Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/284774086/Around-the-World
Timestamp: 2019-07-17 18:40:44
Document Index: 206216877

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1989', 'art 1994', 'art 1994', 'art 1989', 'art 1994', 'art 1994', 'art 1994', 'art 1994', 'art\n1992', 'art 1992', 'art 1992', 'art 1992', 'art 1992', 'art. 1989']

Around the World | Voting System | Elections
Uploaded by Claudiu_1105
ELectoral systems around democratic world 2000
saveSave Around the World For Later
SSG Election Narrative Report
Consultation Paper - Electoral Reform
Pages From Comparative Political Systems
Medford Charter Review Joint Election Laws
Brief: Paul Thomas (July 18)
An Ineffectual Angel
Election Law Summary
Constitution AAUPColorado Revised 2017
ElectionlineToday 05.05.17
Judge Jim O'Hern, et al Ethics Complaint
Democratic Electoral Systems Around the
World, 1946-2000
Forthcoming in Electoral Studies
Electoral institutions are considered an important independent or dependent variable in many areas of political science. However, problems with data availability have often artificially constrained
much of our empirical research to particular geographical regions or time periods. This article describes a new data set that covers the electoral institutions used in all of the democratic legislative
and presidential elections in 199 countries between 1946 (or independence) and 2000. This amounts
to 867 legislative elections and 294 presidential elections. A clear and consistent classification of
the electoral institutions used in these elections is followed by a concise geographical and temporal
analysis. The worldwide focus of the data set reveals several striking patterns. For example, there
have been almost as many elections under dictatorship as there have been under democracy. Other
patterns include the fact that presidential regimes nearly always employ proportional electoral formulas, absolute majority rule has become the worldwide norm for electing presidents, majoritarian
electoral systems account for the same percentage of legislative elections as they did in the 1950s,
and non-majoritarian systems have become more complex due to the increasing use of multiple
tiers and mixed electoral formulas.
Keywords: Electoral system, electoral formula, electoral tiers
AUTHORS NOTE: An earlier version of this paper was presented at the department of political science at the
Universite of Montreal. I would like to thank the participants for their comments, in particular Andre Blais and
Louis Massicotte. I also thank both anonymous referees for their helpful remarks. The data presented here can be
found at http : // homepages.nyu.edu/ mrg217, along with a detailed codebook that describes the variables and
sources consulted. Scholars who wish to use this dataset should cite this article.
Department of Politics, New York University, 726 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10003. E-mail:
mrg217@nyu.edu. Fax: 212-995-4184.
Electoral institutions are considered an important explanatory variable for a wide range of political phenomena. Typically, they have been used to explain things such as the number of parties
in a given country (Duverger 1964, Riker 1982, Golder & Clark 2003), party system extremism
(Cox 1990), or the degree of electoral disproportionality (Taagepera & Shugart 1989, Lijphart 1994).
However, they have also been employed to explicate things ranging from coalition formation
(Przeworski, Cheibub & Saiegh 2002, Golder 2003) and government instability (Mainwaring 1993,
Stepan & Skach 1993) to macroeconomic outcomes (Lizzeri & Persico 2000, Milesi-Ferretti, Perotti
& Rostagno 2001), political violence (Powell 1982), and the congruence between voter preferences
and policy outcomes (Powell 2000). Scholars have also treated electoral institutions as endogenous
variables (Boix 1999, Kaminski 2002a). Electoral institutions are clearly of great importance in
many areas of political science.
However, problems with data availability for electoral institutions have often artificially constrained
much of this empirical research to particular geographical regions such as Western Europe or OECD
countries. Although there have been several recent attempts to remedy this situation to some extent
(Jones 1995, Jones 1997, Shvetsova 1999, Rose 2000, Nohlen 1993, Caramani 2000, Nohlen, Grotz &
Hartmann 2001a, Nohlen, Grotz & Hartmann 2001b, Hicken & Kasuya 2003), there is still no single
database addressing electoral institutions across the world in an entirely consistent and comparative
manner.1 This paper seeks to build on this recent work by providing a single database that describes
some of the more important electoral institutions used in all legislative and presidential elections
during democratic periods in 199 countries between 1946 (or independence) and 2000. I provide
detailed information covering a total of 867 legislative elections to national lower houses and 294
presidential elections.2
A regime is classified as a dictatorship if either (i) the chief executive is not elected, (ii) the
legislature is not elected, (iii) there is no more than one party, or (iv) there has been no alternation
in power (Przeworski et al. 1996). In other words, a regime is democratic if those who govern are
selected through contested elections. Countries are coded based on the regime that existed at the
end of the given year. The specific classification of regime types is based on an updated and revised
version of the data found in Przeworksi et al. (2000).3 While the dataset includes all legislative
and presidential elections that occurred in democratic periods, it does not include elections to
constituent assemblies such as those that occurred in Italy (1946), France (1946), Pakistan (1955),
Sudan (1965, 1968) or Nicaragua (1984). Nor does it include partial legislative elections such as
those in Laos (1958), Costa Rica (1946), Luxembourg (1948, 1951), Somalia (1960) or Poland
The next section begins with an overview of elections and democratic electoral systems worldwide.
In sections three and four, I classify and describe the electoral institutions employed in legislative
and presidential elections. I also provide a brief temporal and geographical overview of these institutions. Before concluding, I examine the patterns of electoral system choice under presidentialism
and parliamentarism.
An Overview of Elections and Democratic Electoral Systems
The number of independent countries in the world has grown from 67 in 1946 to 190 in 2000. This
is illustrated in Figure 1 along with how the number of dictatorships and democracies has changed
worldwide since 1946. Only since 1992 has the number of democracies in the world actually been
greater than the number of dictatorships. Virtually every independent country has held elections
at one time or another. In fact, only eight countries (Bhutan, Brunei, China, Eritrea, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Somaliland, United Arab Emirates) had failed to hold legislative or presidential elections
under either democratic or authoritarian rule by 2000. Arguably, there has been considerable
experience with, or interest in, electoral politics even among these eight countries. For example,
Bhutan regularly experiences something akin to legislative elections when village heads and family
representatives gather to nominate members of the Tshogdu in village level meetings (Nohlen,
Grotz & Hartmann 2001a). In April 2003, Somaliland actually held its first presidential elections
and Qataris voted overwhelmingly in favor of a referendum on a new constitution that would allow
them to vote for an elected legislature. Legislative elections have been planned several times in
Eritrea since its independence in 1993; however, they have always been postponed due to conflict
with Ethiopia. Although elections do not occur at regional, provincial or national levels in China,
Chinese voters do have the opportunity to cast their ballots in township and county elections. In
October 2003, even Saudi Arabia expressed its desire to introduce electoral politics, starting with
municipal elections in 2004. Only in Brunei and the United Arab Emirates has electoral politics
failed to put down any meaningful roots at all.
