End
Majority Rule
-
Despite pre-election polls that
demonstrated he had little chance to win, Perot gained 19% of
the national vote and won over 15% of the vote in 38 states.
Perot's vote was greater than the margin of victory in 49
states, and he was within 20% of capturing 20 states.
-
Preliminary poll results suggest a close
election in 1996 and higher potential totals for an
independent candidate. Such close results easily could divide
the electoral college.
-
Every other major democracy with
plurality voting has experienced fractured results. The United
States cannot expect to be immune from the fractionalization
of plurality voting. As one indication, several states
recently have elected governors with low pluralities,
including three in the 1990s that have elected independents.
-
Although presidential victories without a
majority of the vote are nothing new, minority rule is likely
to become the norm because times indeed have changed. Central
problems with plurality elections are systemic in nature and
unlikely to change.
Introduction
1996 could be a disastrous year for American
democracy. This judgment is not based on whether a Republican,
Democrat or independent should be elected president. Rather, it is
tied to the impact of the plurality method of voting currently
used to elect our president -- plurality voting meaning that the
candidate who wins the most votes in a state wins all of that
state's electoral college votes. Because of plurality voting and
the near certainty of strong independent candidates in 1996 and
future elections, we draw three conclusions:
-
A divided electorate easily could
fracture the electoral college in 1996 so that the presidency
is decided by a vote in the House of Representatives
-
The winner of the 1996 election quite
possibly will not be either the first or second choice of a
majority of voters in the general election.
-
Future presidential elections are likely
to continue to produce plurality presidents, fractured
electoral college votes and frustrated voters.
A year before the election, we predict that there will be at
least one strong independent candidate seeking the presidency. The
most likely such candidate will pursue the "militant center"
through the new Independence Party formed by Ross Perot's United
We Stand America. Possible candidates are Perot himself and such
current and former U.S. Senators as David Boren, Bill Bradley, Sam
Nunn, Paul Tsongas and Lowell Weicker, any of whom might also
choose to run for president separately from the Independence Party
candidate.
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell also has
indicated interest in running for president and in creation of a
third party. After initial signals that he might run as an
independent candidate, General Powell more recently has positioned
himself to seek the Republican nomination. If Powell were to
choose this course and win the Republican nomination, however, it
almost certainly would precipitate a high-profile independent
challenge from the conservative wing of the Republican party, as
strongly suggested by Pat Buchanan.
At the same time, former presidential candidate Jesse Jackson
has spoken of an independent challenge to President Bill Clinton
from the left. Recent movement to the right by Clinton, the
election of a more aggressive leadership of the AFL-CIO in the
wake of labor's disappointment with Clinton's support for NAFTA
and many congressional Democrats' ongoing frustration with the
president makes such a challenge all the more possible.
The irony of current plurality voting laws is that the more
candidates who enter the general election field, the more
incentive there is for other candidates to run. Unlikely to win in
a three-person race, a Buchanan or Jackson could have a realistic
chance to win by capturing the big states' electoral college votes
with as little as 26% in a four-person race, 21% in a five-person
race or even 17% in a six-candidate race.
1992 shows these scenarios are not so far-fetched. With three
major candidates running, only a single state was won with a
majority: Bill Clinton's home state of Arkansas. The 49 other
states gave all of their electoral college votes to candidates
that the majority of voters in those states opposed. The last
presidential election in the Philippines also provides a
disturbing example of what could happen in 1996. In a large field
of candidates using U.S.-style plurality voting, Fidel Ramos won
the presidency with less than 25% of the vote.
This report reviews the results from the 1992
presidential election, applies the lessons from these results to
1996 and explains why the United States is not immune from the
problems that the handful of other democracies using plurality
voting have experienced. It concludes that the United States is
unlikely to have a president elected by a majority for years
unless it reforms its plurality election method. The report then
suggests a sensible reform called instant runoff voting, which has
the twin benefits of better assuring majority rule while at the
same time promoting increased voter choice -- and participation --
on election day.
The
1992 Presidential Election
In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected president with 43.0% of the
vote, the fourth lowest percentage in American history. Perhaps
more strikingly, he also won only a single state -- his home state
of Arkansas -- with a majority of the vote. In fact, the majority
of voters in 49 out of 50 states opposed the candidate who
collected all of their state's electoral college votes. As shown
in Appendix 1, most states were won by less than 45% of the vote,
ranging down to Clinton's victory in Nevada with 37%.
