WORDS AND WORD COMBINATIONS

to have an impact on sb оказать влияние на кого-л

criterion (sing) критерий

criteria (pi) критерии

to stem from something происходить/проистекать от ч-л

to thrash sth out обстоятельно обсудить что-л, ра-

зобрать (вопрос)

to deliver on election promises выполнять предвыборные обеща­ния

in greater abundance в большем количестве

SKIM reading: Work in pairs:look through the text and bring out the topical sentences conveying the main ideas of the text.

TEXT 2: ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

An electoral system is a set of rules that governs the conduct of elections. Not only do these rules vary across the world, but they are also, in many countries, the subject of fierce political debate an argument.

For general purposes, however, the systems available can be divided into two broad categories on the basis of how they convert votes into seats. On the one hand, there are majoritarian systems, in which larger parties typically win a higher proportion of seats than the proportion of votes they gain in the election. This increases the chances of a single party gaining a parliamentary majority and being able to govern on its own.

On the other hand, there are proportional systems, which guarantee an equal, or at least more equal, relationship between the seats won by a party and the votes gained in the election. In a pure system of proportional representation (PR) a party that gains 45 per cent of the votes would win exactly 45 per cent of the seats. PR systems therefore make single-party majority rule less likely, and are commonly associated with multiparty systems and coalition government.

Electoral systems attract attention in part because they have a crucial impact on party performance, and particularly on their prospects of winning (or at least sharing) power. It would be foolish, then, to deny that attitudes towards the electoral system are largely shaped by party advantage.

The problem is that there is no such thing as a 'best electoral system'.

The electoral reform debate is, at heart, a debate about the desirable nature of government and the principles that underpin 'pood' government. Electoral systems therefore merit only a qualified endorsement, reflecting a balance of advantages over disadvantages,iiul their strength relative to other systems. These criteria fall into two general categories: those related to the quality of representation, and i hose linked to the effectiveness of government,

Majoritarian systems are usually thought to be at their weakest when they are evaluated in terms of their representative functions. To л greater or lesser extent, each majoritarian system distorts popular ini'ferences in the sense that party representation is not tnmmensurate with electoral strength. This is most apparent in their 'unfairness' to small parties that are often centrist parties, and not the i-uremist parties of popular image. Such biases are impossible to instily, for they strain the legitimacy of the entire political system, and. n-iitc circumstances in which radical, ideologically driven parties can N-miiin in power for prolonged periods under little pressure to I'UMden their appeal.

i ooked at in this light, proportional electoral systems seem to be::i.inid'stly more representative. Nevertheless, it may be naive to "iiuie electoral fairness with proportionality. For instance, much of t!-.-- criticism of PR systems stems from the fact that they make "Minion government much more likely. Although it can be argued

that, unlike single-party governments, coalitions enjoy the support of at least 50 per cent of the electors, their policies are typically thrashed out in postelection deals, and thus are not endorsed by any set of electors. An additional danger is that parties within a coalition government may not exert influence in line with their electoral strength. The classic example of this is when small centre parties (such as the Free Democrats in Germany) can dictate to larger parties (for example, the CDU or the SPD in Germany) by threatening to switch their support to another party. Then, in effect, 'the tail wags the dog'.

The defence of majoritarian systems is more commonly based on government functions, and specifically on the capacity of such systems to deliver stable and effective rule. In other words, a lack of proportionality may simply be the price that is paid for strong government. In these systems, the bias in favour of single-party rule means that the electorate can usually choose between two parties, each of which has the capacity to deliver on its election promises by translating its manifesto commitments into a programme of government. Supported by a cohesive majority in the assembly, such governments are usually able to survive for a full term in office. In contrast, coalition governments are weak and unstable, in the sense that they are endlessly engaged in a process of reconciling opposing views, and are always liable to collapse as a result of internal splits and divisions.

Supporters of PR argue, on the other hand, that having a strong government, in the sense of a government that is able to push through policies, is by no means an unqualified virtue, tending as it does to restrict scrutiny and parliamentary accountability. Instead, they, suggest that 'strong' government should be understood in terms of popular support and the willingness to obey and respect the government. Broadly -based coalition may possess these qualities in greater abundance than do single- party governments.

The electoral refomi debate, however, constantly risks^
overestimating the importance of electoral systems. In practice,
elections are only one amongst a variety of factors that shape the
political process, and may be the most crucial. Indeed, the impact of
particular electoral systems is largely conditioned by other
circumstances, namely the political culture, the nature of the party
system, and the economic and social context within which politics is
conducted. I

♦ Discuss/check your considerations with the rest of the class.