Although this article focuses primarily on democratic elections, it is worth noting that about half of
the worlds elections between 1946 and 2000 were authoritarian in nature. During this period there
have been 867 legislative and 294 presidential elections under democracy compared to 737 legislative
and 300 presidential elections under authoritarian rule. Given that there have been almost 1,400
extra years of dictatorship compared to democracy during this period, legislative elections have
occurred on average every 3.5 years in democracies and only every 6 years in dictatorships. Despite
their frequency, we have accumulated little systematic knowledge concerning the role that elections
play under dictatorship. However, some evidence exists to suggest that these elections are a means of
recruiting the political elite or ceremonial performances that help enforce citizen obedience, induce
complicity, and socialize the electorate (Chazan 1979, Cliffe 1967). As Milton Obote (a former
Ugandan president) stated, elections were a way of controlling the people rather than being a means
through which they could control him (Cohen 1983). While these claims about the role of electoral
institutions under dictatorship are often case-specific and anecdotal, they do generate the testable
hypothesis that dictatorial survival should be positively related to the presence of elections. Using
a duration model and data on 512 dictators between 1946 and 1996 in 138 countries worldwide,
Gandhi (2003) finds support for this claim. Clearly, further systematic research is required before
we can claim to fully understand the importance of elections under dictatorship.
125 countries have actually experienced at least one democratic election. Table 1 illustrates that
roughly one third of the democratic legislative and presidential elections that have taken place
between 1946 and 2000 have occurred in the 1990s. The number of legislative and presidential
elections remained fairly constant until the end of the 1980s. However, the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1990 and the return of multi-party elections in Africa led to a large increase in the number
of democratic countries and democratic elections.
Table 2 illustrates the distribution of democratic elections across geographical regions. It is fairly
easy to see that almost half of the worlds democratic presidential elections between 1946 and 2000
have occurred in Latin America, while a third of the worlds legislative elections have taken place
Table 2 also provides information concerning electoral system change by indicating the average
number of legislative elections that have occurred under each electoral system by geographic region.
An electoral system is defined as a set of essentially unchanged election rules under which one or
more successive elections are conducted in a particular democracy (Lijphart 1994, 13). The features
that characterize each electoral system in this analysis are assembly size, district magnitude, the
electoral formula, presidential elections, and the number of electoral tiers. A 20% criterion for
changes in district magnitude and assembly size is used to determine whether there has been
a change in electoral system. The introduction of presidential elections or the introduction of
presidential runoffs signify a change in electoral system. The same is true for the introduction
or abolition of electoral tiers. A different electoral system emerges whenever there is a change
in electoral formula or in how electoral tiers are connected. Alternation between presidential,
parliamentary or mixed forms of government also indicates a change in electoral system. Finally,
two electoral systems are classified as different if they are separated by a period of dictatorial rule,
even if features of both systems are identical.
A few examples should clarify how electoral systems have been distinguished. The electoral systems
in the Central African Republic (1993-97, 1998-2000) are treated separately because the assembly
size rose by more than 20%. Grenada is considered as having two electoral systems (1976-78,
1984-2000) because the systems are separated by 15 years of dictatorial rule. The Ukrainian
electoral system between 1998-2000 is distinguished from the system between 1994-97 because of the
introduction of a second electoral tier for the 1998 elections. The Albanian electoral systems (199295, 1996-2000) are treated as separate because the two electoral tiers in Albania were connected
for the 1992 election but not for the 1996 and 1997 elections (Shvetsova 1999).
261 different electoral systems can be distinguished using the criteria given above. 57 of the 125
countries that have held democratic elections have only ever experienced one democratic electoral
system. In other words, all of the elections in these countries have been conducted within the
same institutional framework. However, there is considerable variation in electoral system change.
For example, Greece has experienced eleven electoral systems and Argentina twelve. There also
appears to be considerable regional variation in electoral system change. Table 2 indicates that
there have only been 1.53 and 1.72 legislative elections per electoral system in Sub-Saharan Africa
and Eastern Europe respectively. The low score for Sub-Saharan Africa is largely explained by the
fact that democratic periods have frequently been punctuated by periods of dictatorial rule. On the
whole, African countries have retained the same electoral institutions since independence (Golder &
Wantchekon 2003). In contrast, the low score for Eastern Europe seems to indicate a willingness to
experiment with electoral institutions (Kaminski 2002a). This suggests that many East European
countries have yet to reach an equilibrium in multi-party competition (Kaminski 2002b). Electoral
systems appear to be most stable in the Pacific and Caribbean regions. However, it is arguable
that the stability of electoral institutions is somewhat overstated in these regions due to the large
number of elections that have occurred in the relatively stable systems of the United States, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand. Once these elections are omitted, then the average number of elections
per electoral system drops to 4.24 in the Caribbean region and 4.2 in the Pacific region. Thus far,
variation in electoral system change across geographical regions has yet to be adequately explained.
Having briefly examined elections and electoral system change worldwide, I turn to classifying
and describing the electoral institutions that have characterized the worlds democratic legislative
Traditionally, legislative elections have been distinguished by whether they employ majoritarian or
proportional formulas (Duverger 1964, Taagepera & Shugart 1989, Lijphart 1994). The problematic
nature of this simple dichotomy has become increasingly clear over time with the emergence of
numerous countries using more complex electoral systems that employ multiple tiers and/or a
combination of electoral formulas (Massicotte & Blais 1999, Shugart & Wattenberg 2001). I classify
legislative electoral systems into four main types: majoritarian, proportional, multi-tier and mixed.
Majoritarian and proportional systems employ a single electoral formula and a single electoral tier.
A multi-tier system uses a single electoral formula in multiple electoral tiers, while a mixed system
combines both a majoritarian and proportional formula. I summarize these electoral systems,
describe their key characteristics and provide examples of countries that use them. I finish with a
brief temporal and geographic overview of these legislative electoral systems worldwide.
Majoritarian and Proportional Systems
327 of the worlds democratic legislative elections have employed majoritarian electoral systems.
