16

In the year 2011, the United Kingdom held the so-called “Alternative Vote Referendum” to decide whether to replace its “first-past-the-post” method for the “alternative vote” method. In that referendum, first-past-the-post won with a 67.9% of the popular vote.

I am looking for similar referenda in which countries have decided between keeping or replacing their voting rule. The time frame, the location and the result are not particularly important, but larger countries and recent times are preferred.

Do you know of real examples in which countries have chosen whether to replace their voting rule?

EDIT: following xyldke‘s comment, I clarify what sort of changes I am looking for:

  • I am not interested in changes related to the expansion / contraction of the electorate.
  • I am not interested in changes related to the calculation algorithm within proportional representation.
  • I am not interested in changes to the way various types of ties are handled.

However, I am very much interested in changes passed by parliaments rather than through referenda.

4
  • 6
    Would you consider an expansion of the electorate (i.e. through allowing women to vote or lowering the voting age) to be a change to the voting rule? What about changes to the calculation algorithm for proportional representation (D'Hondt vs. Hare/Niemeyer)? What about changes to the way overhang and levelling seats are handled in MMP systems? Also are you only interested in referenda or would you also be interested in changes made by parliament?
    – xyldke
    Commented Nov 18 at 10:10
  • 3
    Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/83332/…
    – ccprog
    Commented Nov 18 at 10:20
  • @xyldke Thank you very much for your comment. I have now clarified my question accordingly.
    – EoDmnFOr3q
    Commented Nov 18 at 10:24
  • 2
    @ccprog Thank you very much for bringing this related question to my attention. I guess New Zealand’s case could work for my needs.
    – EoDmnFOr3q
    Commented Nov 18 at 10:25

3 Answers 3

21

This post is not comprehensive (and can't be given the space limitations of answer at Politics.SE), but notes some selected notable changes in voting systems and political systems (which change what is even being voted for in addition to electoral systems) in recent times.

It is a convenience sample based upon the examples that came to mind first. It details some of the changes made in 25 specific countries, and also notes two major waves of changes in Europe (post-WWII and post-Soviet) in addition.

Political Systems Rooted In The British System

Federal reforms

The United States replaced a system where U.S. Senators were appointed by state legislatures with one where they were directly elected in 1913 with the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Voting Right Act of 1965 in the U.S. significantly reformed the redistricting process and eventually, it was used to prohibit some local government election methods found only in the South, such as the practice of having only a single elected official in some counties that had complete executive and legislative branchy authority over county government affairs (a practice designed to insure no African-Americans were elected to county office in counties with a narrow white majority in the voting population).

A series of U.S. Supreme Court cases in the 1960s mandated a one-man, one-vote rule for state legislatures and local legislative bodies requiring electoral districts to have approximately equal populations. Prior to this, many states had one house of their legislature elected based upon county lines in a way parallel to the U.S. Senate, effectively over representing rural areas.

The U.S. discontinued the practice of allowing some states to have multi-member districts for U.S. House seats by legislation effective in the 1972 election at 2 U.S.C. § 2c. (Source) The practice of multi-member house district had been used to prevent blacks in the American South from being able to elect representatives.

Not long after the U.S. Civil War, the practice of having junior officers in the U.S. Army elected by their subordinates was discontinued.

State level reforms

There were several such measures in the U.S. in 2024 at the state level (the U.S. doe not have national referendums). AZ prohibited jungle primaries. AK ended its current use of instant runoff voting. CO rejected a measure to add jungle primaries and instant runoff voting.

California adopted a jungle primary system in 2010; Washington State did so in 2004 effective in 2008; Alaska did so in 2020. (Source)

Maine adopted instant runoff voting in 2016. Alaska did so in 2020 and repealed that change in 2024.

Nebraska revamped its state legislature in 1934 to be unicameral and non-partisan:

When Nebraska became a state in 1867, its legislature consisted of two houses: a House of Representatives and a Senate. For years, U.S. Senator George Norris (Senator 1913–1943) and other Nebraskans encouraged the idea of a unicameral legislature and demanded the issue be decided in a referendum. Norris argued:

"The constitutions of our various states are built upon the idea that there is but one class. If this be true, there is no sense or reason in having the same thing done twice, especially if it is to be done by two bodies of men elected in the same way and having the same jurisdiction."