These plurality victories were the result of Ross Perot's
strong presidential challenge. Despite pre-election polls that
demonstrated he had little chance to win, Perot gained 19% of the
national vote and won over 15% of the vote in 38 states, ranging
up to 30% in Maine and a second place finish in Utah with 27%.
Perot's vote was greater than the margin of victory in 49 states,
including the 15 states decided by less than 5%. (See Appendix 1.)
Perot was within 15% of capturing 8 states and 20% of capturing 12
more, including such large states as Texas, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Many potential independent presidential contenders
must be weighing how well Perot would have run if he had stayed in
the race throughout 1992 and if polls had shown that he a credible
chance to win. A study in the Roper Center's publication The
Public Perspective, based on data from the American National
Election Study, concluded that Perot was the favorite of a
clear-cut plurality of voters, but that many of his supporters
chose not to vote for him because of his standing in the polls.
Lessons for
1996
Given Bill Clinton's low standing in the polls, Republican
front-runner Bob Dole's difficulties in expanding his support and
ever-increasing signs of voter support for third party
candidacies, independent candidates can find great encouragement
in the 1992 results. A strong candidate running a sustained
campaign throughout 1996 and earning high numbers in the polls
would have a credible chance to win enough states to gain an
electoral college majority.
Even if winning with only a plurality, such a victorious
independent candidate could emerge from the election with a
reasonable mandate. But a mandate is far from certain,
particularly given the prospect of multiple independent
candidacies. It is one thing to win the presidency with 40% of the
vote. It is quite another to win with 30% in a four-candidate race
or even less in a five-candidate or six-candidate race. A
polarizing candidate could have an extremely ineffective -- and,
as a result, destabilizing -- presidency.
Given many voters' history of party-line voting, however, an
independent candidate would face an uphill battle to win enough
states to gain a majority in the electoral college. But in a close
election, it would take an independent's victory in only a handful
of states to precipitate a constitutional crisis by throwing the
election into the House of Representatives. (Given that each
state's delegation to the House of Representatives would cast one
vote, the 1996 House elections would take on even greater
significance; currently, neither party controls a majority of
state delegations.)
Even in 1992, when Bill Clinton won a commanding 370 electoral
college votes, a few twists of fate could have fractured the
electoral college. Clinton won 9 states by less than 5%, with a
total electoral college vote of 87. Clinton's electoral college
total would have been reduced to 283 if George Bush had won all of
these states, meaning that the election would have gone to the
House of Representatives if Ross Perot had won a single state that
deprived Clinton of 14 electoral votes.
Preliminary poll results suggest a close election in
1996 and higher potential totals for an independent candidate. A
September 22-24 poll by CNN/USA Today found that in a three-way
race among Bill Clinton as the Democratic nominee, Bob Dole as the
Republican nominee and Colin Powell as an independent, the results
were 33% each for Clinton and Powell and 30% for Dole. Mirrored at
a state level, such close results easily could divide the
electoral college so that no candidate won a majority.
Plurality Winners For the Foreseeable Future?
The United States is one of a handful of former British
colonies that use plurality voting -- often called by political
scientists "first past the post" because the candidate who gets
the most votes wins all, even when lacking a majority. Plurality
has caused grave problems in all of these democracies which have
resulted in calls for reform or, in the case of New Zealand,
rejection of the system in a 1993 referendum in favor of a
proportional representation system.
The United Kingdom has not had a government elected by a
majority since World War II, leading even the conservative
Economist magazine to conclude in 1991 that "The current,
first-past-the-post system is undemocratic. On that ground alone,
it needs to be replaced." New Zealanders are now in their fifth
decade of plurality rule -- soon to change with their first
election using proportional representation in 1996 -- including
six years from 1978-1984 in which the party finishing second
nationally won a majority of seats.
India also has not had a government elected by the majority for
decades and recently has experienced fractious regional elections
in which polarizing fundamentalist parties have won large seat
majorities with less than a majority of the vote. Canada has seen
extreme swings in government exacerbated by plurality elections.
In the 1993 election, the Liberals turned 41.6% of the vote into
60.3% of seats, while the previously governing Conservatives won
only 2 seats -- 27 times fewer than the 54 seats won by the
separatist Bloc Quebecois with fewer votes nationwide than the
Conservatives. Overall, five parties won seats.