71% of these elections have been conducted using plurality rule. The vast majority of countries
employing plurality electoral systems are former British colonies (Blais & Dion 1990, Blais &
Massicotte 1997). The remaining majoritarian elections have either used absolute majority rule
(Central African Republic, Mali), qualified majority requirements (Lebanon 1951, Mongolia 19962000), the limited vote (Argentina 1946-50, 1958-62), the alternative vote (Australia), the single
non-transferable vote (Japan until 1996, Vanuatu), or a form of modified Borda count (Nauru).4
Some scholars have classified the limited and the single non-transferable vote as semi-proportional
systems (Lijphart 1994, Lijphart, Pintor & Sone 1986). They point to the fact that the limited
vote was often adopted in larger constituencies in order to secure the representation of minorities
and that both formulas tend to produce electoral outcomes that are more proportional than those
associated with plurality-rule systems. However, this line of reasoning confuses the outcome of an
electoral formula with its mechanics (Massicotte & Blais 1999). The key characteristic that defines
a majoritarian system is that the electoral formula requires the winning candidate to obtain either
a plurality or majority of the votes. Since the limited and single non-transferable vote both require
the winning candidates to achieve a plurality, I classify them as majoritarian systems.
291 of the worlds democratic legislative elections have employed proportional electoral systems.
Figure 2 illustrates the proportional systems that have been used in legislative elections. The only
proportional system not to use party lists is the single transferable vote (Ireland, Malta).5 Those
systems that employ party lists can be divided into two main types: quota systems (with allocation
of remainders) and highest average systems. Quota systems include the Hare quota (Namibia,
Colombia), Droop quota (Slovakia, Luxembourg), Imperiali quota and Reinforced Imperiali quota.6
Several methods are used to distribute any unallocated seats that remain. These include the largest
remainder method (Benin 1991, Honduras), the highest average method (Benin 1995, 1999, Brazil
1998) and the modified highest average method (Luxembourg).7 The Hare quota with largest
remainders is by far the most common quota-based proportional system and accounts for 27% of
all proportional system elections. Highest average systems include the dHondt series (Finland,
Suriname), the Sainte-Lague series (Latvia, Bolivia 1993), and the Modified Sainte-Lague series
(Norway 1953-88, Sweden 1952-69).8 These systems do not produce any unallocated seats. The
dHondt series is the most common highest average system and accounts for 52% of all proportional
system elections.
175 of the worlds democratic legislative elections have employed multi-tier electoral systems. Multitier systems are those in which a single electoral formula is used across multiple tiers.9 It is
possible to distinguish between majoritarian and proportional multi-tier systems. However, the
only countries to actually use majoritarian formulas in multiple tiers are Papua New Guinea and
Mauritius. 89 legislative members in Papua New Guinea are elected from local constituencies
using plurality rule and twenty are elected from provincial constituencies using plurality rule. It
is arguable that there are actually three electoral tiers in Papua New Guinea since a further three
members may be nominated to office with the support of two thirds of the parliament; however, no
member has actually been elected in this manner (Hicken & Kasuya 2003). In Mauritius, the vast
majority of legislative members are elected by plurality rule in multi-member districts. However, up
to eight seats are allocated to best-loser candidates (Nohlen, Grotz & Hartmann 2001b). While the
goal of these additional seats is to ensure proportionality, the formula for allocating them remains
essentially majoritarian. As a result, Mauritius is classified as a majoritarian multi-tier system.
All of the other countries that employ multi-tier systems use a proportional formula. With the
exception of Malta and South Africa, which both employ the single-transferable vote in multiple
tiers, these other countries all use party lists.
Multi-tier systems can be distinguished into those in which the electoral tiers are connected and
those in which they are not (Hicken & Kasuya 2003, Shugart & Wattenberg 2001). Linkage occurs
whenever unused votes from one electoral tier are used at another level or if the allocation of seats
in one tier is conditional on the seats received in another tier (Shvetsova 1999).10 It is important
to make this distinction since unconnected systems clearly provide different incentives for politicians and parties than connected ones. The overwhelming majority of multi-tier electoral systems
are connected. In fact, only 25 elections have been conducted in unconnected multi-tier systems
such as Poland (1991-2000) and Guatemala (1990-2000). If increased proportionality or minority
representation is the goal of higher tiers as most scholars claim (Lijphart 1994, Amorim Neto &
Cox 1997), then it is little wonder that one observes few unconnected multi-tier systems.11 This is
because higher tiers in unconnected multi-tier systems are constrained in their ability to increase
proportionality since they do not take account of the unused votes or seats already allocated at the
Many of the connected multi-tier systems are quota-based proportional systems in which remainder
seats are allocated in a higher tier. For example, the remainder seats in Czechoslovakia and Estonia
were distributed at the national level rather than in each constituency. The distribution of these
remainder seats is often quite complex and idiosyncratic to a particular country. This is certainly
the case in Greece (Caramani 2000, Clogg 1987, Vergelis 1981, Lijphart 1994). It is also possible
for a quota-based system to be a connected multi-tier system even though it allocates its remainder
seats at the district level. This is because it can also offer supplementary seats in a second tier
where the eligibility for these seats depends on the votes and/or seats won at the district level.
For example, a party in Iceland that wins at least one seat at the constituency level is eligible
to compete for the 11 supplementary seats (13 since 1987) on offer at the national level. Other
connected multi-tier systems are characterized by highest average proportional systems that offer
compensatory seats in a higher tier. These compensatory seats are often used to increase minority
representation and proportionality. For example, 40 seats (39 since 1974) are redistributed in a
second tier among parties and cartels in Sweden whose share of the seats is less than their share
of the votes (Caramani 2000). Likewise, parties in Venezuela that are under-represented in the
allocation of district level seats relative to their national voteshare are eligible to receive a limited
number of compensatory seats (Jones 1995, Crisp 2000).
74 of the worlds democratic legislative elections have employed mixed electoral systems. Several
different criteria exist in the literature for categorizing these systems (Reynolds & Reilly 1997,
Martin 1997, Massicotte & Blais 1999, Shugart & Wattenberg 2001). I define those countries that
employ a mixture of majoritarian and proportional electoral rules as mixed. It should be clear that
a country can be classified as having a mixed system whether it uses one or more electoral tiers; in
practice, most mixed systems have more than one tier.12
Table 3 provides a classification of mixed electoral systems and gives examples of countries using
such systems. Mixed systems can be divided into those in which the two electoral formulas are
dependent and those in which they are independent.13 An independent mixed system is one in which
the two electoral formulas are implemented independently of each other, while a dependent mixed
system is one in which the application of one formula is dependent on the outcome produced by the
other formula. For example, the Russian electoral system is independent because the application
of proportional representation in the higher tier does not depend in any way on the distribution of
votes and/or seats determined by plurality rule at the constituency level. On the other hand, the
German electoral system is dependent because proportional representation is applied in the higher
tier so as to correct the distortions in proportionality caused by the plurality formula at the district
As Massicotte and Blais (1999) note, these independent and dependent mixed systems can be
separated into various subtypes. For example, independent mixed systems can be separated into
coexistence, superposition and fusion types. A coexistence system is one in which some districts
use a majoritarian formula, while others employ a proportional formula. The electoral system in
Madagascar between 1998 and 2000 is a coexistence system because 82 members of the legislature
are elected in single seat districts by plurality rule, while a further 78 members are elected in
two-seat districts using the highest-average Hare formula (Nohlen, Krennerich & Thibaut 1999).