Unicameral supporters also argued that a bicameral legislature had a significant undemocratic feature in the committees that reconciled House and Senate legislation. Votes in these committees were secretive, and would sometimes add provisions to bills that neither house had approved. Nebraska's unicameral legislature today has rules that bills can contain only one subject, and must be given at least five days of consideration. In 1934, due in part to the budgetary pressure of the Great Depression, Nebraska citizens ran a state initiative to vote on a constitutional amendment creating a unicameral legislature, which was approved, which, in effect, abolished the House of Representatives (the lower house).]

Secret ballots were adopted gradually, on a state by state basis, at the state level in the U.S. over the time period from 1884 to 1950.

In addition to the 2011 election referenced in the question, there was a major overhaul of the House of Lords in 1999 (by legislation rather than referrendum). Prior to 1999, all hereditary lords could vote in the House of Lords (more than 700 of them). Since 1999, the Lords vote among themselves for about 90 Lords entitled to vote in the chamber (in addition to some individuals such as bishops, who serve, ex officio).

The U.K. adopted the secret ballot from 1870-1872, but "the UK uses numbered ballots to allow courts to intervene, under rare circumstances, to identify which candidate voters voted for." So, its ballots aren't truly secret even today.

The province of British Columbia changed to an instant runoff voting system in 1952 for provincial legislative elections, and then to multi-member districts for some provincial legislative seats in 1990. According to the same source:

IRV was also used for provincial elections in Alberta (1926–1955 in rural districts), and Manitoba (1927–1953) outside Winnipeg (excluding St. Boniface in 1949 and 1953). IRV was also used in provincial by-elections in these two provinces between 1924 and 1955.

Measures to switch to a proportional system in British Columbia failed in 2005, 2009 and 2018.

Reforms to the means by which Canada's Senate is selected, which is appointed and much like the House of Lords has little real power, have been periodically proposed, but have never gotten very far.

Australia adopted a single transferrable vote system in 1918.

Australia instituted compulsory voting between 1915 and 1984 across its various jurisdictions. At a Federal level, it was instituted for all British Subjects in 1924 and extended to indigenous Australians in 1984.

Queensland abolished its upper house in 1922; however, this was not an elected body with members appointed by the Governor on the advice of the government of the day. Queensland remains the only unicameral parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Australia was also one of the modern adopters of the secret ballot:

In Australia, secret balloting appears to have been first implemented in Tasmania on 7 February 1856.

Until the original Tasmanian Electoral Act 1856 was "re-discovered" recently, credit for the first implementation of the secret ballot often went to Victoria, where the former mayor of Melbourne William Nicholson pioneered it,9 and simultaneously South Australia.10 Victoria enacted legislation for secret ballots on 19 March 1856,11 and South Australian Electoral Commissioner William Boothby generally gets credit for creating the system finally enacted into law in South Australia on 2 April of that same year (a fortnight later). The other British colonies in Australia followed: New South Wales (1858), Queensland (1859), and Western Australia (1877).

State electoral laws, including the secret ballot, applied for the first election of the Australian parliament in 1901, and the system has continued to be a feature of federal elections and referendums. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 does not explicitly set out the secret ballot, but a reading of sections 206, 207, 325, and 327 of the Act would imply its assumption. Sections 323 and 226(4), however, apply the principle of a secret ballot to polling staff and would also support the assumption.

New Zealand had changed its voting system:

Almost all parliamentary elections between 1853 and 1996 were held under the first past the post (FPP) electoral system. Under FPP the candidate in a given electorate (district) that received the most votes was elected to the House of Representatives. The only deviation from the FPP system during this time occurred in the 1908 and 1911 elections when a second-ballot system was used; the second-ballot legislation was repealed in 1913. The elections since 1935 have been dominated by two political parties, National and Labour.

Public criticism of the FPP system began in the 1950s and intensified after Labour lost elections in 1978 and 1981 despite having more overall votes than National. An indicative (non-binding) referendum to change the voting system was held in 1992, which led to a binding referendum during the 1993 election.13 As a result, New Zealand has used the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system since 1996. Under MMP, each member of Parliament is either directly elected by voters in a single-member district via FPP or appointed from their party's list. Parliament normally has 120 seats, though some elections have resulted in overhang, as is currently the case (as of December 2023). In the first eight elections under MMP, from 1996 to 2017, no party won a majority of seats.

Seven electorates are reserved for MPs elected on a separate Māori roll. However, Māori may choose to vote in and to run for the non-reserved electorates and the party list (since 1996), and as a result, many have now entered Parliament outside of the reserved seats.

