Lesson Report:
Title
Designing Electoral Systems: From Majority Logic to Ballot Construction for the State of Eridos
Synopsis: In this session, students applied concepts from the previous lesson on electoral systems to design a workable national election for the fictional country of Eridos. The class reviewed how different systems translate votes into power (with an emphasis on majority formation and the state vs. government distinction), then worked in analytic teams to choose an electoral system (FPTP or PR) and produce a draft ballot and rationale tailored to Eridos’s requirement for a 51% governing majority.
Attendance
– Students explicitly mentioned absent: 3 (Azireth, Nurislam, Muratbek)
– Approximate attendance noted in class: ~18 present
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Framing and Objectives
– Seasonal welcome/context; instructor pitched a “fun activityâ€� applying Tuesday’s content on electoral systems.
– Scenario: Students act as political analysts advising Eridos (a semi-authoritarian state that has reformed over the last decade) on designing its parliamentary elections.
– Core constraint: The parliamentary system must enable forming a governing majority (51%) to pass laws.
2) Mini-lecture: Majority Rule, State vs. Government, and Electoral Consequences
– Why majorities matter: In democracies, decisions require a majority to be legitimate and actionable.
– Pizza analogy to illustrate electoral outcomes:
– Three “partiesâ€� (pepperoni, cheese, veg) split the vote; no option gets 50%.
– Under FPTP/plurality: the option with the most votes wins even without a majority (e.g., pepperoni wins with a plurality despite 60% preferring otherwise).
– Under PR: no single winner without coalition-building; parties must compromise to achieve a majority.
– State vs. government distinction:
– The “clubâ€� (state) continues to exist even if no decision is reached.
– The “governmentâ€� is the decision-making arrangement (rules + leadership) capable of acting; PR may lead to gridlock without coalitions, even though the state remains intact.
3) Quick Write (2–3 minutes): FPTP vs. PR Using the Pizza Vote
– Prompt: In notebooks, explain how FPTP vs. PR determines the pizza “winnerâ€� and why.
– Intended learning outcome: Cement the procedural differences between plurality and proportional systems in terms of winner determination and majority formation.
4) Attendance Check (during quiet writing)
– Instructor conducted roll; explicitly absent: Azireth and Nurislam (“Not hereâ€�), and Muratbek (“He’s gone againâ€�).
5) Whole-class Share-out: Interpreting the Pizza Results
– Students correctly articulated:
– FPTP yields a quick, clear winner with a plurality.
– PR requires coalitions/compromise to secure a governing majority; more representative but potentially slower to form a government.
6) Transition to Main Activity: Becoming Analysts for Eridos
– Task overview:
– Design a full electoral system for a 100-seat parliament.
– Produce the actual voter-facing ballot and justify system choice with pros/cons.
7) Group Formation
– Count-off into ~5 groups of 4–5; seating arranged by group number.
8) Group Task 1: Analyze System Trade-offs for Majority Formation
– Prompt: For FPTP and PR, list pros/cons specifically related to forming a 51% majority government in parliament.
– Expected points reinforced by instructor prompts:
– FPTP: clearer, faster path to a single-party majority; simpler ballots; risk of disproportionality and underrepresentation of smaller parties.
– PR: higher representativeness and inclusion; requires coalitions; risk of negotiation delays and gridlock if coalitions fail to form; rules (thresholds, seat allocation) matter.
9) Mini-lecture: What is a Ballot? And System Design Choices
– Definition: A ballot is the paper (or interface) listing candidates/parties that each voter uses to cast a vote; Russian term noted by class as “byulleten.â€�
– Two structural options connected to systems:
– District-based plurality (FPTP): 100 single-member districts; 100 “mini-electionsâ€� each selecting one member; national result is the aggregate of district winners.
– National-level PR: single nationwide election; parties listed on one national ballot; seats allocated proportionally.
– Parties in Eridos (for this exercise): Greys, Golds, Greens.
10) Group Task 2: Ballot Design for Eridos (Deliverable)
– Constraints and guidance:
– Parliament size: 100 seats.
– Government formation rule: Requires a 51% majority to pass laws.
– If FPTP chosen:
– Create a ballot for one district (group may name the district).
– Include candidate names for each party on that district ballot.
– If PR chosen:
– Create a national ballot listing the three parties.
– Indicate how a voter marks preference(s) consistent with your PR approach.
– Aesthetics/clarity encouraged: layout, instructions to voters, usability.
– Rationale required: Use the earlier pros/cons to justify system choice in writing or presentation.
11) Q&A: Eridos Context and Clarifications
– Corruption/history: Eridos was corrupt under semi-authoritarian rule; reforms over the last decade; current goal is democratization.
– Student concern about corruption: The system students design should support democratization and credible elections; no specific anti-corruption rule mandated, but implied importance for design features and rules.
12) Presentation Setup and Submissions
– Each group will present to the “Council of Analystsâ€� (the class):
– Show ballot design.
– State chosen system (FPTP or PR) and justify how it supports forming a functional majority while maintaining legitimacy.
– Submission requirement: Send a picture of the ballot to the class Telegram group before/at presentation.
Actionable Items
Urgent (before next class)
– Collect Deliverables
– Verify receipt of a ballot photo from every group in the Telegram group.
– Ensure each submission includes a brief written rationale tying system choice to the 51% majority requirement.
– Presentation Logistics
– Allocate presentation order and time limits (e.g., 2–3 minutes per group + 1–2 minutes Q&A).
– Prepare a simple feedback rubric (clarity of ballot, alignment to system, majority-formation logic, usability).
Soon
– Clarify Election Rule Details (for next steps)
– If PR groups: specify seat allocation method (e.g., D’Hondt, Sainte-Laguë) and any electoral threshold (e.g., 3–5%) to discuss coalition incentives.
– If FPTP groups: define districting principles (population equality, contiguity, non-gerrymandering) and how results convert to government formation.
– Outline coalition formation procedures (if no party reaches 51%): timelines and vote-of-confidence rules.
– Share Exemplars/Resources
– Post sample ballot templates and a concise checklist (instructions to voter, marking method, invalid/valid vote guidance, language options, accessibility).
Later
– Plan a Simulation
– Run a mock election using the designed ballots with a sample dataset to compare outcomes under FPTP vs. PR (speed of government formation, representativeness, coalition stability).
– Attendance Follow-up
– Check in with absent students (Azireth, Nurislam, Muratbek) and share instructions/materials to keep them aligned with the project.
– Anti-Corruption and Integrity Add-ons
– In a future session, layer in election integrity measures (ballot security features, chain of custody, independent oversight, transparent counting) to align with Eridos’s democratization goals.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The transcript only describes an in-class group activity (“by the end of today’s class you’re going to design a full electoral system… create a physical ballot�) with immediate presentation and submission (“In a few minutes… present your ballot… send a picture of your ballot to our Telegram group�), and contains no after-class tasks or due dates.