A superposition system is one in which two different formulas are applied nationwide. Japan
represents an example of a superposition system since 300 representatives are elected by plurality
rule in single-member electoral constituencies, while a further 190 are elected by proportional
representation in eleven districts in a higher tier. A fusion system is one in which majoritarian and
proportional formulas are used within a single district. The Turkish electoral system between 1987
and 1994 might usefully be considered a fusion system. During this period, Turkey employed a
contingency mandate in which the first seat in a constituency was allocated under plurality rule.
The remaining seats were allocated using the dHondt system (Nohlen, Grotz & Hartmann 2001b).
A similar system has been employed in the Sri Lankan electoral system between 1989 and 2000.
Again, the party that receives the highest number of votes in an electoral district receives a bonus
seat. The remaining constituency seats are then awarded according to proportional representation
(Hicken & Kasuya 2003, Nohlen, Grotz & Hartmann 2001a). Both systems clearly employ a
combination of majoritarian and proportional formulas within a single district.
Dependent mixed systems can also be divided into subtypes: correction and conditional. A correction mixed system is one in which seats distributed by proportional representation in one set of
districts are used to correct the distortions created by the majoritarian formula in another. The
Albanian system between 1992 and 1995 is a good example of a correction system since the forty
seats allocated in the higher tier were distributed by proportional representation based on unused
votes from the single-member districts. A conditional mixed system is one in which the actual use
or not of one electoral formula depends on the outcome produced by the other. The French system
between 1951 and 1957 is a conditional mixed system since all districts other than the eight in
Paris applied the following electoral rule: seats will be distributed by a winner-take-all approach if
a party or cartel wins a majority of the vote, but by dHondt otherwise.
It is clear that a handful of mixed systems do not fit neatly into these five categories. For example,
Hungary combines elements of a superposition and correction mixed system. 176 representatives
are elected by absolute majority rule in single member districts and a further 152 members are
elected by dHondt in 20 regional districts. These sets of representatives are elected independently.
However, there are 58 compensatory seats allocated at the national level depending on how parties have been rewarded in lower tiers. Another example is the Icelandic electoral system between
1946 and 1959, which might better be classified as coexistence-correction. Iceland appears to be
a coexistence system during this period because 21 representatives were elected in single-member
plurality districts, while a further twenty members were elected by dHondt in six two-seat districts
and one eight-seat district. However, the eleven supplementary seats allocated at the national level
provide it with the characteristics of a correction mixed system. The electoral systems used in the
1992 and 1995 elections in Croatia are also complicated to classify. I describe them as superposition systems because they allocate most seats by plurality rule and proportional representation in
independent tiers. However, they also allocate seats by proportional representation in a separate
district for the Croatian diaspora and several minority seats in single member districts by plurality
rule (Kasapovic 1996). Massicotte and Blais (1999) contend that these more complicated electoral
systems might be better considered as supermixed systems.
Mixed systems are typically designed to increase the level of proportionality or minority representation. However, this is not always the case. For example, the mixed system used in the
South Korean elections of 1988 and 1992 automatically entitled the party that won half of the
directly-elected seats to two-thirds of the upper tier seats. Even if the largest party did not win
half of the directly-elected seats, it was still awarded half of the upper tier seats. Only the remaining upper tier seats were distributed using proportional representation (Nohlen, Grotz &
Hartmann 2001b, Cox 1997, Morriss 1999). This electoral system represents somewhat of an anomalous case; increased proportionality does seem to be the goal of most mixed systems.
The extent to which mixed systems produce proportional outcomes is likely to depend on the
institutional features that characterize them. For instance, dependent mixed systems are likely to
be more proportional than independent systems because the allocation of seats by proportional rule
is designed specifically to counteract the distortions created by the majoritarian formula (Shugart
& Wattenberg 2001). It is perhaps interesting to note that the vast majority of the new democracies
in Eastern Europe did not adopt the dependent mixed system of Germany as is often assumed,
but actually chose a mixed system with independent tiers. Other institutional features, such as
the percentage of seats distributed by the proportional formula, the size of the district magnitude
used with the proportional formula, and the formula itself are also likely to affect the degree of
proportionality in these systems. Thus far, there has been little empirical work actually examining
whether these institutional features of mixed systems actually increase proportionality in practice.
Temporal and Geographical Overview
Having described the democratic electoral systems used for legislative elections in the world since
1946, it is worth taking a step back to examine any temporal and geographical patterns. Table
4 provides details on the percentage of democratic legislative elections by electoral system type
and decade. There is little support for the frequent assertion that proportional representation is
becoming increasingly commonplace. The figures clearly illustrate that the percentage of legislative
elections characterized as majoritarian in any given decade has not really changed since the 1950s.
Roughly 37% of legislative elections in each decade use majoritarian formulas in a single tier.
The percentage of elections using proportional representation in a single electoral tier has actually
declined monotonically by approximately 33% since the 1950s. In contrast, the percentage of
legislative elections comprised of more complicated systems using multiple tiers and a combination
of electoral formulas has risen quite remarkably since 1946. This is particularly the case for mixed
systems. It is important to remember that the vast majority of these more complicated systems are
highly proportional in nature. Thus, the evidence presented here suggests that while the balance
between the percentage of elections employing majoritarian and proportional formulas has not
changed significantly since 1946, proportional representation elections have become more complex.
Table 5 provides information on the number and percentage of democratic legislative elections by
electoral system type across various geographical regions. Percentages are given in parentheses. An
obvious pattern emerges in which each geographical region is characterized by a dominant electoral
formula. For example 94.87% of the elections in the Caribbean and non-Iberic America, 86.05%
of the elections in Asia and 91.57% of the elections in the Pacific Islands and Oceana have used
some form of majoritarian electoral formula. In contrast, 76.83% of the elections in Latin America
have employed a proportional representation system in a single electoral tier. 81.75% of elections
in Western Europe have been conducted using proportional formulas in either single or multiple
electoral tiers. Electoral systems in Eastern Europe have been characterized by their complexity,
with 78% of elections using multiple tiers or a combination of electoral formulas. It is only in
sub-Saharan Africa that one really observes a variety of electoral system types being employed.
