A new political system in Armenia

Armenia held parliamentary elections on April 2, the first to be held after a series of substantial constitutional and electoral system changes largely implemented after a 2015 referendum. The changes, which were controversial owing to the disputed referendum, changed Armenia's system of government from a system of semi-presidentialism to a parliamentary system, and changed the electoral system from a mixed-member majoritarian system to an equally unique system of party-list proportional representation.

The electoral system

Armenia's experience of democracy before Soviet rule shortly after World War 1 was very much limited, and as a result it was in a similar place to much of post-Soviet Central Asia after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990: left with the difficult business of building from scratch a system of democratic and constitutional government.

Many post-Soviet countries, along with various other democratising or reforming nations around that time, introduced mixed-member electoral systems. Armenia's 1995 election law provided for a 190-member legislature, with 150 members elected through a two-round system (though candidates only had to secure 25% of the votes to win in the first round). The remaining forty seats were elected through a closed-list proportional representation system, making a mixed-member majoritarian system with a remarkably low share of party-list seats.

For post-Soviet countries with new and weak political parties, independents were relatively successful in the district tier elections. In Russia's first democratic election (in 1993) independents won 48% of the district vote: similar results were, and still are, in the Ukraine.

In the district tier for Armenia at the 1995 election, independent candidates won 72 of the 150 seats, making them by far the largest party in this tier. The Republic Bloc, a party tied to incumbent President Ter-Petrosyan, won 68 district and 20 list seats, making them the largest party (an Organisation for Co-Operation and Security report stated that the President would have the support of two-thirds of the legislature, implying that many independents were actually allied to the President). No other political party won more than ten seats.

Independent candidacies, however, have waned over recent elections in the nation, as can be seen above. Part of this may be a result of the change in the share of seats allocated on the party list; the share increased at the 1999 and 2007 election. It can also be attributed to the relative dominance of the Republican Party, a party that has been the largest at every presidential and legislative election since 2003 (though they have been dogged by allegations of electoral fraud). This represents an increasing institutionalisation of the party system, as parties (a party, to be precise) becomes the key part of elections.

The new electoral system represents what will likely be a complete removal of independent candidacies from Armenian politics. The full document, passed last year, divides Armenia into thirteen electoral districts. Parties must nominate a list in each district, and a national list. When voters vote, they choose a party list, and may also cast a preference vote for a candidate on the district list.

Seats are initially allocated between using the Hare quota and largest remainders, with a threshold of 5% for parties and 7% for alliances of parties. However, after the Electoral Commission determines the seat allocation, if no party receives at least 53 seats (a majority of the 101-member Assembly; such a party would then receive a top-up to give them 54% of the total seats), and no 'stable majority' coalition (a group of parties which has been allocated at least 54% of the seats in this preliminary distribution agreeing on a Prime Minister) can be formed within three days, a second round is held three weeks later between the top two parties or coalitions. A further four seats are allocated to ethnic minorities, and there are quotas for women representation.

In the second round, new parties may join with the parties or coalitions in the top two, though seats won by parties outside the top two in the first round are apparently not altered by the second round results. The party that wins in the second round is allocated 54% of the total number of seats.

For allocation of seats to actual candidates within parties, for each party half of their seats are allocated to the candidates on the national list (which is closed). The remaining seats are allocated between the districts using the Hare quota again (based on the number of votes cast for the party in each district, so if the Republican Party were to get 20% of the vote in Yeravan District, 20% of the Republican Party's district seats would be allocated to candidates in the district). Seats are allocated to the highest polling candidates within districts. The system is similar to that passed in Italy in 2015 (see this article for details) but later ruled unconstitutional.

In this election, the Republican Party appears to have won a majority even without the special provisions. The party won 49% of the vote, equivalent to 54% of the vote amongst those parties that passed the threshold. The normal Hare distribution of the 101 seats would give them 55 seats (near-exact 54% of the Assembly).

