Lesson Report:
Title
Plurality vs. Proportionality: Pizza, Coalitions, and Designing Eridos’ Democracy
Synopsis: The session deepened students’ understanding of first-past-the-post (FPTP) and proportional representation (PR) by moving from a concrete analogy (choosing one kind of pizza) to an applied design task for a newly democratizing country, Eridos. Objectives were to compare mechanics, advantages, and drawbacks of FPTP and PR; practice coalition arithmetic; identify risks such as gridlock and wasted votes; and apply insights to select an electoral system and design a ballot.
Attendance
– Students mentioned absent: 1 (Almanbek — transferred to another class)
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Opening and Objectives
– Review aim from last class: clarify how FPTP and PR work, why governments adopt them, and their trade-offs (fairness vs. decisiveness; representation vs. stability).
2) Analogy Activity: AUCA Politics Club Pizza Vote
– Setup:
– One pizza type must be chosen (no mixing, one kind only).
– Vote distribution: Pepperoni 45%, Cheese 35%, Vegetarian 20%.
– Partner prompt: Determine the outcome under FPTP and PR.
– FPTP outcome and rationale:
– Outcome: Pepperoni wins as the largest single bloc (plurality).
– Advantages identified:
– Speed and predictability: count votes; highest share wins; decision is immediate.
– Clarity/unity: a single, united bloc governs; fewer moving parts.
– Problems highlighted:
– Plurality ≠majority: 60% do not want pepperoni; legitimacy concerns.
– “Opposition effectâ€�: sizeable groups (cheese, vegetarian) feel excluded, potentially fostering dissatisfaction.
– Wasted votes critique: votes for losing options have no influence on the outcome.
– PR outcome and rationale:
– Coalition logic: Cheese (35) + Vegetarian (20) can join to 55% → choose Cheese.
– Key concepts:
– Coalition: different groups combine to form a majority to govern.
– Minority voice: smaller groups can matter by partnering.
– Advantages identified:
– Perceived fairness/representation: outcomes reflect a majority preference; fewer wasted votes; more voters feel their vote “counts.â€�
– Risks and trade-offs:
– Negotiation costs and unpredictability: forming coalitions can be slow and contentious.
– Gridlock possibility: if parties refuse to compromise, no decision is reached (“no pizzaâ€� scenario), illustrating potential policy paralysis.
3) Partner Work 1: Pros and Cons Lists (Pizza Context)
– Instructions: With a partner, list at least two pros and two cons for each system (FPTP and PR) using the pizza scenario; 5 minutes.
– Debrief highlights:
– FPTP pros: fast, decisive, predictable, unified governing bloc.
– FPTP cons: excludes majority preferences when winner is only a plurality; strengthens opposition sentiment; wasted votes.
– PR pros: more representative of majority will; minority inclusion via coalitions; fewer wasted votes; higher perceived legitimacy.
– PR cons: time-consuming bargaining; unstable coalitions; risk of gridlock if parties won’t work together.
4) Application: Eridos’ Democratic Transition
– Background recap:
– Eridos (fictional) recently shifted from authoritarian rule; aims to institutionalize democracy.
– Parliament has 100 seats; polling projects: Party 1 = 45 seats, Party 2 = 40, Party 3 = 15.
– Parties tend to vote as blocs.
– Framing questions:
– Which electoral system should Eridos adopt: FPTP or PR?
– How will this choice shape decision-making and representation in parliament?
– Example agenda item: “Should courier drivers be required to hold a driver’s license?â€� used to illustrate bloc voting and outcomes under seat distributions.
– Analysis under FPTP (as an electoral rule translating votes to seats):
– Likely outcome: Party 1 governs as the largest bloc; its agenda typically passes unless opposed by a larger bloc.
– Roles:
– Parties 2 and 3 act as opposition with limited ability to alter outcomes this term.
– Third-party viability is low; tendency toward two-party competition; small parties often merge or disappear.
– Arguments in favor:
– Decisive governance; small parties with marginal national support do not disproportionately influence policy.
– Risks:
– Persistent exclusion of large minorities (e.g., 40% or even combined 55% if not coordinated).
– Potential entrenchment of former authoritarian elites if they remain the largest bloc; perceived “authoritarian-leaningâ€� outcomes.
– Wasted votes and legitimacy concerns for sustained minorities.
– Analysis under PR:
– Likely outcome: Parties 2 and 3 (40 + 15 = 55) can form a governing coalition; Party 1 becomes opposition.
– Advantages:
– Inclusion of minority perspectives; reduced wasted votes; more proportional seat-to-vote translation; mitigates dominance by a single plurality party.
– Safer guardrail against exclusion of sizable minorities in a newly democratizing context.
– Trade-offs:
– Coalition bargaining may be slow and unstable; risk of gridlock if parties refuse to cooperate or coalitions fracture.
– Concepts reinforced:
– Coalition arithmetic; opposition function; legitimacy vs. efficiency; gridlock; wasted votes.
5) Partner Work 2 (Culminating Task): System Recommendation + Ballot Design
– Instructions:
– In pairs, decide which system Eridos should adopt (FPTP or PR) and briefly justify.
– Design the election ballot for Eridos:
– Name the three parties and indicate their positions/platforms.
– Layout the ballot appropriate to the chosen system.
– Submit to the class Telegram group; allocated ~10 minutes.
– Deliverables:
– Clear ballot design reflecting system choice and party offerings.
– Rationale for system selection referencing representation, stability, coalition feasibility, and legitimacy.
6) Closing
– Acknowledgments and wrap-up; reminder to post designs to Telegram if not already submitted.
Actionable Items
Urgent (before next class)
– Collect submissions:
– Verify all pairs posted Eridos ballot designs to Telegram; compile and archive.
– Follow up with any missing groups; set a short grace deadline if needed.
– Attendance/roster:
– Update roster to reflect Almanbek’s transfer; ensure attendance records are accurate.
– Targeted feedback prep:
– Prepare a short clarification distinguishing electoral systems (how votes become seats) from legislative voting rules (how seats vote on bills).
– Create a one-page recap of key terms: coalition, opposition, gridlock, wasted votes, plurality vs. majority.
– Decide assessment approach:
– Determine whether ballot designs receive formative feedback only or a participation grade; communicate criteria next session.
Next Session Planning
– Showcase and critique:
– Select 2–3 ballot designs to discuss in class (clarity, how well they reflect FPTP vs. PR, and how design influences voter understanding).
– Real-world links:
– Prepare brief case comparisons (e.g., FPTP: UK/US; PR: Germany/Netherlands/Israel), including thresholds and typical coalition patterns.
– Simulation option:
– Plan a short coalition negotiation exercise using students’ party platforms to model trade-offs and gridlock resolution.
– Policy example follow-up:
– Revisit the “courier driver licenseâ€� bill using students’ seat allocations to contrast outcomes under different coalitions.
Administrative
– Pin the Telegram submission thread for easy access; confirm all students have access.
– Log today’s learning progression (pizza analogy → pros/cons → Eridos application → ballot design) in course records for continuity.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
All assigned tasks were in-class partner activities with immediate deadlines—“take… five minutes… list two pros and two cons� and “take… no more than ten minutes… and put it on our telegram group when you’re done�—with no after-class work or due dates mentioned.