New Zealand implemented secret voting in 1870.

When apartheid fell, South Africa adopted an interim constitutional system in 1994 and a formal new constitution in 1997. These reforms greatly changed the system from one with separate ethnically based legislative houses with unequal powers to a unitarian system without ethnic divisions. South Africa's new upper house is structurally similar to the pre-17th Amendment U.S. Senate, but like the Canadian Senate and the United Kingdom's House of Lords, it has little power.

Countries With Large Islamic Populations

Egypt's electoral system originated in 1952, which turned out in practice to be basically a Soviet style system. There was a major reform of the system in 2011. This was interrupted with a 2013 military coup, followed by a new system in 2014 and another in 2019.

Iraq transitions from basically a one party system to a new electoral system in 2005, in the wake of the Iraq War.

Afghanistan became a republic (it was previously a monarchy) in 1973. It changed that system to a Soviet style Republic in 1978. In 1992, new leaders were elected in a period where the country was torn by chaos and the Taliban starting in 1996 started to control more and more territory, de facto, until the U.S. invasion which appointed a new interim leader in 2001. In 2002, Afghanistan adopted a new political system which remained in place until the regime collapsed with the final withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2021, with very different Taliban rule (which had been forming a shadow government in the regios it controlled since 2009) coming in its place.

Lebanon's political system was majorly reformed in 1943:

The 1943 National Pact, an unwritten agreement that established the political foundations of modern Lebanon, allocated political power on an essentially confessional system based on the 1932 census.

The Parliament is elected by adult suffrage based on a system of majority or "winner-take-all" for the various confessional groups.

Democratic elections were suspended in Lebanon from 1975-1990. Elections were held in 1992. Major reforms and a new constitution were adopted in 2004 in anticipation of the withdrawal of Syrian troops.

Elections which are supposed to be conducted every four years were also suspended from the 2009 election until the 2018 election, skipping one election cycle entirely and holding the next one a year later.

Turkey reformed its political and electoral system in 2017.

Indonesia adopted major reforms to its electoral system in a series of four constitutional amendments from 1999-2002, in the wake of the fall of Suharto who had effectively ruled the country as a dictator for decades.

Other Countries In East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania

In South Korea:

Since 1948, the constitution has undergone five major revisions, each signifying a new republic. The current Sixth Republic began with the last major constitutional revision that took effect in 1988. From its founding until the June Democratic Struggle [ending in 1987], the South Korean political system operated under a military authoritarian regime, with the freedom of assembly, association, expression, press and religion as well as civil society activism being tightly restricted. During that period, there were no freely elected national leaders, political opposition is suppressed, dissent was not permitted and civil rights were curtailed.

Of course, the Korean War from 1950-1953, with a North Korean invasion that reached much of the South for a brief period, also impacted its political development.

Prior to the current 1988 constitution:

Since the 1972 implementation of the Yushin Constitution by then-president Park Chung-hee, South Korean presidents were elected indirectly by the National Conference for Unification, an electoral college. This system persisted even after Park was assassinated and then replaced by Choi Kyu-hah, who was himself replaced within months by Chun after the Coup d'état of December Twelfth. Since the college was generally hand picked by the regime itself, it did not represent any sort of democratic check on presidential power.

The 1980 constitution instituted a seven year term limit for the President, which was, in turn, the trigger for the 1987 popular uprising that led to the 1988 constitution in place today.

Mainland China abolished its short-lived Western style political system, established in 1906, in favor of the Maoist one-party state of the People's Republic of China in 1949.

China had non-partisan democratic elections for village chiefs from 1978-2018. A one-party system similar to those for other offices was phased in from a period not long before 2018 through 2023.

Taiwan was ruled by the absolute monarch of China from 1683-1895, and then by the Japanese emperor from 1895-1945.

The old regime of the Republic of China retreated to the island of Formosa (i.e. Taiwan) and adopted in a new constitution in 1947, which was less democratic by modern standards than the system in place during the Republic of China. But it was irrelevant because from March 1947 until 1987, Taiwan was in a state of martial law.

Its electoral rules were reformed to establish a genuine democracy in 1991.

Fiji adopted instant runoff voting in 1998 and ended it in 2013.

Papua New Guinea changed to an instant runoff voting system in 2002.

Continental Western Europe

Most countries in continental Europe adopted some form of new electoral system as post-Nazi constitutions were adopted after WWII.