The new Constitution

Up until a criticised 2015 referendum, the 'Yes' campaign in which was supported by the Republican Party, Armenia was a semi-presidential country. This means that it had a directly-elected fixed-term President as head of state, as well as a Prime Minister as head of government responsible to the majority of the National Assembly, who both share executive power.

The 2015 referendum, in which the proposal was approved by 66% of the vote, changed the system to one that appears to be parliamentary; where executive power is in the hands of a Prime Minister responsible to the legislature. The President is elected by the majority of the National Assembly, but it is explicitly stated that "The Government (the Prime Minister and Cabinet) shall be the highest body of the executive power".

Few discretionary powers are granted to the President, who is not even vested with the power to appoint the Prime Minister; instead, he is expected to appoint the candidate who has the support of the aforementioned guaranteed parliamentary majority. He cannot veto legislation, and the determination of policy is reserved to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The question of whether this will increase the power of the Republican Party, and its leader (incumbent president Serzh Sargsyan) is a most interesting one. For Mr Sargysyan, at least, the change will allow him to remain in control of executive power beyond the two-term limit proscribed for the presidency under the previous semi-presidential system. 

In a more general sense, if the party system of a country is fragmented, parliamentary governments can be dependent upon shifting coalitions (for example, the Presidency of Nauru) and the parties supporting them can hold only a minority of the legislature, reducing their ability to pass legislation. When a great deal of Armenia's parliament was comprised of independents, a parliamentary government would have been weak, and the fixed-term and non-removable status of the Presidency can give the executive strength through stability.

On the other hand, under a presidential system, the possibility exists that the Presidency and legislature can be in different partisan hands, thus depriving the President of the power to pass legislation. A Prime Minister must at least have the tolerance of the legislature in order to stay in office, and the election law in Armenia actually guarantees a party a fairly comfortable parliamentary majority (this is underlined by a constitutional requirement that one party or coalition must end with 54% of the Assembly seats).

A Prime Minister with disciplined control of his majority political party can pass whatever legislation he supports, and also has control of the executive branch. If the Republican Party are able to maintain control over their members, the new electoral system and system of government will substantially increase their power.

France Presidency 2017

France is scheduled to hold the first round of elections to the Presidency on the 23rd of April; if no candidate receives a majority of votes in this round, a second round will be held, between the top two candidates in the first round, on the 7th of May. Elections to the National Assembly, the popularly elected and most powerful house of the bicameral legislature, are also scheduled to take place in June, roughly one month after the likely second round of the presidential election.

I've written before about France's electoral system, but it is worth summarising the nation's constitutional arrangements at present. France has a semi-presidential system of government, with both a directly-elected President for a five-year term and a Prime Minister responsible to the lower house of the bicameral legislature (the National Assembly). The system is of the premier-presidential sub-type, meaning that the Prime Minister cannot be removed by the President, though they may appoint a Prime Minister.

This election follows five years of the presidency of Francois Hollande, a Socialist. Mr Hollande was elected to the presidency, defeating the leader of the centre-right UMP (Union for a Popular Movement) after seventeen years of centre-right control of the office. Mr Hollande, however, has struggled with a stagnant economy and high unemployment, and did not choose to seek re-election. He leaves office with low approval ratings, and with a Socialist Party that lost substantial support in local and European elections during his tenure.

Candidates

Benoit Hamon-Socialist Party

The governing Socialist Party held an open primary to determine their presidential candidate. Voters were required to be registered to vote in normal French elections, to donate one euro to the organisation conducting the primary (while only Socialist candidates were likely to win, candidates from minor parties closely affiliated to the Socialists also competed, hence the primary was branded as the "Citizens' Primary"), and to generally accept the values of the left. 1.6 million votes were cast in the first round, a figure which increased to 2 million in the second.

The leading candidates for this primary were Manuel Valls, a former Prime Minister, and Arnaud Montebourg and Benoit Hamon, both former cabinet ministers. Valls, considered a more right-wing candidate than the other two, led in early polls, but the first round of the primary resulted in an unexpected first place for Mr. Hamon, who won 36% to 31% for Mr. Valls and 17% for Mr. Montebourg. No other candidate won more than 7%. Montebourg endorsed Hamon for the second round, who won 58% to 42% for Valls.