The United States cannot expect to be immune from the
fractionalization of plurality voting. As one indication, several
states recently have elected governors with low pluralities,
including three in the 1990s that have elected independents (see
Appendix 2). Alaska has elected its last two
governors with 41% in 1994 and 39% in 1990, while Connecticut has
elected its last two governors with 36% in 1994 and 40% in 1990.
Other states that elected governors by plurality in 1994 included
Hawaii (37%) and Maine (36%).
Polls reveal a steadily rising growth in independent voters and
support for creation of a third party. A Gallup poll in August
1995 showed that 62% of Americans favored "formation of a third
political party that would run candidates for President, Congress
and state offices against the Republican and Democratic
candidates." The support for such a third party increased steadily
the younger the voting age group, with 18-29-year-olds favoring
formation of a third party by a lopsided 72%-18% margin. Gallup
also found that the proportion of voters calling themselves
independents had doubled since 1940 to its current 39%.
As Colin Powell has remarked, the national results
in 1992 and 1994 indicate an electorate that is "channel-surfing."
In 1992, voters tried the Democrats and Bill Clinton, in 1994 they
tried the Republicans and Newt Gingrich and in 1996 they may be
ready for someone new. Although greatly simplifying the complex
reasons for these election victories, this analogy captures the
volatility and frustration of the many millions of Americans who
are leaping to limit legislators' terms -- or stepping away from
voting altogether. Now that United We Stand America has formed a
new party with the potential to poll well throughout the country,
victories by plurality easily could become the norm in many
American elections.
Why Today is Different: "Politics is Broken"
Some observers might ask why the plurality voting system is
breaking down now. Although presidential victories without a
majority of the vote are nothing new (see Appendix 2), minority rule is likely to become
the norm because times indeed have changed. There is a general
agreement that American politics is in a state of crisis. Leading
Democrat Bill Bradley has declared that "politics is broken",
while House Speaker Newt Gingrich testified just last week (on
November 2 about the need for a reform commission) that "we need a
very profound overhaul of our political system." These comments by
Bradley and Gingrich echo many remarks made in recent years by
respected commentators from the left and right.
Although some would like to blame voters or politicians, a more
sensible analysis is to focus on the system that is causing voters
and politicians to act the way they do in the "survival of the
fittest" logic that governs such a competitive system. Speaker
Gingrich in his November 2nd testimony helped put a finger on one
of the main problems when he commented that "I do think there is
something inherently wrong with a system where you have the right
smear for the last four days you undo two or three years of hard,
sincere work, and somebody who doesn't have a clue what they are
doing can buy an office for -- with 50.1% of the vote because they
had the best hired gun. And this is a problem we see across the
board."
What Gingrich suggests may seem like a paradox: that we have
simply gotten too good at the current rules of the game to be able
to play effectively. But campaign consultants -- "hired guns" --
have much greater tools available to win close elections by
targeting the relatively small number of swing voters undecided
between the leading candidates. The most effective winning
strategy to woo such voters is a negative campaign. However much
voters dislike negative campaigning, swing voters still respond to
it because it is easier for them by definition to find a reason to
vote against someone than a reason to vote for someone.
If effective in the short-term, however,
these sophisticated campaigns are causing voters to reject the
political parties and lose trust in elected officials. In this
climate, support for "outsider" candidates is rising rapidly. An
independent candidate is the ultimate outsider, and Ross Perot's
1992 showing and recent victories by independents in gubernatorial
elections shows that more and more voters are particularly willing
to elect an independent to be their executive -- either governor
of a state or president of the nation. The attraction may be that,
as the executive, the outsider can keep the distrusted political
parties in the legislature in line.
As long as politics are
conducted in a manner that drives voters to dislike and distrust
politicians, voters will have an interest in third parties and
independents. And such negative, personality-driving campaigning
is quite unlikely to change, given that it works for very rational
reasons in a "winner-take-all" electoral system. When combined
with the economic dislocation experienced by millions of Americans
and other volatile issues, it is hard to believe that politics
will return to the neat and tidy two-party system of years past.
Instant Runoff Voting: Majority Rule, Maximum
Choice
The United States has one advantage in
having its plurality voting system falter years after other
democracies with plurality voting have had problems. These nations
have had years of debate on what steps could be taken -- a debate
we should catch up on quickly. The United States also has an
advantage in that, unlike these countries, it has a federal system
with fifty states that can enact changes on their own, even for
presidential elections in their state.