While 46.94% of elections have used majoritarian formulas in this region, a significant number of
elections have employed proportional (28.57%) and multi-tier (18.37%) electoral systems.
Democratic presidents have been elected in one of five ways: plurality rule, absolute majority
rule, qualified majority rule, single transferable vote, or electoral college. A candidate who wins a
relative majority of the popular vote in a plurality-rule election becomes president. In an absolute
majority system a candidate must win over 50% of the popular vote to become president. If no
candidate overcomes this threshold in the first round, then there is a runoff between the top two
candidates. Qualified majority systems are only slightly different. Each qualified majority system
specifies a particular percentage of the vote that a candidate must win in order to be elected in the
first round. This threshold ranges from a low of 33% in the Peruvian presidential elections of 1956
and 1963 (Jones 1995, Nohlen 1993) to a high of 55% for the 1996 election in Sierra Leone (Nohlen,
Krennerich & Thibaut 1999). If two or more candidates overcome these thresholds, then the one
with the highest number of votes wins.14 Qualified majority systems vary in terms of the electoral
procedure that applies when these thresholds are not met. Some countries have employed a runoff
between the top two candidates from the first round (Argentina, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Sierra
Leone, Finland). Other countries indirectly elect the president using either an electoral college, the
parliament or joint sessions of the bicameral legislature (Bolivia, Chile, Guatemala, Peru, Finland).
Table 6 illustrates that the vast majority of presidential elections have used plurality (109) or absolute majority (108) rule. Absolute majority rule has replaced plurality rule as the predominant
electoral system for presidential elections in the 1990s. 60.5% of presidential elections in the 1990s
used absolute majority systems compared to just 6.1% in the 1950s. The adoption of absolute majority rule by most new democracies in Eastern Europe helps to explain this dramatic change. Most
countries in Africa have also adopted absolute majority rule following the reemergence of multiparty elections in the 1990s (Golder & Wantchekon 2003). Zambia is the only African country
to have actually switched from using an absolute majority requirement (in 1991) to using plurality rule (in 1996). Many countries in Latin American have also recently switched to absolute or
qualified majority systems (Payne et al. 2002). Argentina was the only Latin American country
to employ absolute majority rule prior to 1979. By 2000, there were seven Latin American countries employing absolute majority rule and five using qualified majority rule. The desire to avoid
electing presidents who lack a strong popular endorsement may explain the worldwide preference
for majority requirements but does not help us understand why they suddenly became so popular
in the 1990s. This remains a puzzle to be explored.
Only a handful of countries have failed to use plurality, absolute majority or qualified majority
rule. Argentina, Finland and the United States are the only countries to have employed an electoral
college; Ireland and Sri Lanka are the only countries to have used the single transferable vote.15
Elections under Presidentialism and Parliamentarism
One feature that distinguishes democratic electoral systems is whether the regime is presidential or
parliamentary. Several different criteria have been proposed for classifying these regimes (Shugart
1992, Lijphart 1992). I follow a fairly minimalist definition, where a presidential regime is one in
which the government serves at the pleasure of the elected president. The president may be directly
or indirectly elected; the important feature is that the president selects and determines the survival
of the government.16 A parliamentary system is one in which the government serves so long as
it maintains the confidence of the legislature. A system in which the government must respond
both to the legislative assembly and to an elected president is classified as mixed.17 Typically,
these mixed systems are characterized by a president who is elected for a fixed term with some
executive powers and a government that serves at the discretion of the legislature. This classification
of parliamentary, presidential and mixed regimes allows for the possibility of direct presidential
elections in parliamentary systems and no direct presidential elections in presidential and mixed
regimes. For example, Austria and Ireland both have direct presidential elections but are classified
as parliamentary. On the other hand, Switzerland and South Africa do not have direct presidential
elections and yet are still classified as presidential and mixed respectively. This classification scheme
follows the recommendations of Przeworski et al. (2000).
Table 7 indicates the number of democratic country years that have occurred under parliamentary,
presidential and mixed regimes across each geographical region. It is immediately obvious that one
regime type dominates in nearly every geographical region. For example, over 72% of the country
years in Western Europe, Asia, the Pacific, the Caribbean, North Africa and the Middle East have
occurred under parliamentary democracy. In stark contrast, there have only been two country
years that have not occurred under presidentialism in Latin America (Brazil 1961 and 1962). It
is only Eastern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa that have experienced a significant percentage of
democratic country years under presidential, parliamentary and mixed regimes. With the exception
of Eastern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa, this article provides strong evidence that geographical
regions tend to share the same regime type and the same electoral formula. The causal process
generating such a pattern has not been adequately analyzed to date.
Only nine countries have actually switched between presidential, parliamentary and mixed regimes
in the post-war period. Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and South Korea have each experienced periods
of parliamentary and presidential rule. Sri Lanka, Suriname, France and Pakistan have had both
parliamentary and mixed regimes. Brazil experienced a brief period of mixed rule between 1961
and 1962 before returning to its traditional presidential system. Finally, Armenia changed from
being a presidential to a mixed system in the mid 1990s (Przeworski et al. 2000). The limited
nature of alternations suggests that these elements of a countrys electoral system are perhaps the
most immune to change. An implication of this is that changes in the proportion of the worlds
independent countries using parliamentary, presidential or mixed regimes is due to the emergence
of new independent countries or the death of existing states rather than experimentation. Thus, the
increase in the percentage of the world using mixed regimes in the 1990s is largely due to the arrival
of the new East European states and the transitions to democracy in the former French colonies in
Africa; it is not caused by a switch to a mixed system by pre-existing democratic countries.
Table 8 illustrates legislative electoral systems by regime type. It is quite striking that 57% of all
legislative elections conducted under presidentialism have used proportional electoral systems. In
fact, 76% of elections under presidentialism are characterized by proportional formulas if one also
includes the multi-tier and mixed electoral systems. The same percentage of elections in mixed
regimes also employ proportional formulas if these electoral systems are included. The choice
of a proportional electoral system under presidentialism is somewhat surprising given the strong
empirical evidence suggesting that presidentialism is particularly unstable when there are many
parties (Mainwaring 1993, Stepan & Skach 1993). This raises the question as to why presidential
incumbents might choose electoral institutions that seem to weaken their ability to stay in power?
Presidential and mixed regimes stand in stark contrast to parliamentary regimes where roughly
half of the legislative elections are conducted according to purely majoritarian formulas. This is an
empirical pattern that has yet to be explained.