Hamon is considered to be on the left of the Socialists, supporting a policy of providing a basic income to all citizens and the legalisation of cannabis.

Francois Fillon-The Republicans

Like the Socialists, the Republicans (a re-brand of the UMP) held an open primary to determine their nominee, in which the general public could vote. The unpopularity of the incumbent Socialist government made it likely that the Republican nominee would have a good chance of victory; hence, there was more interest in the Republican primary. 4.3 million voters turned out in the second round, 4.4 in the second.

Also similar to the Socialists, there were three main candidates in this primary. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Ministers Alain Juppe and Francois Fillon. Mr Juppe was the front-runner, with most expecting the runoff to between him and Mr Sarkozy. However, after a strong debate performance, Fillon surged to 44% in the first round, with Juppe on 29%, Sarkozy on 21% and no other candidate above 3%. With Sarkozy endorsing Fillon, he won an easy victory in the second round with 66% of the vote.

The victory gave Fillon frontrunner status; given the divided nature of the left, it was considered likely that he would face National Front candidate Marine Le Pen in the second round. Ms Le Pen's radical views mean that Fillon would likely win such a runoff comfortably with leftist votes. However, in recent days, he has been beset by a scandal involving his wife being paid for an apparently 'fake job', and his polling has dropped accordingly. It remains to be seen whether he will remain in the race.

Emmanuel Macron-Independent/En Marche!

Emmanuel Macron served as economy minister for two years as a Socialist, but resigned from the position last year, after conflicts with party positions on various matters within his portfolio. He then launched a new political party, En Marche!, and ran for the presidency. He has also signalled his intention to run a slate of candidates for the National Assembly election. 

Initial polls had Macron in third place, behind Le Pen and Fillon. However, following the Fillon scandal, recent polls have shown him catching up to Fillon, and advancing to the second round, where he receives the support of the centre-right and beats Le Pen comfortably. He stands on a platform of economic liberalisation and general social liberalism, to the right of Hamon and perhaps Le Pen economically, but to the left of Fillon and Le Pen on issues like immigration. 

Marine Le Pen-National Front

The National Front are a long-term minor presence on the French political scene. The usage of the two-round system, where the centre-left and right generally team up against National Front candidates in the second round, has generally led to little representation for the party in the National Assembly. The party's most substantial result in the past was Le Pen's father, Jean Le Pen, reaching the second round in the 2002 presidential election, narrowly beating Socialist Lionel Jospin in a fragmented race. Mr Le Pen's opponent in this round, UMP incumbent Jacques Chirac, received the endorsement of Mr Jospin, and much of the left, propelling him to a landslide victory (82-18).

Mainstream opposition to the party comes from distaste of its opposition to immigration and Islam, however, with an increase in concern about terrorism and immigration after the Syrian refugee crisis, the party's stocks have risen. They won the highest number of votes at the 2014 European election, and have performed strongly at lower-level elections throughout Mr Hollande's term. It appears likely that Ms Le Pen will win the highest number of votes in the first round of the election, with roughly 24%; however, most polls have her losing a runoff by twenty points or more to Mr Macron or Fillon.

Other candidates in the race include leftist Jean-Luc Melanchon, running with the support of the Left Front (successor to the Communist Party), though his candidacy is under the name 'Unsubmissive France', Green candidate Yannick Jadot, Nicholas Dupont Aignan (who is attempting to fill the niche between Fillon and Le Pen), and various other irrelevancies. Melanchon is the strongest of this group, polling at around 10%. None of the others is higer than 3%. Centrist Francois Bayrou has not yet stated whether he will stand for the election; polls that include him show him at 5%.

Problems with the two-round system

The two-round system is one of those most commonly used for presidential elections around the world. Much of this is due to many presidential systems (such as those in Senegal and the Central African Republic) being in place due to French influence during colonial times, but the system is used in countries like the Ukraine and Poland because it ensures a candidate will be elected with majority support. 

