After FPTP: Should electoral reform prioritize “centripetal democracy” or “consensus democracy” if we cannot fully achieve both?
I would like to make a poll here about the direction of electoral reform.
Many people who oppose FPTP / plurality voting probably agree that it has serious problems. It can create spoiler effects, strategic voting, minority winners, two-party domination, and incentives for candidates to mobilize only their core base instead of seeking broader acceptance from the electorate.
But when it comes to the question of what should replace FPTP, electoral reformers often have different institutional goals.
I want to simplify the discussion into two broad directions:
1. Centripetal democracy: encouraging candidates to seek broader acceptance
The core idea of centripetal democracy is this: Electoral systems should not merely reward the candidate who is best at mobilizing a loyal base. Instead, they should encourage candidates to seek second preferences, third preferences, or broader support in head-to-head comparisons.
This perspective is often associated with scholars such as Donald Horowitz and Benjamin Reilly. Their main concern is that, in divided societies, multiethnic societies, or highly polarized political environments, electoral systems can be designed to give candidates incentives to reach beyond their own camp and seek preference support from other groups. This is sometimes called vote-pooling.
This reform direction focuses more on who can become a broadly acceptable winner in a single office or single-member district.
Possible effects include:
- Candidates may find it harder to win merely by using extreme rhetoric to mobilize a loyal base.
- Politicians may need to seek second-preference support from voters outside their own camp.
- The winner may be more broadly acceptable, rather than simply representing the largest core base.
- Electoral competition may shift from “intensifying us-versus-them conflict” toward “expanding acceptability.”
- Policy may become more stable, with fewer large-scale retaliatory reversals after alternation in power.
Examples of systems that may fit this direction include:
- IRV / Alternative Vote
- Condorcet methods, such as Minimax, Ranked Pairs, and Schulze
- Two-round system
- Approval Voting
- Score Voting
- STAR Voting
Condorcet methods are especially relevant here. They emphasize that if there is a candidate who would defeat every other candidate in head-to-head contests, that candidate should win. This is often seen as a way to identify a candidate who is acceptable to a majority against each alternative.
2. Consensus democracy: making legislatures more inclusive of plural viewpoints
Another reform direction is consensus democracy.
This concept is often associated with Arend Lijphart. He argues that democracy does not have to mean that the majority wins all political power. Democracy can also use proportional representation, coalition government, power-sharing, and multiparty negotiation to include more social groups in decision-making.
Consensus democracy is not necessarily focused on who wins a single office. Its main concern is whether the overall political system gives different groups representation and space for negotiation.
This reform direction focuses more on whether the legislature as a whole can include diverse political forces, rather than allowing one large party to dominate politics with a plurality-based seat advantage.
Possible effects include:
- Legislative seats may correspond more closely to voters’ actual support.
- Smaller and emerging parties may have more room to survive.
- Winner-take-all domination by one large party or bloc may be reduced.
- Coalition government, cross-party bargaining, and policy compromise may be encouraged.
- The system may be better suited for handling conflicting interests and values in plural societies.
Examples of systems that may fit this direction include:
- Party-list PR
- STV
- MMP
- Open-list PR
Compared with centripetal democracy, consensus democracy does not necessarily aim to elect the “most centrist” single candidate. It places more emphasis on overall representation and power-sharing, allowing different political forces to exist proportionally in the legislature and then form governments or policies through negotiation.
3. The two approaches can partly be combined
In my view, centripetal democracy and consensus democracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For example, a country could use IRV, Condorcet, or a two-round system for single offices or single-member districts, so that candidates must seek broader support. At the same time, another chamber or proportional tier could use STV, party-list PR, or MMP to ensure that diverse viewpoints are represented.
Australia is one example worth discussing. The Australian House of Representatives uses preferential voting / IRV, so single-member district competition is not simply FPTP. Meanwhile, the Australian Senate uses STV, which gives smaller parties and more diverse political forces greater opportunities for representation.
In other words, one institutional design can pursue several goals at once:
- Broad acceptability in single offices or single-member districts;
- Proportionality and plural representation in the legislature as a whole;
- Negotiation and stability in government formation.
4. But for this poll, I will still provide only two options
Although the two approaches can be combined to some extent, in real-world politics many countries cannot freely redesign their entire political system.
In some countries, constitutional amendment is extremely difficult. Some countries cannot easily change presidentialism, parliamentarism, bicameralism, or the electoral system for a particular office. Some reformers can only work within the existing institutional framework and prioritize one reform direction first.
Therefore, in this poll, I am not listing “combine both” as a third main option. Instead, I want to ask a more basic question:
If you could only prioritize one reform direction, which one would you support more?
Poll options
- Centripetal Democracy
I place more importance on encouraging candidates to seek broader acceptance. I tend to support systems such as IRV, Condorcet, two-round voting, Approval, or STAR as replacements for FPTP, especially for single offices or single-member districts.
- Consensus Democracy
I place more importance on making legislatures more representative of diverse political forces. I tend to support systems such as PR, STV, MMP, or party-list PR as replacements for FPTP, with the goal of encouraging coalition government, cross-party negotiation, and power-sharing.
My question is:
After opposing FPTP, what should electoral reform prioritize?
Should it prioritize electing candidates who are more broadly acceptable? Or should it prioritize building legislatures and governments that can better include plural viewpoints?
