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 one or on both engines: winner-takes-all (district elections) and equal representation (proportional elections). Let's explain the differences in 2 examples for which the complete box shows the overall number of people eligible to vote. In the first example, both elections show that 4 out of 10 people decided to stay home:

The winners in district elections, on the left, are people who win their seat on average after receiving about 60% of the cast votes. This is not the same as representing 60% of the eligible voters. All eligible people (100%) minus the ones not voting (40%) minus the ones not receiving their representative of choice (which is 24% = 40% of voters of 60% of eligible population) leaves 36% of all eligible voters getting the representative of their choice. The majority of all representatives (which is at least half plus one) equals then just a little over 18% of all eligible voters.

On the right, in proportional elections, all voters are represented by their own choice, so the majority is then at least half of them plus one: 30% of the total eligible voters. As mentioned, this delivery does not make a difference between voter turnout; in both cases only 60% of all eligible voters showed up at the voting booth. Let's look at the next figure:

In this second figure 3 out of 10 people decided to stay home. In district elections, on the left, 42% of all eligible voters received their choice of representation. This is a higher number compared to the first figure (it rose from 36% to 42%), but the number of voters not receiving their choice of representation also rose (from 24% to 28%). This fact — that winners receive their seat on average with 60% of the cast votes — is a solid aspect of this kind of democratic engine. With an additional 10% of the eligible voters coming out to vote, to be in power one only needs to capture an average 3% of them (which is half of 6%).

On the right, with proportional elections, no diminishing aspect is part of the engine. The seats are delivered according to the amount of people that came out to vote. With an additional 10% of the eligible voters coming out to vote, to be in power one needs to capture an average 5% of them.

Now, let's explain the different engines by looking at what level 50% of the eligible population is 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 — one good reason to stay home is the limited choice that is available. So, one more look at the engines of the two versions of democracy, when we take the lower voter turnout 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 is based on the actual votes of only 18% of the population that is eligible to vote, in Sweden the majority is backed up by at least 40% of the actual votes. The direct form of representation in Sweden means no local 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 a few seats need to be won over to be in control; that's how a warped game of money and spin became the backbone of our system — no full and direct representation.

The engine is just one aspect of the dynamics of political systems. Dynamics of Political Systems explain how you as voter influence (or how you not-influence) the results in your own nation.