Nonetheless, the system has a substantial disadvantage in fragmented elections, which we may see demonstrated in this upcoming vote. In a fragmented election, the possibility exists that two candidates can make it to the second round with little initial support. If an ideological group splits itself between too many candidates, the possibility exists that no candidate representing a substantial ideological group is able to enter the second round.

An example of this is shown in the 2002 presidential election. Red candidates represent leftists, blue conservatives, black far-right candidates and cyan centrists. As you can see, Chirac and Le Pen finished first and second, and all voters had to choose between them in the second round. However, 45% of voters, all up, voted for a leftist candidate, compared to 29% for the left and 19% for the far-right. Yet there was no candidate for the leftists in the second round, because of the increased fragmentation of this group.

The problem arises because the two-round system does not necessarily provide great incentives for voters to coalesce around two candidates. Left-inclined voters in 2002 may have felt comfortable knowing that they could cast a ballot for a minor leftist, to signify their support for that particular candidate, thinking that Jospin would certainly enter the second round. A first-past-the-post system would mean voters would coalesce between two candidates, at least in theory; often, this squashes diversity in the party system, or leads to candidates being elected with little support.

While Fillon's woes have made this possibility likely, it could potentially have been the case that the left, with the backing of roughly 40% of the electorate, would have had no representation in the runoff. This particular issue is partially circumvented for National Assembly elections, where candidates can enter the second round if they receive the support of 12.5% of the registered electorate (on average, this represented 21.8% of the vote cast at the last election). However, the Constitution of France specifically entrenches the top-two requirement for presidential elections.

Even so, one of the key advantages of preferential voting for single-member seats (as the Presidency of France is) is demonstrated by this particular alternative; the usage of several rounds of exclusions and transfers results in the candidates in later stages of the count having wider support than their equivalents under the two-round system.

The National Assembly

The President has the right, after 'consultation' with the Prime Minister and Speaker, to dissolve the National Assembly at any time of his choosing. However, the Assembly's maximum term is five years, meaning that an election must be held by the tenth of June this year. 

No doubt, such an election date would serve the victor of the election well. The popularity bump incumbent presidents receive has meant that the last three legislative elections, all held shortly after those for the Presidency, have resulted in majorities for the newly elected President's party, a useful tool given that failure to control the Assembly means the President loses control over the cabinet and becomes less able to pass their agenda.

This will become an especially important point in the case of a victory by Mr. Macron. His 'En Marche!' party, as a cursory examination of its website will show, spends much of its time discussing Macron's statements alone. He has said he will run candidates for all 477 seats, but the  gives the appearance of being a mainly personalistic vehicle, focusing on providing a brand to its lead candidate, far more than any other French party. The Socialist and Republican sites show statements from a variety of other figures, and both parties, despite their weaknesses at this election, do have large legislative caucuses and incumbent members with personal vote factors.

Normal behaviour has been for the centre-left and centre-right to form opposing alliances where they allocate seats to parties within said alliances, with the National Front generally not being able to make the second round in most seats due to this tactic (unlike the presidential elections); in 2012, they only entered the second round in sixty-five seats, and won two. If Macron wins, it may well be the case that he forms an agreement with the existing leftist alliance (Socialists+Greens) that would allow the Socialists to have some influence over the new government, while giving some experience and aforementioned personal vote factors to the President.

It is still largely unpredictable what will happen at these elections. Perhaps reflecting the irrelevance of such polling until the winner of the Presidency is determined, the most recent poll with seat numbers was taken in June 2016. It had the centre-right winning a majority, and the National Front winning around fifty seats (in normal two-round elections, they have never left single digits; this would be their best result for any National Assembly election). Such a result, which seems consistent with general increases in support for the FN at the local and European level (implying it's not just Ms Le Pen's personal support) would provide a clear reminder of that party's growing influence, even if Le Pen loses.

