 
>analysis as the world wrings its hands over election results that 
>have derailed a fragile peace process and that could have been 
>avoided by a better electoral system.  Also, it illustrates the 
>importance of electoral systems -- unfortunately, when you are 
>trying to jumpstart democracy, the devil is in the details.

Vote System Gave Hamas Huge Victory By Steven Hill

Hartford Courant February 8, 2006 
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-hill0208.artfeb08,0,719951.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped

The Prague Post February 15, 2006 
http://www.praguepost.com/P03/2006/Art/0216/opin1.php

Much hand-wringing has resulted since Hamas, a group on the Bush 
administration's terrorist list, won a sizable majority of 
legislative seats in the recent Palestinian elections. But the 
planners of the elections could learn a thing or two from the recent 
Iraqi elections.

The problem is that the electoral system used for the Palestinian 
elections gave grossly unrepresentative results in which Hamas won 
nearly a super-majority of seats even though they did not win even a 
majority of votes. If the Palestinians had employed the electoral 
methods used in Iraq and in many other democracies around the world, 
the story would have turned out very differently.

The Palestinian elections used a combination of a U.S.-style 
winner-take-all electoral system and a more European-style 
proportional voting system. Palestinian voters had a vote for their 
favorite political party (the proportional vote) and votes for 
individual candidates (the winner-take-all vote). Unfortunately, the 
winner-take-all part broke down, and Hamas won way more seats than 
their votes should have given them.

Look at the actual results. In the proportional vote, which is a 
national vote and therefore the best measure of the overall support 
for each political party, Hamas won about 45 percent of the popular 
vote and about the same percentage of seats - 30 of 66, no majority 
there. The incumbent party, Fatah, won 41 percent of the popular vote 
and 27 of 66 seats, only three behind Hamas.

So the election was actually quite close, and if those were the only 
election results, Hamas would not have won a majority of seats and 
would have needed to form a coalition with other political parties. A 
likely possibility is Hamas would have formed a grand coalition with 
Fatah, which would have provided a stable transition.

Instead, the winner-take-all seats, which are allocated by local 
districts, completely threw the election to Hamas. Though Hamas and 
Fatah had nearly equal support nationwide, Hamas won 46 of 66 seats, 
70 percent in the winner-take-all districts and Fatah won only 16 
district seats.

Overall, Hamas won a stunning 58 percent of legislative seats even 
though their national support was only around 45 percent. It was a 
tragic breakdown of the electoral system. Instead of talking about 
negotiating a coalition government for the Palestinians, the talk now 
is about picking through the shards, figuring how to salvage the road 
map to peace.

It didn't have to be this way. The designers of democracy in 
Palestine had only to look to neighboring Iraq to figure out how to 
design a better method that would have produced more representative 
results and provided more stability for the peace process.

On Dec. 15, Iraq held its second election, with Iraq's 18 provinces 
electing 275 members of parliament using a proportional voting 
method. Each political party was awarded legislative seats in direct 
proportion to their vote in each province. Because of Iraq's 
proportional method, when the dominant Shiite party failed to win a 
majority of the popular vote, they also failed to win a majority of 
legislative seats. Surely if they had used a winner-take-all method 
like that used in the Palestinian elections, the Shiite bloc would 
have won a strong legislative majority even though they lacked a 
popular majority.

Instead, now the Shiites in Iraq are forced to negotiate with their 
legislative partners, including the Sunnis and Kurds, producing a 
government that preserves the fragile consensus in Iraq.

It is really a shame that for all the billions of dollars in aid 
poured into Palestine, no one had the sense to make sure the 
elections were conducted using a method like that used in Iraq that 
would guarantee representative results.

Various political analysts are saying Hamas' victory is a disaster 
built on short-sighted policies by the Palestinians, Israel and the 
United States. The truth is a bit more mundane. Hamas' overwhelming 
victory is the result of a poorly designed electoral system. 
Unfortunately, when you are trying to jump-start democracy, the devil 
is in the details.

Steven Hill is director of New America Foundation's political reform 
program (www.NewAmerica.net/politicalreform) and author of "Fixing 
Elections: The Failure of America's Winner Take All Politics."
-- 
/Jonathan Lundell.