In this article, I have provided a consistent classification and systematic description of the worlds
democratic electoral systems and institutions since 1946. The typology that I have presented
focuses primarily on the mechanics of an electoral system rather than the outcomes associated with
it. This was an attempt to make the classification of electoral systems as simple and transparent
as possible. I hope that this database adds to the recent data collection efforts in this area and
ultimately goes someway to helping scholars test their hypotheses relating to electoral institutions
without being as constrained by artificial geographical and temporal constraints as has been the
case in the past.
The preliminary descriptive analysis conducted here suggests that there are some important empirical patterns relating to electoral system choice and electoral system change that need further
exploration. For example, it is typically the case that one particular type of regime (parliamentary,
presidential, mixed) and legislative electoral system (majoritarian, proportional, multi, mixed) is
dominant within a given geographical region. While further historical research is required to fully
understand how these patterns emerged, the evidence presented here supports the notion that the
choice set available to political elites who wish to manipulate electoral rules to achieve their objectives may be constrained by the historical development of their geographical region. Other patterns
that emerged in the analysis include the fact that (i) presidential regimes nearly always employ
proportional electoral formulas, (ii) absolute majority rule has become the worldwide norm for
electing presidents, (iii) the frequency of electoral system change varies quite considerably across
geographical regions, (iv) majoritarian electoral systems account for the same percentage of legislative elections as they did in the 1950s, and (v) non-majoritarian systems have become more
complex due to the increasing use of multiple tiers and mixed electoral formulas.
Finally, the analysis indicates that almost half of the worlds legislative and presidential elections
since 1946 have occurred under dictatorship. This raises a serious puzzle as to why dictators
hold elections, create legislatures and permit political parties given that parties do not compete,
elections do not select, and legislatures do not decide in these regimes (Gandhi 2003). What role
do elections and electoral institutions play in maintaining dictatorial rule? Systematic research in
this area is relatively new; more detailed theoretical and empirical research is required before we
have convincing answers to this type of question.
While great strides have been made in applying a common metric for describing electoral systems, some validity
unfortunately remains to Lijpharts (1994, 2) criticism that electoral engineers and students of electoral systems have
used confused terminologies with the same term sometimes being used for different practices and the same practice
referred to by different terms. It is not uncommon for this confusion to include having electoral institutions in
particular countries being cited differently from one source to another. The increasing use of more complex electoral
systems using multiple electoral tiers and formulas has often added to the confusion among scholars (Massicotte &
Blais 1999, Shugart & Wattenberg 2001).
The dataset covers a wide range of institutional features including regime type, electoral formula, average and
median district magnitude, the number of constituencies and upper tier seats, assembly size etc.. It also includes
information on the effective number of electoral and legislative parties (Laakso & Taagepera 1979).
This coding of democracy correlates highly with other attempts to classify democracy. For a discussion of the
relative merits of these coding rules, see the recent debate in Comparative Political Studies (Munck & Verkuilen 2002,
Coppedge 2002).
A candidate must win over 50% of the popular vote to win in an absolute majority system. If no candidate
overcomes this threshold, then there is a runoff between the top two candidates from the first round. The qualified
majority systems specify a particular percentage of the vote that a candidate must win in order to be elected in the
first round. For example, candidates had to win 40% of the vote to be elected in the first round in Lebanon in 1951,
while plurality winners in Mongolia had to ensure that they won at least 25% of the district vote in order to avoid a
runoff in 1996 and 2000. In electoral systems that employ the limited vote, voters have fewer votes than there are seats
to be filled. Candidates are ranked by the total number of votes received and the top candidates are then selected for
election until the constituency seats are filled. Electoral systems that use the single non-transferable vote are similar
except that each voter is only allowed to cast one vote in the multi-member districts. The candidates with the most
votes are elected until the constituency seats are filled. Electoral systems that employ the alternative vote require
voters to rank-order candidates. If a candidate obtains an absolute majority of first preferences, he/she is elected. If
not, the candidate with the lowest number of first preferences is eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed among
the remaining candidates. This procedure is repeated until one candidate reaches an absolute majority. The modified
Borda count used in Nauru is very similar to the traditional alternative vote except that first preferences count as
one vote, second preferences for a half vote, third preferences for one third of a vote etc.. For more information on
these electoral formulas, see Caramani (2000).
The single transferable vote requires voters to rank single candidates in order of the most to least preferred.
Votes are transferred until candidates obtain the Droop quota (also known as the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota). The
Droop quota is V alid
. If the Droop quote turns out to be an integer, then a one is often added. Thus, the quota
V alid V otes
would be Seats+1 + 1. Candidates that obtain this quota are elected.
The Hare quota is determined by V alid
, the Imperiali quota is V alid
, and the Reinforced Imperiali
Seats+2
quota is Seats+3 . Italy is the only country that has employed either the Imperiali or Reinforced Imperiali quotas
for legislative elections 1946-2000. However, Italy is not classified as a proportional system since its remainder seats
are allocated at the national level. The use of a second electoral tier means that Italy is categorized as a multi-tier
The largest remainder method requires that unallocated seats are given to the parties with the largest remainders.
The highest average method involves dividing the number of votes obtained by each party by the number of seats that
party obtained in the initial allocation. This provides an average number of votes that was actually used to win a seat.
Unallocated seats are then given to the parties with the highest average. The modified highest average method divides
the number of votes obtained by each party by the number of already-allocated seats plus one (Caramani 2000).
In these systems, the votes that parties receive are divided by a series of numbers. Seats are allocated to the
parties that have the highest average. The dHondt system uses the series 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . as the divisor; the SainteLague system uses the series 1, 3, 5, 7 . . . ; the Modified Sainte-Lague system uses the series 1.4, 3, 5, 7 . . . . For more
information, see Cox (1997) and Lijphart (1994)
Electoral tiers are levels in which votes are translated into seats. The lower tier is the level of electoral constituencies. Higher tiers are constituted by grouping different lower tier constituencies together. Typically, these
higher tiers represent geographical areas such as administrative regions or the nation as a whole. However, tiers need
not be hierarchically ordered in this manner (Caramani 2000).
Multi-tier systems employing a single ballot are not necessarily connected systems (Shvetsova 1999). A single
ballot implies that the same vote tally is used in both tiers, but it does not signify whether the same votes are used
in a connected or disconnected manner. Thus, it is possible for multi-tier systems with a single ballot to be classified
as unconnected (Albania 1996, 1997). Likewise, separate ballots can be used in connected or disconnected ways.
The multi-tier system in Malta is somewhat anomalous. A potential second tier has been in place since 1987
due to a constitutional provision (Article 52) stating that any party winning a majority of the votes but a minority
of seats is to be given sufficient additional seats so as to obtain a legislative majority. Clearly, this higher tier is
specifically designed to ensure a majority rather than increase proportionality.