The United States Electoral College and third party candidates

As most of my readers will know, elections to the Presidency of the United States, as well as approximately a third of the Senate, the entire House of Representatives, and various other state and local offices will be up for election on November 8 (by tradition, the first Tuesday in November).

While primaries for some lower-level offices are yet to take place, Presidential candidates for both major parties have been chosen through a series of primaries and caucuses. The Democrats have chosen Hillary Clinton, the early favourite, though she faced a stiff challenge from left-wing Bernie Sanders. On the other hand, a crowded Republican field narrowed to one candidate; controversial businessman Donald Trump, who had little support from the party leadership, won the nomination.

Trump's views represent a substantial diversion from traditional Republican thinking on a variety of issues. The most notable one of these is free trade; Mr Trump is opposed to it, but Republicans have traditionally supported free trade. Trump's tax plan is also a bone of controversy; while it would reduce tax rates, normally something the Republicans would support, it also does not make cuts to government programs like Medicare (health insurance for the elderly) and Social Security (the government retirement program), thus meaning that the deficit would increase.

These two issues have led a number of Republicans to look elsewhere in the presidential field. While some will vote for Ms Clinton, one other candidate gaining traction is Gary Johnson, of the Libertarian Party. The Libertarians have normally been a very minor political presence in the United States; occasionally winning a seat in state legislatures. The party's best performances have been in Senate and House elections when support for either the Republicans or Democrats in a state or district is so overwhelming that only one of the major parties puts up a candidate; when a Libertarian runs in one of these seats, they normally win a substantial share of the vote.

This year, Mr Johnson is currently polling at around 6-8% in national polls. Mr Johnson receiving support from dissatisfied Republicans is no doubt helped by his credentials as a Republican; he served as the Republican governor of New Mexico, and his running mate William Weld served as the governor of Massachusetts, also as a Republican. While this does not look like much, it would represent the strongest performance ever, by a long way, for a Libertarian in a presidential election.

Some Democrats are also not wholly happy with Hillary Clinton. Some supporters of Sanders, a self-declared democratic socialist, view Ms Clinton as too right-wing, and are also looking elsewhere. This has caused a much more muted increase in support for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Not all polls include Ms Stein, but those that do mostly show her receiving 2-4% support; a low figure, but a substantial increase over the 0.36% she received in 2012 (though she was not on the ballot in all states at this election).

Minor candidates and Presidential elections

In countries where a President is elected, there are two main ways this is normally done; the plurality system, or the two-round system.

Under the plurality system, voters vote for one candidate, and the candidate with the most candidates is elected. Such a system is used in Taiwan, South Korea, and Venezuela, amongst others. In a close nationwide race, this system has a tendency to lead to two main contenders, as supporters of any weaker third candidate would have strong tactical incentives to vote for the member of the top two they most prefer.

However, when voters do not do this, the system can lead to candidates from one political faction being elected despite a majority of the electorate not supporting that faction. For example, at the Taiwanese presidential election in 2000, the pro-Taiwanese independence Democratic Progressive Party nominated Chen Shui-bian, who won 39.3% of the vote. However, two candidates from the opposing bloc (generally in favour of Chinese reunification) ran; the Nationalist candidate Lien Chan won 23.1%, and independent James Soong won 36.8%. For this reason, despite an apparent majority of voters supporting a pro-unification President, the pro-independence candidate won.

Most countries that have an elected President use a runoff system. Under such a system, voters vote for one candidate in the first round. If one candidate receives a majority, that candidate is elected; if not, a second round takes place, normally a couple of weeks after the first, when voters choose between the top two (in most cases) candidates.

This means that there is no incentive for tactically abandoning your most preferred candidate for the lesser of two evils in the first round, as unless a candidate in the first round wins 50%+1 (in which case choosing the lesser of two evils would not have mattered) you will be able to make that choice in the second round.

