FIFTH FRAMEWORK RESEARCH PROGRAMME (1998-2002) Democratic Participation and Political Communication in Systems of Multi-level Governance Audit of Institutional Structures and Electoral Systems at Local Level in six EU member states Elva Hannan Public Opinion and Political Behaviour Programme Institute for the Study of Social Change University College Dublin Belfield Dublin 4 Work in Progress March 2003 Draft text not to be quoted without permission of the author.
Introduction Both institutional structures and electoral systems operate at an institutional and at an individual level 1. The factors affecting electoral participation can be divided into voter facilitation and voter mobilisation (Blondel, Sinnott and Svensson, 1998: 246-57). This paper focuses on the institutional level with a view to describing the following variables in six EU member states: day of voting, age of franchise, candidacy, electoral systems, and municipal funding and expenditure. The comparison is limited to the six core EU member states of the Fifth Framework Research Programme project Democratic participation and political communication in systems of multi-level governance, namely Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain and United Kingdom. Day of voting in local elections Voting takes place on a Sunday in France, Germany and Spain. It takes place on a weekday in Denmark, Ireland and United Kingdom. Research suggests that, in the case of European Parliament elections, Sunday voting facilitates voter participation and it may be assumed that the same effect operates in the case of local elections (Blondel, Sinnott and Svensson, 1998; Eijk, Franklin et al., 1996). 1 For a discussion of the typology of variables affecting participation that results from combining these two distinctions, see Sinnott, 2003. 1
Table 1: Day of voting in local elections Denmark France Germany Ireland Spain United Kingdom Weekday Sunday Sunday Weekday Sunday Weekday Age of franchise at local level The age at which citizens are entitled to vote may affect both voter facilitation and voter mobilisation. A lower age qualification may increase facilitation (voters under eighteen being more likely to be residentially stable) but may reduce the level of mobilisation (voters under eighteen being more difficult to motivate politically). The qualifying age for voting in elections at local level is eighteen in most cases. The only exception occurs in the German Land of North-Rhine Westphalia where the voting age at local level is sixteen. 2
Table 2: Age of franchise at local level Denmark 18 France 18 Germany 16, 18 Ireland 18 Spain 18 United Kingdom 18 Source : (data from) Council of Europe, 1999 Candidacy at Local Level The range of candidate options available may also affect electoral participation at local level. Candidacy varies, first of all, between political parties, groups and independents. France has all three forms of candidacy. Candidacy in Denmark, Ireland, Spain and United Kingdom consists of only parties and independents. The age for qualification to stand for elections at local level is eighteen in five of the six countries. The exception is the United Kingdom, where the qualifying age is twentyone. The term of the office to which candidates are elected can be regarded as another variation in type of candidacy. It ranges from four to six years, with the most common term being four years, which is the case in Denmark, Spain and United Kingdom, while it is five years in Ireland and six years in France. The term of office 3
in local government in Germany varies between five and six years. It is five years in North-Rhine Westphalia and six years in Bavaria. Table 3: Candidacy at local level Type of candidacy Age of candidacy Term of office Denmark France Germany Ireland Spain United Kingdom Parties and independents Parties, groups and independents Parties and independents Parties and independents Parties and independents Parties and independents 18 4 years 18 6 years 18 5/6 years 18 5 years 18 4 years 21 4 years Source : (data from) Council of Europe, 1999 4
Electoral Systems at Local Level Electoral systems contribute to greater or lesser degrees of mobilisation. There are substantial differences in the electoral systems at local level. This paper compares the types of electoral system at local level and the formula or method of vote distribution. The different types of list system are also compared to show the difference in the voters degree of freedom to choose between parties and between individual candidates, such freedom being a factor that may mobilise electoral participation. In Denmark, the electoral system is the d Hondt method of proportional representation (PR), which operates on the basis of largest remainder. Voters can vote for a party or an individual candidate, and a vote for a candidate who fails to get elected is added to the party list on which the candidate s name is included. The electoral system in France depends on the size of the municipality. In municipalities with more than 3,500 inhabitants, the first half of the seats are allocated on the basis of absolute majority, and the d Hondt method of PR is used to distribute the second half of the seats between lists that received at least five per cent of the votes. Municipalities with up to 3,500 inhabitants elect councils on the basis of absolute majority. Germany operates a modified system of PR, which works on the basis of highest average or d Hondt method. In Ireland, the electoral system operates a Droop quota with the single transferable vote (STV) in multi-seat constituencies. In Spain, there are two electoral systems in operation depending on the size of the municipality. Where the population in the municipality is greater than or equal to 250 inhabitants, 5
