APPLYING MIXED-MEMBER PROPORTIONAL (MMP) REPRESENTATION TO UF STUDENT GOVERNMENT

By Jonathan Ossip Whats wrong with elections in UF student government? Student government currently uses a first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system for its senators, wherein the candidates in each constituency who receive the most votes win. While at first glance this may seem fair, in reality this method is highly undemocratic. There are three main reasons for this: (1) FPTP overwhelmingly causes a two-party system, dramatically reducing the ability for small parties and independents to participate. This is known as Duvergers Law. Because votes for smaller parties are wasted when two larger parties compete, voters are often stuck in a lesser of two evils situation. This is especially true in UF SG, where the System party wins is a landslide whenever there are two or more opposition parties. (2) Several constituencies are multi-member (have more than one senator) in UF SG, and FPTP is completely incompatible with this. This is because if one party receives 50.01% of the vote compared to 49.9% for the losing party, the winning party takes all of the constituencys seats and the losing party wins none. If voters did not split their tickets, and one party won falls District D by one vote, they would win all 13 seats, effectively disenfranchising the 49.9% of people who voted for the other party. It is obvious how the System party often uses this to their advantage. (3) Because the allocation of party supporters in constituencies is neither random nor even, parties often receive a greater percentage of seats than the percentage of the popular vote they received. This effect is greatly multiplied because of the FPTP multi-member constituencies. So what do we do to fix this? Proportional Representation: A solution with problems of its own. One method used by many legislatures is proportional representation (PR), which distributes seats based on the number of votes each party receives. This can work at an electorate-wide level (e.g., Israel) or within smaller regions (e.g., Italy). Each party selects a list of candidates, and the amount of that list elected is equal to the percentage of the popular vote the party receives. While this does solve some of the problems mentioned above, it causes several others of its own: (1) The method of selecting winning candidates within a campus-wide party list is either arbitrary or undemocratic. In a closed list, the party leadership picks the order candidates are elected in, giving the average student little to no say in who her representative is. In an open list, students can pick the candidates they support most within the slate, but with a campus-wide list, this would be completely arbitrary. 1

(2) Accountability to constituents is greatly limited. Groups of constituents are at best represented by a larger list, and the partys outcome generally has a greater impact on (re)election than support for individual candidates. (3) Even with PR, under the current method of distributing seats, some constituencies are single-member, which makes a constituency-based system impossible to carry out in a uniform manner. However, there is a method that merges both of these systems, overcoming the worst problems of both in a way that makes election outcomes proportional but still keeps senators responsible to their constituents. That system is called mixed-member proportional (MMP) representation. Mixed-Member Proportional: The basics. Under MMP, the senate remains at its current size100. There are also still 50 fall senators, elected by living area, and 50 spring senators, elected by college. All of these divisions will be referred to as constituencies. In each class, the number of seats allocated based on constituency population is reduced from 50 to 40. This allocation should be conducted using a mathematically fair method (e.g., HillHuntington method). For example, this would be the current distribution of spring seats:
Accounting Agriculture Architecture Building Const. Business Dentistry Education Engineering Fine Arts Freshman Graduate HHP Journalism Law Liberal Arts Medicine Nursing Pharmacy PHHP Sophomore Vet. Med. TOTAL 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 8 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 40

These seats are known as constituency seats. In the single-member constituencies, this works the exact same way it does now: the candidate with the most votes wins. In multi-member constituencies, we use a very simple model of PR called free list. The best part about it is that elections work in exactly the same way as they did before: students vote for as many candidates as there are seats, and may vote for everyone in one party or split their votes between parties. An example is best to demonstrate how this works. A perfect election to demonstrate this is Spring 2009, where the opposition was blown out due to a party split combined with the FPTP system. The race we look at is Engineering (asterisks designate the winners):
CANDIDATE Burns - Unite* Heard - Unite* Vasquez - Unite* Unite Total VOTES 300 272 273 845 43.09% CANDIDATE Pitmann - O&B Sandford - O&B Sotomayer - O&B O&B Total VOTES 260 221 202 683 34.83% CANDIDATE Clark - Progress Oram - Progress Seymour - Progress Progress Total VOTES 140 147 146 433 22.08%

As you can see, despite getting just 43% of the vote, Unite won all three seats available. Lets see what would happen in the free-list PR system: First, we need to calculate whats called the Hare quota, which is simply the number of votes cast divided by the number of seats available. Since three seats were available, and 1,961 votes were cast among all candidates, the Hare quota is 653.67. Then we divide the total number of votes each party received by the Hare quota. This is the parties seat allocation. The integer part represents the partys automatic seats. Once those are awarded, the remaining seats are given to the parties with the highest remainder (hence the calculation being called the largest remainder method).
CANDIDATE Burns - Unite* Heard - Unite Vasquez - Unite Unite Total Votes/Quota Automatic Seats Remainder Remainder Seats Total Seats VOTES 300 272 273 845 43.09% 1.29 1 0.29 0 1 CANDIDATE Pitmann - O&B* Sandford - O&B Sotomayer - O&B O&B Total Votes/Quota Automatic Seats Remainder Remainder Seats Total Seats VOTES 260 221 202 683 34.83% 1.04 1 0.04 0 1 CANDIDATE Clark - Progress Oram - Progress* Seymour - Progress Progress Total Votes/Quota Automatic Seats Remainder Remainder Seats Total Seats VOTES 140 147 146 433 22.08% 0.66 0 0.66 1 1