Shugart and Wattenberg (2001) offer a slightly different classification of mixed electoral systems. They argue
that mixed systems are simply a special type of multi-tier system. As a result, they do not consider electoral systems
that employ a combination of majoritarian and proportional formulas in a single tier as mixed. The problem with
this is that it does not indicate how single tier systems that combine majoritarian and proportional formulas should
Massicotte and Blais (1999) recognize that countries such as Switzerland and Finland allocate the vast majority
of their seats by proportional representation, but that a few seats are distributed through a majoritarian system.
Given the clear predominance of one formula, they are reluctant to classify these countries as mixed. Instead, they
propose a threshold by which a system is classified as mixed if more than 5% of the total legislature is elected by
a different electoral formula to that used to elect the other deputies. With this threshold, neither Switzerland nor
Finland qualify as using a mixed electoral system. While this threshold is somewhat arbitrary, its low level provides
some reassurance that obvious classification errors are not being made. As a result, I use this threshold in my own
Some countries have made these thresholds more complicated. For example, a candidate could have been declared
president in Argentina during the 1995 and 1999 elections if (i) he/she won 45% of the valid votes or (ii) if he/she
won 40% of the valid votes and 10% more than the next best-placed candidate. Similar rules also exist in Nicaragua
and Ecuador (Payne et al. 2002).
It is worth noting that Bosnia and Herzegovina also employed the single transferable vote to elect its tri-partite
presidency from 1996 to 2000. However, Bosnia and Herzegovina is not classified as an independent democratic
country during this time period.
Most definitions of presidentialism require that the president is directly elected (Shugart 1992, Lijphart 1992,
Jones 1995, Hicken & Kasuya 2003). I choose to emphasize whether the president has the power to determine the
survival of the government. This does not depend on whether the president is directly or indirectly elected.
Mixed systems have also been referred to as semi-presidential, premier-presidential, or president-parliamentary
(Duverger 1980, Shugart 1992).
Amorim Neto, Octavio & Gary Cox. 1997. Electoral Institutions: Cleavage Structures, and the
Number of Parties. American Journal of Political Science 41:149174.
Blais, Andre & Louis Massicotte. 1997. Electoral Formulas: A Macroscopic Perspective. European
Journal of Political Research 32:107129.
Blais, Andre & S. Dion. 1990. Electoral Systems and the Consolidation of New Democracies. In
Democratic Transition and Consolidation in Southern Europe, Latin America and South East
Asia, ed. D. Ethier. London: Macmillan.
Boix, Carles. 1999. Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced
Democracies. American Political Science Review 93:609624.
Caramani, Daniele. 2000. Elections in Western Europe: Electoral Results by Constituencies. In
The Societies of Europe, ed. Peter Flora, Franz Kraus & Franz Rothenbacher. London: CD
Rom, Macmillan Reference Ltd.
Chazan, Naomi. 1979. African Voters at the Polls: A Re-examination of the Role of Elections in
African Politics. Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Political Studies 17:136158.
Cliffe, Lionel. 1967. One Party Democracy: The 1965 Tanzania General Elections. Nairobi: East
African Publishing House.
Clogg, Richard. 1987. Parties and Elections in Greece: The Search for Legitimacy. Durham, North
Carolina: Duke University Press.
Cohen, Denis. 1983. Elections and Election Studies in Africa. In Political Science in Africa: A
Critical Review, ed. Yolamu Barongo. London: Zed Books pp. 7293.
Coppedge, Michael. 2002. Democracy and Dimensions: Comments on Munck and Verkuilen.
Comparative Political Studies 35:3539.
Cox, Gary. 1990. Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems. American Journal
of Political Science 34:903935.
Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the Worlds Electoral Systems.
Crisp, Brian. 2000. Democratic Institutional Design: The Powers and Incentives of Venezuelan
Politicians and Interest Groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Duverger, Maurice. 1964. Political Parties. New York: Wiley.
Duverger, Maurice. 1980. A New Political System Model: Semi-Presidential Government. European Journal of Political Research 8:165187.
Gandhi, Jennifer. 2003. Political Institutions under Dictatorship. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department
of Politics, New York University.
Golder, Matt & Leonard Wantchekon. 2003. Africa: Dictatorial and Democratic Electoral Systems
Since 1946. In Handbook of Electoral System Design, ed. Josep Colomer. London: Palgrave.
Golder, Matt & William Clark. 2003. The Sociological and Institutional Determinants of the
Number of Parties Worldwide. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political
Science Association, Chicago.
Golder, Sona Nadenichek. 2003. A Logic of Pre-Electoral Coalition Formation: Theory and Empirics. Presented at the Summer Methodology Meeting, University of Minnesota.
Hicken, Allen & Yuko Kasuya. 2003. A Guide to the Constitutional Structures and Electoral
Systems of East, South and Southeast Asia. Electoral Studies 22:121151.
Jones, Mark. 1995. A Guide to the Electoral Systems of the Americas. Electoral Studies 14:521.
Jones, Mark. 1997. A Guide to the Electoral Systems of the Americas: An Update. Electoral
Studies 16:1315.
Kaminski, Marek. 2002a. Do Parties Benefit from Electoral Manipulation? Electoral Laws and
Heresthetics in Poland, 1989-93. Journal of Theoretical Politics 14:325359.
Kaminski, Marek. 2002b. General Equilibrium Model of Multi-Party Electoral Competition.
Mimeo, New York University.
Kasapovic, Mirjana. 1996. 1995 Parliamentary Elections in Croatia. Electoral Studies 15:269274.
Laakso, Markku & Rein Taagepera. 1979. Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12:327.
Lijphart, Arend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lijphart, Arend, ed. 1992. Parliamentary versus Presidential Government. Oxford University
Lijphart, Arend, Rafael Pintor & Yasunori Sone. 1986. The Limited Vote and the Single Nontransferable Vote: Lessons from the Japanese and Spanish Examples. In Electoral Laws and Their
Political Consequences, ed. Bernard Grofman & Arend Lijphart. New York: Agathon Press.
Lizzeri, Alessandro & Nicola Persico. 2000. The Provision of Public Goods under Alternative
Electoral Incentives. American Economic Review 90.
Mainwaring, Scott. 1993. The Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination. Comparative Political Studies 26:198228.
Martin, Pierre. 1997. Les Syst`emes Electoraux
et les Modes de Scrutin. Paris: Montchrestien.
Massicotte, Louis & Andre Blais. 1999. Mixed Electoral Systems: A Conceptual and Empirical
Survey. Electoral Studies 18:341366.
