Parliamentary Systems: Majority vs. Proportional Representation
Tensions Between Pro-Majority and Pro-Proportional System Supporters
Majoritarian Systems
Majoritarian systems award the position(s) to the candidate with the most votes—a “winner-takes-all” approach. In Spain, this system is used for the Senate, albeit with limited and corrected voting.
Critics of the Majority Principle
Critics raise several arguments against majoritarian systems:
- Underrepresentation: These systems can lead to seats being won with minimal representation, resulting in a significant loss of votes for losing candidates.
- Punishment of Minorities: Majoritarian systems severely punish minorities in two ways:
- Winning requires a strong presence in each district, dooming minorities to defeat and loss of all votes.
- They hinder progressive growth, forcing parties to emerge fully formed and dominant to gain parliamentary representation.
- Reduced Political Pluralism: By minimizing smaller parties, these systems can work against political pluralism and, potentially, democratic principles. However, this argument is complex. While minimizing complexity can limit pluralism, it isn’t necessarily a violation of democratic principles.
Defenders of the Majority Principle
Proponents argue that electoral systems should enable effective and stable governments. According to Duverger, majoritarian systems lead to bipartisanship, which is functional because it allows for absolute majorities, homogenous party governments, greater stability, and strong leadership.
These claims are debatable. “Bridge” parties can facilitate integration and stability. Also, while majoritarian systems can accelerate existing trends towards bipartisanship, they don’t guarantee it. Inclusive systems accelerate integration, while homogenous systems reduce complexity, leading to bipartisanship, absolute majorities, and a two-party system, as seen in Anglo-Saxon countries.
Proportional Systems
Proportional systems allocate seats in proportion to the votes received. This is the system used in most Spanish elections.
Critics of Proportional Formulas
Critics, often supporters of the majority principle, argue that proportional systems hinder governance by creating fragmented chambers with numerous parties. They believe this leads to policy decisions based on inter-party transactions and agreements, resulting in a “partitocratic” phenomenon. However, even with proportional systems, cohesive political societies might not experience dysfunctional multiparty systems. Conversely, majoritarian formulas can sometimes produce effects similar to proportional representation.
Advocates of the Proportional System
Supporters believe proportional systems have moral superiority, guaranteeing the principle of equal opportunity.
Popular Will
The “people” are not a homogenous sociological reality but a complex aggregate of individuals organized through various structures. The “people” as a concept is either metaphysical or a legal construct. Representation translates individual political wills into a collective state will. This creation of a collective will happens within the state and through legal processes. Representation is the method of giving presence and will to the people. This requires mechanisms to reduce complexity.
Fundamental rights and political participation rights (voting and standing for office) must be respected. Information rights and rights of association are key mechanisms for reducing complexity, enabling the formation of opinions and political parties. Other mechanisms include the electoral system and the parliament, where elected representatives manifest a collective will capable of political decision-making.
Both majority and proportional systems can be democratic with broad social consensus. A key argument against strict proportionality is that while democracy implies shared power, minority parties can block action.
Ultimately, it’s impossible to definitively link democracy with proportionality or majority rule with good governance. The quality of an electoral system depends on the balance between societal complexity and the simplification needed for effective governance.
The German and Spanish Models
Both Germany and Spain underwent post-World War II parliamentary system rationalization. Germany’s Basic Law of 1949 and Spain’s 1978 Constitution aimed to strengthen the executive branch while maintaining a tiered parliament, a judiciary, and a head of state with integrated political authority. Rationalization was achieved through several techniques:
- Initial Government Stabilization: This involves legitimizing the government, as seen in Spain’s investiture vote at the start of each legislature, which implies political commitment and parliamentary responsibility.
- Strengthening the Leadership of the President: The investiture vote legitimizes the president. The president’s relationship with the government gives the government parliamentary legitimacy.
- Granting Powers to the President: Powers traditionally held by the government are given to the president. In Spain, these include initiating confidence votes, dissolving parliament, and presenting unconstitutionality appeals.
- Strengthening the Government’s Position: This involves changes to parliamentary life, including government involvement in setting the parliamentary agenda, prioritizing government bills, protecting the budget, and modifying the censure motion process while maintaining the traditional confidence question. A simple majority is still required for a confidence vote. Censure motions require an absolute majority and a “cooling-off” period to avoid disruption and allow for dialogue.
- Constructive Censure Motion: This technique, borrowed from Germany, requires those presenting a censure motion to offer an alternative government. This promotes positive action and avoids irresponsible removals of governments. However, it can also lead to convergence between parliament and government, difficulty forming governments, and instability. This convergence can be mitigated by safeguards for the government, such as the power of dissolution and legislative emergency powers.