Germany had a unicameral, party-list system before WWII, but changed it after WWII to have a minimum threshold of 5% for a party to gain representation.

Italy changed its electoral system in the 1990s:

Italy's dramatic self-renewal transformed the political landscape between 1992 and 1997. Scandal investigations touched thousands of politicians, administrators and businessmen; the shift from a proportional to the scorporo system (with the requirement to obtain a minimum of 4% of the national vote to obtain representation) also altered the political landscape.

The change in Italy also created, in effect, a combined primary election and general election, giving voters a say in which candidate from a party list is elected at the same time that a party is chosen in the general election.

France radically overhauled its political system three times during the first French Republic that commenced in 1792, before reverting to an Empire, then adopted a new electoral system for the Second Republic from 1848 to 1852 before reverting to monarchy, and then adopted a new electoral system in the Third Republic in 1870. It adopted a new post-Vichy electoral system in 1946, and reformed its electoral politics again in the Fifth Republic in 1958. De Gaulle was first elected president by an electoral college in 1958 and then in 1962 called a referendum, which provided for a stronger directly elected President.

The French two round system with a second round election if no candidate receives a majority in the first round was adopted in 1832 by royal decree. France first started to use secret ballots due to an 1831 statute.

Parliamentary elections were converted to a party list proportional representation system in France starting with the 1986 election. But this system was abandoned in the next parliamentary election in France.

A more detailed and precise account for France, which has been particularly active in experimenting with different electoral systems over the course of its history, is provided in another answer.

Spain

From 1833 until 1939 Spain almost continually had a parliamentary system with a written constitution. Except during the First Republic (1873–74), the Second Republic (1931–36), and the Spanish Civil War (1936–39), Spain also always had a monarchy.

Spain adopted significant political reforms in its electoral system when it adopted its current constitution in 1978. Since then, there have been multiple efforts (in a rather complex series of events) to change the legal status of the Basque and Catalonian regions.

Eastern (i.e. Soviet influenced) Europe and Central Asia

All of the formerly Soviet Republics, all of the Russian Republics, the successor states to Yugoslavia, and the WARSAW Pact countries all changed their electoral systems in connection with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989, and then followed in short order by the break up of Yugoslavia.

Bosnia used a single transferrable vote system on a one time basis in its 2000 election.

In 1989, Poland had its first multi-candidate election in more than 40 years after decades of Soviet-style one party elections, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union:

In an attempt to take control of the situation, the contemporary government gave de facto recognition to the Solidarity union, and Interior Minister Czesław Kiszczak began talks with Solidarity's leader Lech Wałęsa on August 31. These talks broke down in October, but a new series of negotiations, the "round table" talks, began in February 1989. These talks produced an agreement in April for partly open parliamentary elections. The June election produced a Sejm (lower house), in which one-third of the seats went to the communist party and one-third went to the two parties which had hitherto been their coalition partners. The remaining one-third of the seats in the Sejm and all those in the Senate were freely contested; the majority of these were by candidates supported by Solidarity. The failure of the communist party at the polls produced a political crisis. The round-table agreement called for a communist president, and on July 19, the National Assembly, with the support of a number of Solidarity deputies, elected General Wojciech Jaruzelski to that office. However, two attempts by the communists to form governments failed.

On August 19, President Jaruzelski asked journalist/Solidarity activist Tadeusz Mazowiecki to form a government; on September 12, the Sejm voted approval of Prime Minister Mazowiecki and his cabinet. For the first time in more than 40 years, Poland had a government led by non-communists.

In December 1989, the Sejm approved the government's reform program
. . . amended the constitution to eliminate references to the "leading role" of the Communist Party, and renamed the country the "Republic of Poland". The communist Polish United Workers' Party dissolved itself in January 1990, creating in its place a new party, Social Democracy of the Republic of Poland. . . . The May 1990 local elections were entirely free. Candidates supported by Solidarity's Citizens' Committees won most of the elections they contested, although voter turnout was only a little over 40%. The cabinet was reshuffled in July 1990; the national defence and interior affairs ministers (hold-overs from the previous communist government) were among those replaced.

In October 1990, the constitution was amended to curtail the term of President Jaruzelski. In December, Lech Wałęsa became the first popularly elected President of Poland.

