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 level1. The factors affecting electoral participation can be divided into
voter facilitation and voter mobilisation (Blondel, Sinnott and Svensson, 1998: 24657). 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
Weekday
France
Sunday
Germany
Sunday
Ireland
Weekday
Spain
Sunday
United Kingdom
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
Parties and
independents
18
4 years
Parties, groups
and independents
18
6 years
Germany
Parties and
independents
18
5/6 years
Ireland
Parties and
independents
18
5 years
Spain
Parties and
independents
18
4 years
United Kingdom
Parties and
independents
21
4 years
Denmark
France
Term of
office
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
Denmark
France
Type
Formula
List
PR
d'Hondt
Party lists
>3500 inhabitants
absolute majority/PR
d'Hondt
>3500 closed blocked
</=3500 inhabitants
absolute majority
Germany
</=3500 inhabitants open
Modified system of PR
d'Hondt
Party lists
Ireland
PR
STV
-
Spain
>/=250 inhabitants PR
d'Hondt
Closed lists
Plurality
-
<250 inhabitants
majority system with limited vote
United Kingdom
Relative majority/
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%
Other
60%
Transfers
50%
Fees and charges
40%
Exclusive local taxes
30%
20%
10%
0%
Denmark
France
Spain
Germany
Ireland
United
Kingdom
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