As you can see, Unite and O&B got one automatic seat each, and Progress narrowly beat Unite for the one remainder seat left. The candidate in each party that got the highest number of votes within that party take the seats in question. This is much more proportional than the initial 3

election (where a party without a majority of support took every seat), and outcomes in larger constituencies with more seats are even more proportional than the result in this example. This system also overcomes the incentive problems with traditional open list PR, where voters can only choose one candidate within a party list. While such a system allows more choice and competition within the party slate (effectively conducting a primary and general election at the same time), it also pits every candidate against all others, even within the same party. It is clear how this could be disastrous in large constituencies like Graduate and District D. Free list, on the other hand, encourages candidates to support the party and campaign for a straight-ticket vote. First, any vote that does not go to a fellow party member on the slate is one less vote counted toward the partys list total, which lowers the number of seats the party (and our hypothetical candidate) can take. Second, as you will see below, candidates will want the party to perform as uniformly well as possible, as this will increase the odds of them receiving a party seat in the event they are not selected from the free list vote. At this point, weve only discussed how the first 40 seats are allocated in each election. What of the other 10? For this, we turn to the party vote. The party vote in MMP. In MMP, students vote not only for their own senators, but also for which of the registered political parties they prefer. This is called the party vote, and it determines the percentage of senate seats each party holds. For senate elections, each student votes for up to one party. In a single member district, the senate portion of the ballot might look something like this:

This system provides for a great amount of voter choice. Not only do students vote for the party they want to hold the most seats in the senate, but they also vote for the individual candidate(s) 4

they personally want representing them, whether they be from the same party as their party vote, a different party, or independent. First, the winners of the 40 constituency seats are all designated as elected. Then the party votes are totaled, and the same calculation as the PR system mentioned above is done, only using a campus-wide Hare quota and all 50 seats. The constituency seats already won by each party are subtracted, and then the 10 yet-unselected party seats are distributed proportionally.
Unite 4,200 21.65 22 -0.35 0 N/A 0 22 O&B 3,000 15.46 8 7.46 7 0.46 0 15 Progress 2,500 12.89 10 2.89 2 0.89 1 13 TOTAL 9,700

Votes Votes/Quota Constituency Seats Votes/Quota Left Automatic Seats Remainder Remainder Seats TOTAL SEATS

50

As you can see, the previously non-proportional resultscaused by variance in the party makeup of the various constituencieshave been corrected to create a proportional outcome. Additionally, the voters in each constituency still maintain their chosen representatives. If the disparity in the constituency seats is so great that the 10 party seats cannot make up the difference (though this is highly unlikely due to the presence of PR multi-member constituencies), the party seats are still allocated to make the outcome as proportional as possible. One question remains: how are the winners of the party seats chosen? The answer is what makes this implementation of MMP such a strong, simple, and democratic system. The voters have already chosen them. Whether in a multi- or single-member constituency, we take the number of votes each candidate gets and divide it by the total number of ballots cast in that race (not votes in a PR race). Then, the seats for any given party are awarded to that partys losing candidates with the highest percentage of votes. This is highly democratic for a number of reasons. First, it assures that candidates with the greatest mandate that were not elected to constituency seats are sent to the senate. Whether the party had strong support in a constituency but narrowly lost, or some voters from the winning party crossed the aisle and voted for the constituency candidate of a different party, this helps the senate most widely reflect the choices of the electorate. Second, this system simplifies slating, as only 40 spots on the slate need to be filled (filling all 50 is a problem for almost every party). Also, this is more likely to protect party leadership from high electoral turnover, since the presence of party seats leads to a greater chance of winning for all on the slate. Third, the system is simple, and except for the addition of the party vote (an inherently simple concept), students vote in exactly the same manner they did before. 5

MMP also allows smaller parties to compete, even if they fail to recruit a complete slate. This is because even in constituencies where the party did not run a candidate, voters can still choose the party in their party vote. Also, while this system does not improve the odds for strictly independent candidates over the current system (since plurality support would still be required to win), the relative ease in registering a political party in UF SG would allow candidates that would traditionally run as independents in their respective districts to register a party and receive campus-wide support. This system also encourages candidates to work hard even in places where the party historically loses. The better a candidate does, (a) the better the party does, and thus the more party seats they get (increasing that candidates chances of landing a party seat in the event of a constituency loss), and (b) the more votes she gets, the more likely she is to get one of her partys available party seats. While this system doesnt address the presidential vote, that system can stay the same as it is now, with the top two candidates going to a runoff, or be switched to the (perhaps easier) system of instant runoff voting (IRV), where voters rank their choices and runoffs are instantly tabulated if no candidate gets an upfront majority. Conclusion. I hope you consider this system as part of the oppositions goals for reforming student government and increasing democracy on campus. Please feel free to contact me at the information below if you have any questions about this system or how to implement it.

J. Ossip. 2012. New York University School of Law. 110 West Third Street, Apt. 1005B, New York, NY 10012. (561) 289-1577. ossipj@nyu.edu.