Poland's Constitution was amended again in 1997:

The 1997 Constitution and the reformed administrative division of 1999 required a revision of the electoral system, which was passed in April 2001. The most important changes included:

  • the final liquidation of the party list (previously, some of the members of parliament were elected from a party list, based on nationwide voter support, rather than from local constituencies),

  • modification of the method of allocating seats to the Sainte-Laguë method, which gave less premium to large parties. The latter change was reverted to the d'Hondt method in 2002.

President Duda's government (since 2015) has made some controversial reforms characterized as democratic backsliding, but these have been largely to restrictions on the freedom of speech and in judicial branch reforms, rather than in electoral system reforms.

Some of the reforms were driven by Poland's ultimately successful bid to join the NATO and the European Union.

Latin America

Mexico adopted a constitution similar in model to that of the United States in 1917. From 1929 to 1987, this evolved into a dominant party system in which other political parties were allowed to compete and sometimes won a few elective offices, but the Partido Nacional Revolucionario (later the Institutional Revolutionary Party, known as the PRI), was dominant and remained continuously in control.

In 1951, the PRI passed legislation that made it harder to form new political parties. In 1963, under President Adolfo López Mateos, the PRI decided to reform electoral law to allow parties other than the PRI to have representation in Congress: if opposition parties obtained at least 2.5% of the national vote they would receive five deputies. In 1977, PRI President Echeverría oversaw an overhaul of electoral reform which lowered the number of members needed to officially register a new political party, and increased the number of seats that would be chosen through proportional representation.

In 1990, however, after a two party system emerged in 1988, Mexico as part of a series of electoral reforms adopted greater proportional representation in legislative elections. As a result, now, 300 of the deputies in the lower house of the legislature are elected by majority vote from single-member districts in their respective states, while the remaining 200 are elected via proportional representation party lists. In the upper house of the legislature (the Senate), each state elects three senators – two of these are allocated through a relative majority and the third seat is given according to the first minority principle, meaning it is given to the party that earned the second largest number of votes, and the remaining 32 seats are appointed through a proportional representation system according to the voter rolls at a national level, and the natural quotient and largest remainder electoral formulas are used.

Several smaller electoral reforms were adopted after 1990, and in 2002, 30% of candidates for all political parties in the general election were required to be women.

The politics of Venezuela followed a typical libral democratic model starting in 1958 after the fall of dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez until the 1990s. This period, known as the "Fourth Republic", is marked by the development of the 1958 Punto Fijo Pact between the major parties.

By the end of the 1990s, however, the now two-party system's credibility was almost nonexistent. . . . By 1998, support for Democratic Action and COPEI had fallen still further, and Hugo Chávez, a political outsider, won the 1998 election.

Chávez launched what he called the "Bolivarian Revolution" and fulfilled an election promise by calling a Constituent Assembly in 1999, which drafted the new Constitution of Venezuela. Chávez was granted executive power by the National Assembly to rule by decree multiple times throughout his tenure, passing hundreds of laws. Chávez ruled Venezuela by decree in 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011. and 2012. . . . Hugo Chávez, the central figure of the Venezuelan political landscape since his election to the presidency in 1998 as a political outsider, died in office in early 2013 after a long struggle with cancer. Nearing his death, Chávez expressed his intention that his vice president would succeed him. Chavez was succeeded by Nicolás Maduro, his vice president, initially as interim President, before he narrowly won the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election.

The 1999 Constitution was ratified in an election that year. It created a weaker unicameral legislature (it was previously bicameral with a combination of direct representation and proportional representation under the 1961 Constitution then in force) and a stronger Presidency with longer terms, and created a power to recall the President.

Further wide-ranging amendments were rejected narrowly in a referendum in 2007. Term limited were abolished in 2009 in a narrowly approved referendum.