the d Hondt method of the PR system is in operation. The majority system with limited vote operates in municipalities with less than 250 inhabitants. There are two electoral systems in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland uses the STV system and Great Britain uses the simple plurality electoral system of first-past-the-post, where the candidate who receives most votes wins. Table 4: Electoral systems at local level Type Formula List Denmark PR d'hondt Party lists France >3500 inhabitants d'hondt >3500 closed blocked absolute majority/pr </=3500 inhabitants </=3500 inhabitants open absolute majority Germany Modified system of PR d'hondt Party lists Ireland PR STV - Spain >/=250 inhabitants PR d'hondt Closed lists <250 inhabitants majority system with limited vote United Kingdom Relative majority/ Plurality - STV (NIrl) Source : (data from) Council of Europe, 1999; Norton, 1994 6
The question of the wider effects of the electoral system is beyond the scope of this paper. However, Rallings, Thrasher and Stoker (2000: 10-11) provide a useful summary in the context of local elections by arguing that the simple plurality electoral system is usually more effective than the system of proportional representation in producing a winning party with a working majority. PR systems more often result in no single party getting an overall majority, so coalition becomes necessary making government less stable. However, the distribution of seats in the simple plurality electoral system is not an accurate reflection of the pattern of voting so the first-pastthe-post system often results in disproportional outcomes. Municipal Funding and Expenditure In order to place voting in local elections in its political and institutional context, it is important to examine the main sources of municipal funding. The assumption is that the greater the proportion of local funding deriving from local sources, the higher the incentive to vote and the higher the level of mobilisation. In Figure 1, the six countries have been arranged in descending order of the proportion of municipal funding made up of exclusive local taxes. The proportion of municipal funding that is made up of exclusive local taxes ranges from fifty-one per cent in Denmark down to eleven per cent in United Kingdom. If exclusive local taxes were combined with fees and charges, which can be regarded as another form of taxation, Denmark would still have the highest proportion of municipal funding made up of such taxes and charges. The most significant other source of municipal funding is financial transfers from central government, such as earmarked grants, block grants and shared taxes. The 7
United Kingdom has the highest proportion of municipal funding made up of such transfers, and Denmark has the smallest proportion of municipal funding made up of financial transfers from central government. In each country, a small proportion of municipal funding is made up of other sources such as borrowing. Figure 1: Sources of municipal funding 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Denmark France Spain Germany Ireland United Kingdom Other Transfers Fees and charges Exclusive local taxes Source: (data from) Council of Europe, 1997 Electoral participation at the local level may also be affected by the powers of local government. In some countries, there has been a post-war decentralisation of government that has led to the growth in importance of local government. In countries other than Ireland and United Kingdom, local government plays a major role in the provision of services to the public at the local level (Hesse and Sharpe, 1991: 608). In Table 5, the six countries have been arranged in descending order of the percentage of general government expenditure made up of municipal expenditure. It ranges from over thirty-one per cent in Denmark, which as already stated, also has the greatest proportion of municipal funding made up of exclusive local taxes, down to just over twelve per cent in Spain. 8
Table 5: Municipal expenditure as % of general government expenditure Denmark 31.28 Germany 28.69 France 27.22 United Kingdom 27.00 Ireland 13.80 Spain 12.17 Source : (data from) Council of Europe, 1997 Conclusion The institutional structures and electoral systems differ greatly at local level across the six member states of the European Union considered in this paper. The structures and systems described may affect electoral participation in terms of either facilitation or mobilisation. Focusing on the six cases for which extensive data on participation in local elections has been gathered, this paper has catalogued the facilitation and mobilisation factors of day of voting, age of franchise, candidacy, electoral systems, municipal funding and expenditure at local level. 9
Bibliography Blondel, Jean, Richard Sinnott and Palle Svensson, People and Parliament in the European Union: Democracy, Participation and Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Council of Europe, Local finance in Europe: Local and regional authorities in Europe, No. 61. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1997. Council of Europe, Electoral Systems and Voting Procedures at Local Level: Local and regional authorities in Europe, No. 68. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1999. Eijk, Cees van der, Mark N. Franklin et al., Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Hesse, Joachim Jens and Laurence J. Sharpe, Local Government in International Perspective: Some Comparative Observations in Joachim Jens Hesse (ed.) Local Government and Urban Affairs in International Perspective: Analyses of Twenty Western Industrialised Countries. Baden-Baden: Auflage, 1991. Norton, Alan, International Handbook of Local and Regional Government. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1994. Rallings, Colin, Michael Thrasher and Gerry Stoker, Proportional representation and local government: Lessons from Europe. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2000. Sinnott, Richard, Electoral participation/abstention: a framework for research and policy-development, 2003. http://www.ucd.ie/dempart/workingpapers/framework.pdf 10