Suchergebnisse

The insights gained while carrying out a book-length study of electoral systems are applied to evaluate existing electoral systems and to suggest guidelines for changes, if necessary. © 1989.

AbstractIn the absence of ideality, communities—and indeed Congress and the Justice Department—have taken action to enhance the "representativeness" of local policy‐making bodies. In spite of widespread preference for the single‐member district over the at‐large system where inequitable representation can be demonstrated historically, electoral reformers have other options with proven track records. This article reviews the various electoral systems with which communities have experimented during this century and offers some alternatives to "winner takes all".

THE PAPER EXAMINES EXISTING CLASSIFICATIONS OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS, DISCUSSES THEIR MERITS AND LIMITS, AND PROPOSES A MORE APPROPRIATE CLASSIFICATION. IT SHOWS THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXTRACT FROM THE DEFINITION OF AN ELECTORAL SYSTEM THREE BASIC DIMENSIONS: THE BALLOT STRUCTURE, THE CONSTITUENCY STRUCTURE, AND THE FORMULA. IT ALSO SHOWS THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH THREE COMPONENTS OF THE BALLOT STRUCTURE: THE OBJECT OF THE VOTE, THE NUMBER OF VOTES AND THE TYPE OF VOTE, AND TWO COMPONENTS OF THE CONSTITUENCY STRUCTURE: ITS NATURE AND ITS MAGNITUDE. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CLASSIFICATION PROPOSED HERE IS SUPERIOR TO EXISTING ONES. IT CLARIFIES AND REFINES EXISTING DISTINCTIONS. IT ENABLES ONE TO IDENTIFY THE BASIC DIMENSIONS OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS AS WELL AS THE LOGICAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THEM. FINALLY, IT HAS THE PROPERTY OF APPLYING THE SAME CRITERIA TO ALL SYSTEMS.

Examines existing classifications of electoral systems, discusses their merits and limits, and proposes a more appropriate classification. Shows that it is possible to extract from the definition of an electoral system 3 basic dimensions, to distinguish 3 components of the ballot structure, and 2 components of the constituency structure. (Abstract amended)

Abstract. The paper examines existing classifications of electoral systems, discusses their merits and limits, and proposes a more appropriate classification. It shows that it is possible to extract from the definition of an electoral system three basic dimensions: the ballot structure, the constituency structure, and the formula. It also shows that it is possible to distinguish three components of the ballot structure: the object of the vote, the number of votes and the type of vote, and two components of the constituency structure: its nature and its magnitude. It is argued that the classification proposed here is superior to existing ones. It clarifies and refines existing distinctions. It enables one to identify the basic dimensions of electoral systems as well as the logical connections between them. Finally, it has the property of applying the same criteria to all systems.