Yannaphol Kaewbaidhoon

Polsci 140: Homework 4

Chapter 13
1. Once electoral systems are implemented, there are a number of criteria we can use to
evaluate them. Here are a few:
Simplicity: How well do voters understand the system? In theory, simpler systems
should also be less costly. It will also encourage voters to come out and vote
because they know exactly what to do and what to expect.
Accountability: Do voters know who is responsible for the policy they live with? With
high accountability, the winners take both the blame and the fame when they pass a
policy. Voters could easily choose whether or not to vote them back in next time.
Representativeness: Does the composition of winners truly reflect the composition
of the population? This will determine the extent in which the representative could
act on behalf of their constituents. For instance, in the 1983 UK elections, the
Alliance may have won 25.4 % of the votes but is only represented by 3.5% of seats.
2. The following is the table that answers 2a.
Party Votes (no.) Votes(%) Remainder Seats
(auto +
remainder)
SP 3270 1.1 0.1800 0
KrF 11,168 3.6 0.6148 0 + 1
Kyst 551 0.2 0.0303 0
H 61,130 19.8 0.3651 3
Ap 97,246 31.5 0.3532 5
V 28,639 9.3 0.5765 1 + 1
SV 41,434 13.4 0.2809 2
FrP 53,280 17.3 0.9310 2 + 1
Other 12,116 3.9 0.6670 0 + 1
Total 308,834 100 17

b)
The method I used to get the seat distribution is the Hare quota with remainder allocated by
largest remainder (LR)

To calculate the quota:

To calculate the automatic seats:

The remainder value:

Yannaphol Kaewbaidhoon
The remainder seats are then distributed in the order of R(n) where greatest R(n) receive the
seats first.

In terms of fairness, we will see that because there is a small number of seats, the resolution
of the proportion of seat is rather low (1 seat = 5.88%). So it is possible that a party that wins
only 9.3% is represented by the same number of seats as the party that wins 13.4%.

2c) When there are a smaller number of seats, the translation of votes to seats becomes less
representative of reality. If there are more seats, each seat will represent a smaller percent
of the total amount of votes. Which means that it is less discretized and will allow more
resolution. With smaller seats available, the quota also becomes larger. Should there be
more seats, the opposite holds true. If we measure fairness by the similarity between votes
to seats, then the more seats the better.
3. a)
In Iraq, there's a total of 275 seats which are up for grabs. The electorate must be registered
to vote. First, 230 seats will be allocated proportionally within each of the 18 provinces in
Iraq. This level is called the governorate level. Baghdad alone has 59 seats while other
provinces have fewer representatives:

" Nineveh, 19; Basra, 16; Sulaimaniya, 15; Irbil, 13; Thiqar, 12; Babil, 11; Diyala, 10; Anbar, 9;
Tameem, 9; Najaf, 8; Qadisiya, 8; Salaheddin, 8; Wasit, 8; Duhuk, 7; Maysan, 7; Karbala, 6;
and Muthanna, 5".

The remaining 45 seats will be allocated to parties that did not win at the governorate but
meet the national quota (valid votes and seat calculation using national levels instead of
provincial levels).

The party list is a closed list in which at least one woman be among the first three nominees
on the candidate list for a political entity. This ensures that at least 25% of the parliament
are women.

In short, I think it is a Hare, LR system on two levels with closed party lists.
Main Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iraq.parliament/index.html?iref=mpstory
view

b)
Because the proportional system is localized with number of seats based on the number of
citizen, the number of votes should translate to the number of seats quite accurately. Those
parties that have broad-based support are also represented at the national level of the
proportional system. This type of system with the new requirement that 25% of members be
women will give the parliament more diversity. The bad thing is that we end up with a
relatively weak coalition government and lower accountability because the leading party
does not have a super majority in the house. This give the smaller parties more bargaining
power.
Yannaphol Kaewbaidhoon
c)
In a nation that just went through a war, I think a mix between the proportionate system
and the Single-Member District Plurality System would be a good idea. This is because in a
diverse nation such as Iraq, though it is good to maintain input from the minority, it is also
important to maintain stability. Perhaps, in addition to the current proportional system,
each district within the province could have an SMDP representative. This way, one man is
responsible and accountable for actions in his district.

Chapter 14
1. a)
Effective Number of electoral Parties = 1.9698
Effective Number of Legislative Parties = 1.9386
b)
The Effective numbers does a much better job of capturing the size of the SA's party system.
This is because the effective measure rules out parties that don't matter or joke parties.
Both these measures not only take into account the number of parties, but also the size of
the parties. I guess the only time we would use actual numbers would be when all the
parties in the system actually have a weight in the government. The effective number of
parties is good for classifying the system as either a multi-party or a two-party system.
c)
Because EEP is between 1 and 2, we could say it is a single party system. However, note that
EEP is near 2, so some people may argue that it would be close to two-party system.
d)
Because of the similarity between the effective number of electoral parties and the
legislative parties, I think there is minimal mechanical effect in the translation from votes to
seats. This indicate that South Africa has a permissive electoral system. This seems to be true
because SA employs a proportionate system which is relatively more permissive than
systems like the SMDP.
3. a)
Because many ethnicity speak English, we cannot accurately predict which racial group he or
she belongs to. On the other hand, we are certain that if someone is a Latino, he will speak
Spanish or English (50% certainty). If someone is Asian, there is an approximately 50%
chance you will predict his language correctly (between English and Korean). Because there
are no clear correlation, the attributes are considered cross-cutting. For instance, as an Asian
you can ally yourself with either the Korean group or the English-speaking group. This
reduces the reinforcement aspect of society.
b)
You can promote yourself as a Latino to win 51% percent of the votes or you can promote
yourself as an English-speaking person to win 55%. I think it is more likely for someone to
promote his Latino ancestry for a seat because the Ethnic line for latino is split only between
two language groups while for an English speaking person, there is less correlation between
language and a particular group so he will not get as much loyalty.
c)
Yannaphol Kaewbaidhoon
The 20 Latinos are in both groups. Because they are winning coalition, the politician must
please them with either public or private goods. Both the guy presenting himself as Latino
and the guy presenting himself as English-speaking will have to please this group of 20.