Lesson Report:
Title:
Designing Electoral Systems: From Plurality to Proportionality and Ballot Construction for Eridos
Synopsis: The session reinforced core concepts of electoral systems (first-past-the-post vs proportional representation) through a structured review and an applied design task. Students analyzed how decision rules shape outcomes using a pizza-vote scenario, then began designing an electoral system and example ballot for a fictional 100-seat parliament in the country of Eridos, justifying their choices with pros/cons and coalition logic.
Attendance:
– Students mentioned absent: 2 (Aydana, Aydarbek)
– Notes: Alimbek “disappearedâ€� mid-class (status unclear); Ali stepped out/was late (“back in ~10 minutesâ€�)
Topics covered (chronological):
1) Opening and objectives
– Instructor set the day’s goal: reinforce Tuesday’s content on electoral systems and run an applied activity culminating in drafting an election ballot for a fictional country.
– Framed the central democratic design question: how do we determine who wins in democratic decisions?
2) Quick review of decision rules
– Systems under review:
– First-past-the-post (FPTP): winner is whoever receives the most votes (plurality).
– Proportional representation (PR): seats reflect vote shares; majorities typically formed via coalition-building among parties.
3) Partner Activity 1 – Pizza vote scenario (decision rules in action)
– Scenario setup:
– The AUCA political science club must choose one type of pizza.
– Vote results provided: pepperoni 45%, cheese 35%, vegetarian 15% (single choice to be selected for all).
– Task prompts (5 minutes, in pairs):
– For each system (FPTP and PR), determine which pizza would be selected given the results.
– Identify pros and cons of using that system in this context.
– Debrief highlights:
– FPTP outcome: Pepperoni wins (plurality = 45%, the highest share).
– Issue surfaced: Legitimacy concern—more than half of voters did not prefer the winner (no majority support).
– PR logic applied to a single-choice constraint:
– Mechanism emphasized: coalitions. Groups with compatible preferences combine to form a majority to decide on the single pizza.
– Examples used to illustrate:
– Cheese + Vegetarian supporters could coordinate to back a shared option acceptable to both (e.g., cheese), surpassing 50% support via coalition.
– Pepperoni + Cheese could also form a majority if cheese supporters accept pepperoni as a second-best option.
– Key takeaway: The focus is on the mechanism (coalition formation) rather than which specific pizza wins.
– Conceptual link: Coalition-building in PR mirrors post-election government formation where parties form governing majorities.
4) Concept focus – Coalitions and majorities
– Defined coalition: Two or more groups joining to surpass a majority threshold to select a single outcome or form government.
– Legitimacy and representativeness:
– PR can yield outcomes that better reflect broader preferences via negotiated coalitions.
– FPTP provides clarity and simplicity but can yield minority winners.
5) Main applied task – Electoral system and ballot design for Eridos
– Background: Students previously classified Eridos’s regime type; Eridos now seeks to become more democratic via a new constitutional council.
– Institutional parameters provided:
– Legislature: Parliament with 100 seats.
– Design decision: Choose between FPTP or PR for the parliamentary elections.
– Deliverable defined:
– Create an example ballot for Eridos that reflects the chosen electoral system.
– Vocabulary check: Ballot = the paper listing the options on which voters mark their choice.
– Work instructions:
– In pairs/small groups (some regrouping to balance numbers), first list at least 2–3 pros and cons for FPTP and PR.
– Use that analysis to justify the system selected for Eridos.
– Begin constructing a ballot prototype aligned with the chosen system (e.g., candidate-focused for FPTP; party list for PR).
– Facilitation notes:
– Instructor emphasized decision rules, coalition logic, and the rationale behind system choice.
– Groups began the pros/cons compilation as the precursor to ballot drafting.
Actionable items:
Immediate (before next class)
– Collect/complete deliverables:
– Each group finalizes: (1) chosen system for Eridos; (2) 2–3 concise pros/cons for both FPTP and PR; (3) a clearly formatted sample ballot matching the chosen system; (4) a brief rationale explaining how coalition dynamics or decisiveness factored into the choice.
– Ensure ballot design aligns with system:
– If FPTP: indicate single-member or district structure assumptions and how voters mark one candidate.
– If PR: indicate party list format (open vs closed) and any threshold or seat-allocation principle the group assumes, at least at a basic descriptive level.
– Clarify numerical example for consistency:
– Reconfirm the pizza vote shares used in class (pepperoni 45%, cheese 35%, vegetarian 15%) and reiterate majority thresholds (>50%) to avoid future arithmetic slips.
– Attendance follow-up:
– Confirm status of Alimbek (left mid-class) and Ali (stepped out/late) for records.
– Share activity brief and deliverable requirements with absent students (Aydana, Aydarbek).
Next session
– Group shares:
– Short presentations of each group’s ballot and system choice with justification focusing on trade-offs (representativeness vs simplicity/decisiveness) and coalition implications.
– Synthesis:
– Compile a class-wide summary of pros/cons for FPTP and PR drawn from group findings to reinforce key concepts.
Short-term course management
– Prepare a concise handout/slide clarifying:
– Definitions (ballot, FPTP, PR, coalition, majority).
– Typical design choices groups may consider in PR (list type, thresholds) and FPTP (district magnitude/basic districting assumptions), framed at a high level to match course scope.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
The transcript only describes in-class activities (“we’re going to be running one activity together… developing an election ballot,â€� “take about maybe five minutes,â€� and “with your partner… have a list… for the next stepâ€�) and includes no mention of work to be done outside class, due dates, or submission instructions.