11
  • 1
    (+1) The paragraph on France seems to deal with constitutional changes more than the electoral system per se. I don't remember all the details off the top of my head but I believe there were elections during the July monarchy (after 1830) and the second empire. More recently, there were major changes to the electoral system during the fifth Republic: The 1962 referendum that provided for the direct election of the president and completely upended the system and then the changes around the 1986 parliamentary elections. Maybe you want to add a few details about this?
    – Relaxed
    Commented Nov 18 at 19:35
  • 1
    @Relaxed I didn't find a reference to the 1962 election change, only to the 1958 constitutional reform which seemed to provide for direct election of the French President. I updated the post to reflect the 1832 and 1986 changes.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Nov 18 at 19:49
  • The 1958 constitution did not provide for the direct election of the French president. It's not completely obvious from the text itself that the president should have such a great role, even if Michel Debré and De Gaulle clearly wanted to break with the tradition of the third and fourth Republic. Conversely, the 1875 constitutional laws did give the president considerable powers but the presidents of the third Republic took a more limited role, out of convention more than anything else.
    – Relaxed
    Commented Nov 18 at 20:01
  • 2
    Wow; that's quite a list! Re UK House of Lords: under the 1999 Act, hereditary peers vote among themselves to elect new ones to sit in the Lords if a vacancy appears, by party. This has led to odd situations where the number of electors is greater than the number of candidates standing. But this is all moot; the remaining hereditary peers will be removed from the House of Lords next year (most likely). Commented Nov 18 at 21:07
  • 3
    Nice list (+1): just re Queensland, probably worth noting that it is the only unicameral state parliament in australia, as the territories (ACT and NT) have been unicameral since their respective bodies were established
    – limequokka
    Commented Nov 19 at 11:01
8

Legislative elections in France

For most of its democratic history (and even during some monarchic periods), France has used a two-round system with single-member districts to elect representatives to its lower house (legislative assembly). In the first round, all candidates compete. If one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, that candidate is elected. Otherwise the top two or more candidates compete in the second round. The threshold to reach the second round can have a significant influence on the results.

The two-round single-member system started during the monarchy (when the king held most of the power). It then established itself as the standard electoral system because it was the main electoral system of the Third Republic, which was the first democratic system in France that lasted more than one electoral cycle. So I'll discuss when this system was deviated from and when it was reestablished.

The Second Republic used a district-based list-based system where each voter can vote for as many candidates as there are positions. There are official lists of candidates, but voters can write in names. Only one election was conducted during the brief Second Republic, in 1849. The voting method was chosen by a constitutional assembly, and I don't know why this particular mode was chosen. There would definitely have been a will to break with the previous monarchic regime. In 1851, the republic was abolished by a coup that started the Second Empire, during which the lower chamber was elected in a two-round single-member system.

In 1870, the Second Empire collapsed after a military defeat (against Prussia, sowing the seeds of the western side of World War I, but that's a whole different story). A fledgling republican government organized elections in 1871 using a similar system as the Second Republic, with some organization changes that made it harder for rural voters to cast their vote (which proved ineffective). Monarchists won (partly because many republican candidates wanted to continue the war against Prussia, but this was not a popular position). The monarchists did not actually restore the monarchy, largely because they were split between two factions supporting different heirs (Legitimists and Orleanists, with the third monarchic faction Bonapartists being temporarily discredited). Republicans then proceeded to win every subsequent election, with de jure monarchy progressively shrinking into irrelevance, and the former monarchic parties morphing into right-wing parties defending (at least nominally) a republican form of government.

The constitutional laws of the Third Republic merely establish that the lower chamber is elected through (male) universal suffrage. The voting method could vary according to ordinary laws. Initially, the 1875 law, voted by the monarchist-dominated assembly returned to the two-round single-member electoral system (but without granting extra seats to larger districts, which disfavored large cities, which were heavily republican). The system was used in the 1876 elections and most subsequent ones.

A 1885 law changed the electoral system to a two-round district-based voting system, somewhat similar to the one from the Second Republic but with significantly different parameters (in particular, different thresholds for the second round, but I haven't investigated the details). This system was used only for the 1885 elections, as a 1889 law brought back the former system (although fixing the underrepresentation of large cities). I don't know for sure why these changes were made. The 1885 system was put in place by moderate republicans, who were the central block (between Radicals on the left and conservatives on the right). Two-round systems generally favor the center when there is one, as long as the center manages to reach the second round (since right-wing voters will tend to prefer a centrist over a leftist and left-wing voters will tend to prefer a centrist over a rightist). Thus it's likely that the goal of the voting system change was to help the party in power. That failed to give moderate republicans an absolute majority, however, and a return to the old system was one thing the radicals and the conservatives could agree on.

The next change in the electoral system for the legislative assembly affected the 1919 and 1924 elections. This change was made in a 1919 law, which established a district-based voting system with proportional attribution of seats, but a majority bonus system — a sort of intermediate between party block voting and proportional representation. The goal of this system change was to obtain more stable majorities, and that worked — the 1919 chamber is known as the “horizon blue chamber”, dominated by a right-wing alliance, the National Bloc. The 1924 elections reversed the majority, bringing the Cartel of the Lefts to power, with a center-left government with initial socialist support. That alliance was short-lived, however, and from 1926, the government was dominated by the right with center-left support. That government restored the two-round in 1927.