We strongly recommend the instant runoff
voting system for presidential elections. Used to elect
Australia's parliament since the 1920s, used to elect the Irish
presidency and advocated by many in the United Kingdom, instant
runoff voting (also called "the alternative vote" and "majority
preference voting") has the twin benefits of better assuring
majority rule (at least within states) and promoting increased
voter choice -- and thus participation -- in elections.
Designed to produce majority winners,
instant runoff voting (IRV) allows voters to rank candidates in
order of preference rather than simply "x" vote for one. This
simple provision for "voter literacy" -- few voters would have
difficulty marking a "1" next to a first choice, a "2" next to a
second choice and so on -- allows a different method of tabulating
results. Rather than the winner being whoever has the most
first-place votes -- the current approach -- a candidate would
need a majority of over 50% to win. If no candidate obtains a
majority of first-place votes, then the last-place candidate is
defeated, and, just as if there were a run-off election, the
ballots for that candidate are transferred to the next candidate
listed on these ballots. This transfer of ballots from last-place
candidates continues until only one candidate remains or gains
50%.
If IRV had been used in 1992, Bill Clinton
almost certainly still would have won the presidency, as exit
polls showed that Ross Perot voters were evenly split between
George Bush and Clinton. But Clinton would have had the increased
legitimacy of being a majority president rather than a plurality
winner with 43%, and Perot would have had a greater chance to win
-- and perhaps faced a correspondingly increased level of scrutiny
on his proposed policies.
Having IRV in 1996 would reverse much
conventional political wisdom. Independent candidacies by Ross
Perot, Colin Powell or Pat Buchanan would not fracture the
opposition to Clinton -- there would be no more rumors of Clinton
consultant Dick Morris helping Ross Perot's Independence Party
gain ballot status. Instead, the vote in opposition to Clinton
would coalesce behind the strongest of the opposition candidates.
Similarly, a Jesse Jackson candidacy would help Clinton rather
than hurt him. Jackson supporters on the left would be more
inspired to vote, but likely would list Clinton as their second
choice, where their vote would go if Jackson did not finish ahead
of Clinton in a particular state.
Instant runoff voting as a result
encourages candidacies for citizens who feel left out by the
limitations of the current system. It provides them with a greater
reason to vote and, if they choose to vote, an increased chance to
have their vote count toward a winner. By opening the field to
more choices -- an increase that polls show a majority of
Americans would welcome -- IRV could lift our voter turnout, which
now is among the lowest in the world. The 1992 elections provide
good evidence of the positive impact more candidacies have on
turnout. With Ross Perot on the ballot, voter participation rose
in 49 out of 50 states. Furthermore, while the average increase in
voter turnout was 5% around the nation, its average rise was 8% in
the 10 states where Perot gained his highest percentages of the
vote.
Although politicians may be resistant to
pursue reform before absolutely necessary, they would be foolhardy
to risk electoral disaster in 1996 without at least studying
proposed changes. Fortunately, a mechanism may indeed exist to
study IRV on a national level, as House Speaker Newt Gingrich and
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole have begun steps toward formation
of a powerful electoral reform commission. In addition, the
Republican presidential primaries may provide a stark
demonstration of the haphazard nature of plurality voting, as most
states will allocate Republican convention delegates by "plurality
takes all" primaries.
Regardless of action at the federal level,
states can lead the way on presidential election reform. Article
II, Section 1 of the Constitution explicitly gives states the
power to determine the manner of choosing presidential electors.
Thus, unlike abolition of the electoral college, which requires
constitutional change, legislatures could institute the IRV for
presidential elections (as well as for statewide offices)
immediately. The only barrier is that some states might need to
find new ways to tabulate ballots, but such one-time changes would
be a small price to pay in exchange for providing for majority
rule and for a more engaged electorate in what promises to be a
watershed election in our nation's history.
Appendix
1
Available in print
version.
Other United States
Elections and Information
U.S. Presidents Elected With Minority
of Vote |
|
Winner |
Popular Vote |
Electoral
Vote |
1992 |
Clinton |
43.0% |
69% |
1968 |
Nixon |
43.4% |
56% |
1960 |
Kennedy |
49.7% |
56% |
1948 |
Truman |
49.5% |
57% |
1916 |
Wilson |
49.3% |
52% |
1912 |
Wilson |
41.8% |
82% |
1892 |
Cleveland |
46.0% |
62% |
1888 |
Harrison |
47.8% |
58% |
1884 |
Cleveland |
48.8% |
55% |
1880 |
Garfield |
48.3% |
58% |
1876 |
Hayes |
47.9% |
50% |
1860 |
Lincoln |
39.9% |
59% |
1856 |
Buchanan |
45.3% |
59% |
1848 |
Taylor |
47.3% |
56% |
1844 |
Polk |
49.3% |
62% |
1824 |
Adams |
29.8% |
32% |
Recent U.S. Gubernatorial
Elections
Following are some of the more dramatic
examples of governors elected with less than a majority of the
vote. Note that Alaska, Connecticut and Maine have had governors
elected as independents in the 1990s.
Alaska |
1994: |
1990: |
Knowles (D) |
41% |
Hickel (I) |
39% |
Campbell (R) |
41% |
Knowles (D) |
31% |
Coghill (I) |
13% |
Sturgulewski
(R) |
27% |
Others |
5% |
Others |
4% |
Arizona Run-off elections required after
controversial result in 1986 |
1990: |
1986: |
Symington (R) |
<50 (won in
run-off) |
Mecham (R) |
40% |
Goddard (D) |
<50 |
Warner (D) |
34% |
|
|
Schulz (I) |
26% |
Connecticut |
1994: |
1990: |
Rowland (R) |
36% |
Weicker (I) |
40% |
Curry (D) |
33% |
Rowland (R) |
37% |
Groark (I) |
19% |
Morrison (D) |
21% |
Scott (I) |
11% |
Other |
1% |
Hawaii |
1994: |
Cayetano (D) |
37% |
Fasi (I) |
31% |
Saiki (R) |
29% |
Dudley (I) |
3% |
Maine |
1994: |
1990: |
1986: |
King (I) |
36% |
McKernan (R) |
47% |
McKernan (R) |
40% |
Brennan (D) |
34% |
Brennan (D) |
44% |
Tierney (D) |
30% |
Collins (R) |
23% |
Adam (I) |
9% |
Huber (I) |
15% |
Carter (I) |
7% |
|
|
Menario (I) |
15% |
New Mexico |
1994: |
Johnson (R) |
49% |
King (D) |
40% |
Mondrago (I) |
11% |
Oklahoma |
1994: |
1986: |
Keating (R) |
47% |
Bellmon (R) |
47% |
Mildren (D) |
30% |
Walters (D) |
45% |
Watkins (I) |
23% |
Brown (I) |
7% |
Oregon |
1990: |
Roberts (D) |
46% |
Frohnmayer (R) |
40% |
Mobley (I) |
13% |
Other |
1% |
Pennsylvania |
1994: |
Ridge (R) |
45% |
Singel (D) |
40% |
Luksik (I) |
13% |
Other (I) |
2% |
Utah: |
1992: |
Leavitt (R) |
42% |
Cook (I) |
34% |
Hanson (D) |
23% |
The Case of Louisiana
1991 Gubernatorial Race
Louisiana has an open primary system in which
all candidates run against one another in the primary, and the top
two race off in a run-off if no candidate wins 50%. The 1991
results show that a polarizing candidate like former Ku Klux Klan
leader David Duke -- who could have had a serious chance in the
typical American plurality election -- did poorly in a system
requiring a majority of the vote to win.
1991: Primary |
1991:
General |
Edwin Edwards: |
34% |
Edwards: |
61% |
David Duke: |
32% |
Duke: |
39% |
Buddy Roemer: |
27% |
|
Others: |
7% |
|
1995 Gubernatorial Race
The 1995 primary
election demonstrates that even a run-off can be unfair to voters
if the candidates the majority might prefer are eliminated by not
placing in the top two. The top two candidates were Mike Foster, a
conservative state senator publicly supported by David Duke, and
Cleo Fields, a liberal black Congressman. Candidates closer to
middle of Louisiana's political spectrum were eliminated. With
majority instant-runoff voting, the elimination of candidates
happens one at a time and may have produced a different result.
With 16 candidates on the ballot, ranging
across the political spectrum, voter turnout was very high: over
70% of registered voters participated
1995 Primary: |
1995 General (to take place November 18) |
Foster |
26% |
Foster |
Fields |
19% |
Fields |
Landrieu |
18% |
|
Roemer |
18% |
|
Others |
19% |
|
Notable Quotes
Conventional
Wisdom Turned On Its Head: The Instant Run-Off Would Reverse
Following Calculations
"Perot is the Democrats' secret weapon....
They need Perot to stay in because two-thirds of his supporters
are Republicans."
- Richard Nixon, quoted posthumously in
William Safire column, 5/12/94 N.Y. Times
"Republican presidential candidate Pat
Buchanan said he and other social conservatives would bolt if
Colin Powell became the party's nominee -- even if the defection
guaranteed President Clinton's re-election."
- 10/30/95 Washington Times news story
"In states where the margin is thin, he
[Jesse Jackson] could well decide the race. The question is
whether his issues might be placed in greater jeopardy with the
likelihood of giving Bob Dole or Phil Gramm the Presidency of the
United States."
- Sen. Christopher Dodd, general chairman
of Democratic National Committee, 7/18/95 New York Times
"The one point of agreement among
Democratic politicians, including the president's own advisors, is
that Clinton surely would lose to the Republican nominee of
[Jesse] Jackson forced a three-way contest."
- Robert Novak, 6/29/95 Washington Post
column
Comments on American Politics
"We'll never return to politics as usual."
- Ralph Reed, executive director of
Christian Coalition, 10/9/95 Newsweek
"Colin Powell's place on the Republican
ticket, at either end, guarantees a third-party candidate, the
loss of the House by the Republicans and the re-election of Bill
Clinton."
- Gordon Jones, Association of Concerned
Taxpayers, 11/3/95 New York Times
"Andrew Kohut, who polls for the
Times-Mirror newspapers, says that nearly a quarter of the public
now says it will vote for any third-party presidential candidate
over a Republican or Democrat."
Comments on Plurality Voting
"Though little attention had been paid to
it, the biggest weakness in our system of government is the
antiquated first-past-the-post system of voting, with its tendency
to exaggerated majorities and regional ghettoes.
- Toronto Globe and Mail (Canada's
largest newspaper), June 26, 1993
"Mathematicians do no agree on the best
system. But they have no problem pointing their fingers at the
worst: the plurality system used in most U.S. elections.
- 8/16/95 Los Angeles Times news story
Rise
of Support for A Third Party
August 1995 Gallup Poll for
CNN/USA Today
Question: Would you favor or oppose the
formation of a third political party that would run candidates for
President, Congress and state offices against the Republican and
Democratic candidates?
Overall |
62% favor |
29% oppose |
Gender |
Men: |
66% favor |
27% oppose |
Women: |
58% favor |
30% oppose |
Age |
19-29: |
72% favor |
18% oppose |
30-39: |
65% favor |
27% oppose |
40-49: |
67% favor |
24% oppose |
50-59: |
60% favor |
35% oppose |
60-69: |
46% favor |
38% oppose |
Over 70: |
45% favor |
46% oppose |
Party
Identification |
GOP: |
51% favor |
41% oppose |
Dem.: |
62% favor |
29% oppose |
Ind.: |
71% favor |
20%
oppose |
November 1995 Washington
Post poll
Question: Would you support or oppose the
formation of a third political party that would run candidates for
president, Congress and state offices against Democratic and
Republican party candidates?
Overall |
63% favor |
32%
oppose |
Appendix
3
Election Results in Other Democracies with
Plurality Voting
United Kingdom
No post-World War
II government in the United Kingdom's parliamentary system has
been formed by a party winning a majority of the vote. Twice --in
1974 and 1951 -- the losing party won more votes than the winning
party. Following are the six most recent elections and the results
of the elections since World War II when the government changed
hands. The latter results show how often there was little
relationship to changes in the national vote for the Labour party.
