The voting methods you have been examined on (plurality, runoff, Borda, Condorcet) are basic decision rules that illustrate basic options for aggregating preferences into a collective choice. Only some are appropriate for large electorates.

For NATIONAL LEVEL ELECTORAL SYSTEMS, there are two basic types, based on two main variables:

The two most common types are
            First Past the Post  (simple plurality)
            Proportional Representation.

The key variables are
            The number of seats in a district (or k, district magnitude)
            The decision rule (or f, electoral formula)

FIRST PAST THE POST
            The simplest possible system: k = 1, f = plurality
                        Geographically defined districts that elect a single candidate
                        Voters choose only their first choice candidate, and the candidate with the most votes (simple plurality) wins

            Used in about a third of countries with elections, including
                        Canada, India, United Kingdom, United States

                        In the UK and US, FPTP regularly produces single party majorities in the British House of Commons, the US House of Representatives, and the US Senate.

                        In Canada, party strength varies by region much more than in US and UK, and third parties often win many seats.
                        Therefore, FPTP in Canada often fails to produce single party majorities in the House of Commons.  (Canada often has single party minority governments.)
 

            FPTP Example: India
                        In India, FPTP has in the past produced single party majorities, but now is far from it. Any Indian election these days produces a need for a coalition government.

                        In spite of FPTP, the enormous diversity of India produces a multiparty system. In the October 1999 at least 30 parties won seats.
                                (Compare Israel, which has the electoral institutions that most facilitate a proliferation of parties, with 15 of 16 parties running getting seats.)

                        India has the electoral system that least facilitates the proliferation of parties and most encourages a two-party system.
                        Even so, 30 parties won seats, and dozens more ran and failed to win.

                        Think of this in terms of the fundamental equation.

                        Since independence in 1947, the Congress Party dominated Indian politics into the 1970s, but for some 20 years, there has been a need for coalition governments.

                        In the 1998 elections Congress lost, and became the second largest party to the BJP, with 112 seats to 182 for the BJP (out of 543).
                        BJP led coalition fell apart and new elections were called.   (Note parliamentary system.)

                        In October 1999 election, BJP won plurality of seats with 182 of 543. However, this time, they had their allies lined up ahead of time:

                        BJP led alliance wins election and forms majority coalition with 16 parties, of which 14 received seats, making a total of 298 of 543, a healthy majority.

                        Unlike the last election, in 1998, the coalition formation took place before the election.
                        Thus India seems to have risen (for now) above Shepsle’s tradeoff between representation and governance (see below.).
 

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
                        District magnitude, k = n, where n ranges from 2 or 3 to 120 (Israel) or 150 (Netherlands)
                        Electoral formula, f, is PARTY LIST

                        Parties competing in the election prepare lists of candidates.
                        X percent of votes translates into approximately X percent of seats.
                        Seats are filled in order from party list.

                        PR is used in about a third of the countries, including some of Europe and much of Latin America

            PR example: Israel
                        The whole nation is a single electoral district with k = 120.

                        In 1999 election 15 of 16 parties running got seats, ranging from
                                    27 One Israel (formerly Labor and Gesher)
                                    19 Likud
                                    17 Shas
                                    Plus 12 other parties with seats ranging from 9 to 2.

                        Note: unlike FPTP, this system maximizes the possibility that opinions will be represented in the legislature in proportion to their strength in the population.

                        PR also maximizes the difficulty of forming a government. (It took Israel many weeks to form a viable coalition.)
 

FURTHER ISSUES

            FPTP is said to encourage two-party systems (Duverger’s Law),
                because there is an incentive for the opposition to combine its strength in order to maximize its chances of defeating the incumbents.

            PR is said to encourage multi-party systems, because can be representation for those who come in second or third.

           In terms of the fundamental equation, this implies that there is a feedback between institutions and preferences.

            S&B discuss a tradeoff between representation (reflecting the beliefs and preferences of the electorate),
                and governance (the capacity of elected representatives to act decisively (pp. 178, 180).

            PR is an institution that maximizes representation, while FPTP is an institution that maximizes governance.

            Reconsider the issue of drawing district lines in order to maximize the representation of blacks (topic 5).
                        Would it be better to make US states multimember districts and use PR?
                        Minority-majority districts are clearly an effort to maximize representation, not governance.

                        This would be a more direct way to facilitate proportional representation of blacks.
                        It would also let individual blacks decide if their most important political characteristic was their race, sex, income or party.

                        The cost: representation comes at the expense of governance.

PARTY SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES

            Step back from our consideration of electoral systems and the kinds of party systems they generate.

            Place yourself in the US where FPTP is predictably associated with a two-party system.   This leaves open the questions of which two parties and of their identities.

 Light identifies and describes five American Party Eras  (pp. 202-213).  Please learn them

             First: 1788-1824  Federalists and Democratic-Republicans
             Second: 1828-1952 Democrats and Whigs
             Third: 1856-1892  Democrats and Republicans
             Fourth: 1896-1928 Democrats and Republicans
             Fifth: 1932- ???  Democrats and Republicans

Consider race, gender and socioeconomic class and how they are handled in politics.

Race and American party systems

 Before the Civil War era,
 Democrats and Whigs differentiated from each other mainly on the basis of social and economic class and status, with Democrats lower and Whigs higher.

Both parties had northern and southern strength, so neither took a position as a party on slavery, or its extension into the territories, which was the major public issue of the era.

The Whigs collapsed in 1856 over internal divisions, and were replaced by the Republicans, who opposed the extension of slavery into the territories.  Democrats won the election.

In 1860 the Republicans (Lincoln) again opposed the extension of slavery into the territories.

Raising the slavery issue divided the Democrats into northern (Douglas) and southern (Breckenridge) wings.

Splitting the dominant party allowed the Republicans to win with 40% of the vote.  (Who would have been the Condorcet winner?)

Think in terms of two dimensions, economic and racial, and shifting the basis of conflict from one to the other.

Even though the party identified with racial equality won the Civil War, and won most elections for more than 60 years

However, after Reconstruction ended in 1876, the white supremacists were allowed to control the South, where most blacks lived.  It took until the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s to fulfil the promises of the Civil War amendments (XIII, XIV, XV).

Along with that movement, the parties changed their identities regarding racial issues.