Milesi-Ferretti, G., R. Perotti & M. Rostagno. 2001. Electoral Systems and Public Spending.
International Monetary Fund Working Paper WP/01/22.
Morriss, Peter. 1999. Electoral Politics in South Korea. Electoral Studies 15:550562.
Munck, Gerardo & Jay Verkuilen. 2002. Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating
Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies 35:534.
Nohlen, Dieter. 1993. Enciclopedia Electoral Latinoamericana y del Caribe. San Jose, Costa Rica:
Nohlen, Dieter, Florian Grotz & Christof Hartmann. 2001a. Elections in Asia and the Pacific: A
Data Handbook, Volume 1: The Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia. New York: Oxford
Nohlen, Dieter, Florian Grotz & Christof Hartmann. 2001b. Elections in Asia and the Pacific:
A Data Handbook, Volume 2: Southeast Asia, East Asia and the South Pacific. New York:
Nohlen, Dieter, Michael Krennerich & Berhnard Thibaut. 1999. Elections in Africa: A Data
Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Payne, Mark, Daniel Zovatto, Fernando Florez & Andres Zavala. 2002. Democracies in Development: Politics and Reform in Latin America. Washington D.C.: Johns Hopkins University
Powell, G. Bingham. 1982. Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability and Violence.
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven: Yale University
Przeworski, Adam, Jose Cheibub & Sebastian Saiegh. 2002. Government Coalitions and Legislative Effectiveness Under Presidentialism and Parliamentarism. Paper presented at the 2002
Annual Meeting of Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago.
Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub & Fernando Limongi. 1996. Classifying Political Regimes. Studies in Comparative International Development 31:336.
Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub & Fernando Limongi. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Material Well-Being in the World, 19501990. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reynolds, A. & B. Reilly. 1997. The International IDEA Handbook of Electoral System Design.
Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Riker, William. 1982. The Two-Party System and Duvergers Law: An Essay on the History of
Political Science. American Political Science Review 76:753766.
Rose, Richard, ed. 2000. International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
Shugart, Matthew. 1992. Leaders, Rank and File, and Constituents: Electoral Reform in Colombia
and Venezuela. Electoral Studies 11:2145.
Shugart, Matthew & Martin Wattenberg, eds. 2001. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best
of Both Worlds? New York: Oxford University Press.
Shvetsova, Olga. 1999. A Survey of Post-Communist Electoral Institutions: 1990-1998. Electoral
Studies 18:397409.
Stepan, Alfred & Cindy Skach. 1993. Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation:
Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism. World Politics 46:122.
Taagepera, Rein & Matthew Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of
Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Vergelis, Phaedo. 1981. Greek Electoral Law. In Greece at the Polls: The National Elections of
1974 and 1977, ed. Howard Penniman. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy Research pp. 2148.
Figure 1: Number of Independent Countries in the World: Democracies and Dictatorships
"!#%$'&(*)
+,-.!0/$21*/&(*)
+3&(/(14(!$2)65&%)
Figure 2: Classification of Proportional Electoral Systems
)	# 
 

&(' 	#!	#)$%

	
"!	#
$%
*+#,,./
1#2-0
+3/
43
50)3768#,+9
:1#2-0)+#3/
*<;=.,6>:?
36?0
@#A/)BC>D
EF,:38#30
:  /G36?0
@AH/)BCD
Table 1: Number of Democratic Elections by Decade
Legislative Presidential
Pacific Islands/Oceana
Caribbean/Non-Iberic America
Table 2: Democratic Elections and Electoral Systems Across Geographical Regions
Table 3: Classification of Mixed Electoral Systems
Iceland (1946-59)
Niger (1993, 1995)
Albania (1996)
Kyrgzstan (2000)
Japan (1996, 2000)
Russia (1993, 1995, 1999)
Turkey (1987, 1991)
Sri Lanka (1989, 1994, 2000)
New Zealand (1996, 1999)
Germany (1949-2000)
France (1951, 1965)
Table 4: Percentage of Democratic Legislative Elections By Electoral System Type
Table 5: Number and Percentage of Democratic Legislative Elections By Geographical
Region and Electoral System Type
(86.05)
(94.87)
Table 6: Percentage of Democratic Presidential Elections by Electoral Formula
Table 7: Democratic Country Years under Parliamentary, Presidential and Mixed Regimes
Table 8: Legislative Electoral Systems by Regime Type
Parliamentary Mixed Presidential
Documents Similar To Around the World
Titzer Rey
lemauriciencom
Appeal of the FCDP Special Vacancy Endorsement Vote for School Board, At-Large
Jeannie H. Armstrong
Election Reform Questionaire
Tinubu Paper Delivered at Chatham House UK July 2011
ppt- customer satisfaction
HOUSE HEARING, 109TH CONGRESS - HEARING ON ``YOU DON'T NEED PAPERS TO VOTE?'' NON-CITIZEN VOTING AND ID REQUIREMENTS IN U.S. ELECTIONS
More From Claudiu_1105
Italy New Zeeland
Ross Th Trae Union as a Wage Fixing Institution
Foster Infrastructure 2012 Pensions Funds Investing in Public-private Partnership
Brooks ISQ
Ferreiro Serrano 2011 Uncertainity and Pension Systems Reforms
Full Reprot
TMP.objres.12
Economical Analisis
Bicameral is m
Sitter 02
filehost_Manual - Drept penal, partea speciala - Gh. Diaconecu.pdf
Votnoiembrie2007 Hotnews
vicocatona
Declaratia Universal A a Drepturilor Omului
Comparatie Germania Noua Zeelanda
Moser Schatz Jordan
deficitul mecanismelor inhibitorii
electorala 1939
Umorul La Manageri
Teste Ipip
Handbook on Automated Elections, Canvassing and General Election Monitoring (U.P. Law Center, PPCRV)
ELECTION LAWS UPDATED
PRB 2013 Civil Service
A study of "eligible" voters in Worcester, by Worcester State University
Leisure World Debate Info: Montgomery County Board of Education
Reform of the Electoral System.pdf
CEO_checklist.pdf
sunderkella
Election Protest Form Bladen
Remus Huet
Form Watcher Protest
1st Regular Session - Approved
Florida 2016 Recount Complaint
5.2.4 - Non Functional Requirements
RECOVERY AND ISSUING OF CORRECT VOTERS CARDS FOR VOTERS ERRONEOUSLY REGISTERED FOR THE BUKALO AND OTJINENE LOCAL AUTHORITIES DURING THE 2014 GENERAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (GRV)
Sound Transit Board-Board Rules and Operating Procedures.pdf
SVEEP_ppt
NoticeandtheVoteEPSI