4 Reasons for Change
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Still, change does occur and explanations may be grouped into several kinds
of categories: the role of values, the role of popular pressure, and the working of
self-interest.
As noted above, elections carry with them implications for governability, repre-
sentation, and accountability. Since elections do not just involve winners and losers
but also have symbolic and even ritual importance, discussions of electoral reform
can easily invoke those underlying values. Discussion of elections is often cast in
terms of their contribution to a normative deWnition of a way a good society
should be governed. Electoral reform may therefore also realize certain normative
objectives as well as practical political ones. Britain’s Liberal Democrats justify their
support for a shift towards proportional representation as a process concern:
Governments likely to result from the introduction of proportional representation would
be more reliant on persuasion and debate, rather than sheer weight of numbers, to guide
through legislation. (Liberal Democrats 2000 , 16 )
Or consider the California Green Party’s justiWcation:
Our goal is direct, participatory, grassroots democracy centered around deeply democratic
community assemblies and bioregional confederations. To accomplish this goal, our
current focus is on proportional representation. It will give voters more choice, allow
more voters to vote for winners, and break up the two-party monopoly, which discourages
participation. (GPCA Platform 2004 )
In both these cases prized normative democratic virtues (deliberation and partici-
pation) are to be accomplished through proportional representation. As a happy
coincidence this shift not only helps realize democratic virtue; it would also likely
give more seats to the Liberal Democrats and California Greens. Such happy
coincidences muddy the waters when we try to distinguish between self-interested
motivations and other kinds of concerns in electoral system reform. However,
rather than see this as a rhetorical device disguising true intentions we could,
equally, see the comments of California’s Greens and Britain’s Liberal Democrats as
sincere statements of principle. Birch, Millard, and Williams’ ( 2003 , 185 ) discussion
of reform in Eastern Europe, for example, notes the relevance of such factors as a
concern for legitimacy or, where voters were involved, the reduction of corruption
and an increase in the responsiveness of politicians (Sakamoto 1999 ).
DiVerent electoral systems emphasize diVerent aspects of the normative
conception of representation. Descriptive representation in both the legislature
and government is typically best fostered by proportional or semi-proportional
systems (Powell 2000 ). These systems are also associated with higher levels of
voter turnout (Blais and Dobryznska 1998 ). On the other hand, responsiveness
may well be better achieved under majoritarian systems (Powell 2000 ). The
electoral systems 587