The Two Democratic Engines

All democracies in the world have one of the two kinds of engines here explained, or they make use of a variation based on both engines: winner-takes-all (district voting) and equal representation (proportional voting). A quick way to distinguish between both systems is that in district voting the majority gets all the seats, while in proportional voting the majority gets just the majority of all the seats.

Let's explain the differences between the two basic forms in an example where the complete box shows the overall number of people eligible to vote. In the first example, both versions show that 4 out of 10 people (40%) decided to stay home:

To the left, voting in districts with a single winner means your vote is not directly translated into the outcome; your vote is taken into account of all votes to come to an outcome. Not your individual choice, but the collective of votes decide who your single representative is going to be. The winners in district elections are therefore candidates who win their seat after they received on average about 60% of the votes. This means that just 36% of ALL eligible voters are getting the representative of their choice. (For the mathematicians among you, 40% of the voters not getting the one they voted for is (40% of 60% =) 24% of the overall eligible voters.) In the end, only 36% (100% - 40% - 24%) of the entire eligible voting population can point to the person they voted for. And that means that the majority (half plus one) of our representatives equals not much more than a little over 18% of all eligible voters.

On the right, in proportional elections, there is no such internally-constrained mechanism. Truly close to all voters (which in general means between 95.0% and 99.9% percent of the voters, depending on the number of seats in the House) are represented by their very own choice. So, the majority (the ones holding power) is then about half of them plus one: and that's about 30% of the total eligible voters. As mentioned, neither delivery makes a difference between voter turnout; in both cases only 60% of all eligible voters showed up at the voting booth.

In district voting, the ones holding power is a majority reflecting 18%+ of all eligible voters. In proportional voting, the ones holding power reflect 30%+ of all eligible voters.

It is understandable that these numbers are confusing, especially when the specific figures appear to change when more or when fewer people come out to vote. But the general idea is simple: in district elections only the winner takes the seat — because a large number of voters does not receive the representative they voted for and many voters remain unrepresented. And that is truly a different outcome for voters in proportional elections, where close to all voters actually get the representative they voted for to fully represent their interests.

Now, let's explain the same two democratic engines from another perspective by looking at what level 50% of the eligible population is actually represented by their own choice.

In district elections it takes 83.33% of all eligible voters coming to the voting booth to have half of the entire eligible population receive their (limited) choice of representation. In proportional elections only 50% of the eligible people need to come out to achieve the same mathematical results.

One aspect that was not addressed (but is mentioned here) is that nations with district elections tend to have fewer people showing up to vote for their most important election than people in nations with proportional elections. One good reason to stay home in district elections is the limited choice — you picked the winner or you didn't. And another reason seems easily explained that not receiving the representative you want for several elections in a row can quickly lead to voter fatigue. Why go vote, when you received nothing in the last three elections in a row?

So, one more look at the engines of the two versions of democracy, with also taking the lower voter turnout for restricted democracies in consideration. On the left side, the graph displays the results for the average U.S. Senate election. On the right side, the graph displays the average election results from Sweden's national assembly.

Where the U.S. Senate majority has for many years been based on the actual votes of only about 18% of the population that is eligible to vote, in Sweden the majority has for many years been backed up by about 40% of the eligible votes. The direct form of representation in Sweden means no funny games are played to win the single essential seat that is going to decide the overall outcome. In Sweden all voters are equally important. In the United States, only the center positions of the voters need to be won over for one of the two parties to be in control; that's how a warped game of money and spin became the backbone of our system — not having full and direct representation in our system led to a fixation on the center of voters that always decides the outcome who wins the seat.

The engine is an important aspect of the dynamics of political systems, but it is not the only aspect. The Dynamics of Political Systems explains how you as a voter influence (or not-influence) the results in your own nation.