Recent
Elections |
1992 |
42% |
Conservative |
51% of seats |
1987 |
42% |
Conservative |
57% of seats |
1983 |
42% |
Conservative |
61% of seats |
1979 |
44% |
Conservative |
53% of seats |
1974 |
39% |
Labour |
50% of seats |
1974 |
37% |
Labour |
47% of
seats |
Elections Where Labour Party Gained of
Lost Control |
1979 |
36.9% |
out of power
with |
42.4% of
seats |
1974 |
37.2% |
minority gov't
with |
47.4% of
seats |
1970 |
43.1% |
out of power
with |
45.6% of
seats |
1964 |
44.1% |
back in power
with |
50.3% of
seats |
1951 |
48.8% |
out of power
with |
47.2% of
seats |
1945 |
48.0% |
back in power
with |
61.4% of
seats |
New
Zealand
In 1993, New
Zealanders voted to reject their plurality voting system in favor
of a German-style, mixed-member proportional voting system, which
will be used in the country's next election in 1996. One clear
reason for the change was that no governing party had won a
majority of the vote since 1951 and that twice governing parties
had won a lower percentage of the national vote than the other
party. Following are the results of these elections, with
governments formed by parties with a lower percentage of the vote
than another party marked with an asterisk (*).
1993 |
35% |
National |
50% of seats |
1990 |
48% |
National |
69% of seats |
1987 |
48% |
Labour |
54% of seats |
1984 |
43% |
Labour |
59% of seats |
1981 |
39%* |
National |
51% of seats |
1978 |
40%* |
National |
55% of seats |
1975 |
48% |
National |
63% of seats |
1972 |
48% |
Labour |
63% of seats |
1969 |
45% |
National |
54% of seats |
1966 |
44% |
National |
45% of seats |
1963 |
47% |
National |
56% of seats |
1960 |
48% |
National |
58% of seats |
1957 |
48% |
Labour |
51% of seats |
1954 |
44% |
National |
56% of
seats |
Canada
Canadians have had
dramatic swings in their recent plurality elections, as
demonstrated by these national results and, more dramatically, by
the province-by-province seats-to-votes ratio in the 1993
parliamentary elections on the next page.
1993 |
41% |
Liberals |
60% of seats |
1988 |
43% |
Conservatives |
58% of seats |
1984 |
50% |
Conservatives |
75% of seats |
1980 |
44% |
Liberals |
52% of
seats |
1993 CANADIAN ELECTIONS: A LESSON IN AN
UNFAIR VOTING SYSTEM |
|
Liberal Party |
Reform |
Conservatives (PC) |
Bloc Quebecois |
NDP |
Others |
Province |
Vote % Seat
% |
Vote % Seat
% |
Vote % Seat
% |
Vote % Seat
% |
Vote % Seat
% |
Vote % Seat% |
Atlantic provinces (32 seats) |
57.0 96.8 (31) |
8.4 0.0 (0) |
26.1 3.1 (1) |
0.0 0.0 (0) |
5.4 0.0 (0) |
1.3 0.0 (0) |
Quebec (75
seats) |
33.0 25.3 (19) |
0.0 0.0 (0) |
13.6 1.3 (1) |
49.2 72.0 (54) |
1.6 0.0 (0) |
1.1 1.3 (1) |
Ontario (99
seats) |
52.8 99.0 (98) |
20.1 1.0 (1) |
17.7 0.0 (0) |
0.0 0.0 (0) |
6.0 0.0 (0) |
1.2 0.0 (0) |
Manitoba (14 seats) |
44.9 92.9 (13) |
22.4 7.1
(1) |
11.9 0.0 (0) |
0.0 0.0 (0) |
16.6 0.0 (0) |
3.1 0.0 (0) |
Saskatchewan (14 seats) |
32.1 35.7 (5) |
27.3 28.6 (4) |
11.3 0.0 (0) |
0.0 0.0 (0) |
26.6 35.7 (5) |
1.0 0.0 (0) |
Alberta (26
seats) |
25.0 15.4 (4) |
52.1 84.6
(22) |
14.5 0.0 (0) |
0.0 0.0 (0) |
4.1 0.0 (0) |
2.6 0.0 (0) |
BC (32
seats) |
28.0 18.7 (6) |
36.0 75.0
(24) |
13.2 0.0 (0) |
0.0 0.0 (0) |
15.4 6.2 (2) |
4.9 0.0 (0) |
Territories / Yukon (3 seats) |
49.4 66.7
(2) |
10.2 0.0
(0) |
16.8 0.0
(0) |
0.0 0.0 (0) |
21.2 33.3 (1) |
0.8 0.0 (0) |
NATIONAL (295 seats) |
41.6 60.3 (178) |
18.1 17.6
(52) |
16.1 0.7 (2) |
13.9 18.3
(54) |
6.6 2.7 (8) |
3.7 0.3
(1) | |