However, such a system can have its disadvantages. For example, at the 2002 French presidential election, the centre-right Union for a Popular Movement candidate, incumbent President Jacques Chirac won 20% of the vote. It was expected that he would face Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin in the second round, but a large number of left-leaning voters voted for other leftists in the first round; for example, the Workers' Struggle candidate won 5.7%, the Green won 5.2%, and the Communist won 3.4%. This meant that Jospin received only 16.2%, behind far-right candidate Jean Le Pen, who won 16.9%.

In the runoff, leftists voted for Chirac over Le Pen, resulting in Chirac winning 82% of the vote. These results demonstrate that there are still incentives for tactical voting under a two-round system; a voter may tactically vote to make the opponent of their most preferred candidate in the runoff an unpalatable radical.

The United States has a somewhat different, and currently unique, manner of electing the President. Each state is allocated a number of 'electors' equivalent to the number of members that state has in the House of Representatives and Senate combined. Each state has two Senators, regardless of size, but the number of members each state has in the House is proportional to its population. This method of allocation over-represents smaller States; for example, the state of Montana has 341,333 people per elector, but the state of California has 705,454 people per elector.

This means that on Election Day, voters are not voting for a presidential candidate, but rather electors who pledge to vote for that presidential candidate. There have been cases in the past where these electors have not voted for the candidate they were listed on the ballot for, though this has never changed the outcome of a presidential election.

Potential incentives of the Electoral College

So, what incentives would the Electoral College have, in terms of small party candidates? Well, over time, certain parties have become wholly dominant in states. For example, the Democratic Party has won the state of Massachusetts, in nearly all cases with a double-digit margin of victory, in all elections since 1984. The same goes for the Republican Party in Texas. This is why presidential elections are focused on swing states; those states where the race between the top two candidates is especially close, like Pennsylvania and Florida. Winning extra votes in a safe state is irrelevant, as the number of electoral votes (which are what matter) do not change. 

If you live in a safe state, even if there is a close vote nationwide, you have no incentive to tactically vote to support the 'lesser of two evils', given that the winner of your state is virtually determined in advance. In theory, then, people in safe states should be more willing to vote for third party candidates, given that there is little danger of them 'wasting their vote' and electing someone they dislike.

But does this work in practice? Let's look at two third-party candidates who were both totally unlikely to win; John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1996. Mr Anderson was a moderate Republican congressman opposed to the right-wing views of party nominee Ronald Reagan, while Mr Perot was a populist businessman running on a platform of deficit reduction. Perot had run in 1992, but this campaign may not have had the same tactical messaging for the voters, since Perot was in first place in some early polls.

The below charts show a comparison between the vote shares for these candidates by state, compared to the margin between the top two candidates, which represents how close a state was.

There is something of a correlation between the two factors, with the correlation being stronger with Perot than with Anderson (the precise correlation factor being 0.13 for Anderson and 0.30 for Perot). However, there are many other factors which vary these numbers, and it is still quite a weak correlation, which makes it somewhat difficult to draw any conclusions.

It is interesting, though, to consider the states that the third party candidates will do best in. Mr Johnson has public profile in New Mexico, which, though it has been quite close in the past, was comfortably in the Democrat column in 2012 (a margin of ten points to Obama). The state's high Hispanic population is also unlikely to approve of Mr Trump's rhetoric on immigration, which would mean that both campaigns would be sensible to ignore the state.

Mr Johnson's running mate, Mr Weld, is the former governor of Massachusetts, a very safe Democratic state (despite the Republican candidate for President coming from the state, it went Democratic by 23 points). While these two cannot choose their home states, for the Libertarians their states make them sensible nominees, as their home state boosts will not be cancelled out by tactical voting.

The lower statewide profile of the Green ticket (Ms Stein has run for Governor of her home state of Massachusetts, but with little success, and her highest office remains being in the Lexington town meeting, while her running mate Ajamu Baraka does not appear to have run for any office) makes this factor less relevant for them. Nonetheless, it will help Ms Stein somewhat that the state where she has the most profile (relatively speaking) is a safe state, where she will have somewhat clearer air to campaign.