The Third Republic collapsed with the 1940 coup that established a fascist regime that collaborated with Nazi Germany. After France was liberated in 1944-1945, the provisional government organized general elections in 1945 with a single-round, party-list proportional representation per districts of up to 9 seats. A referendum the same day gave the resulting assembly constitutional powers.

There was a long debate over the institutions of what became the Fourth Republic. The June 1946 constitutional eletions and the first legislative elections of the Fourth Republic in November 1946 used the same party-list proportional representation. The 1951 elections modified that system with a twist known as “apparentements”, which mixes the proportional system with a party block system: in each district, lists can declare themselves allied, and if a group of allied lists have more than 50% of the votes in a district, they get all the seats in that district. That system was used again in 1956. The apparentements system favored the central block against communists on the left and Gaullists on the right.

The Fourth Republic collapsed in 1958 due to political instability and the Algerian War. The institutions of the Fifth Republic were largely taylored for De Gaulle. From 1958 onwards, all but one legislative elections used the single-member two-round system. The main criticism against the Fourth Republic was its instability as coalitions were made and unmade, and single-member elections tend to make much more stable majorities, at least in the political configuration at the time (and up to the 2010s, but it's no longer the case now).

In 1986, the incumbent left-wing government changed the electoral system to a party-list proportional representation, very similar to the system used in 1945–1946. This attenuated the foreseen victory of the right, but did not prevent it. The right-wing government brought back the single-member two-round system.

What we can observe is that almost every time the voting system changed, it was done to favor the parties that were in power at the time of the change. The two-round system has established itself as the default. Anyone wanting to change it is automatically suspected of doing so purely for their electoral advantage. (And conversely, the staunchest opponents of a change tend to be the ones who benefit the most from the current system.)

Regional elections in France

I will briefly mention the change of voting rules for regional councils in France, because unlike the history of the rules legislative elections, that change was largely transpartisan.

France has had elected regional councils since 1986. Originally, the rule was a strict proportional representation. In 1998, in several regions, this resulted in an equal number of representatives for a left-wing coalition and a right-wing coalition. The remainder of the representatives were from the extreme right and nobody wanted to ally with them. (Part of the right wanted to ally with the extreme right, but they lost that fight, leading to a recomposition of the right wing.) This made several regions effectively ungovernable, and sometimes incapable of voting a budget. After that, there was a broad consensus to change the electoral system to make it more likely that a majority would emerge.

Starting in 2004, regional elections use a more complex system which is based on proportional representation, but with a second round and a majority bonus system. Only lists with at least 10% of the vote can proceed to the second round, although lists with at least 5% can merge with a list that had more than 10%. The list that has the highest score gets 25% of the seats, and the remaining 75% of seats are attributed proportionally. (So the top list will get a majority of representatives if it has at least around 34% of the vote.)

6
British Columbia.

We are not a country, not big @ 5.5M pop (which does make us bigger than some countries), but some of us are stubborn and this concerns the rules to elect the provincial Prime Minister, who ends running much of the show as Canada is a highly federal country.

61.3 percent of voters supported maintaining the first-past-the-post voting system rather than switching to a proportional representation voting system, which was supported by 38.7 percent of voters. This was British Columbia's third referendum on electoral reform, following ones in 2005 and 2009.

As in 2005, voters in 2009 were asked were asked which electoral system should be used to elect legislators: the existing first-past-the-post electoral system or the BC single transferable vote electoral system (BC-STV) proposed by the British Columbia Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform to ensure more proportional representation in the provincial Legislative Assembly.

The referendum was defeated, with 60.9 percent voting against the reform and 39.09 percent of voters supporting the change.1

... determine whether or not to adopt the recommendation of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to replace the existing first-past-the-post electoral system (FPTP) with a single transferable vote system (BC-STV). It was held in conjunction with the BC Legislative Assembly election of 2005. Voters were given two ballots at that time: a ballot to vote for a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia (MLA) in their constituency and a referendum ballot. The referendum received considerable support from the electorate but failed in meeting the 60-percent threshold that had been set.

p.s. this is answering the negative side of the question as in:

I am looking for similar referenda in which countries have decided between keeping or replacing their voting rule.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .