Evaluation of Parliamentary Apportionment Methods by Electoral Districts: Model Proposals for Turkey

Abstract

This article analyzes the alignment of Turkey's current seat apportionment system to electoral districts with democratic representation principles and proposes an alternative model to address the representational injustices created by the existing system. District magnitudes of Turkey's current electoral system fails to adequately reflect population changes and regional distributions, leading to overrepresentation or underrepresentation of certain districts. The authors suggest modified distribution models based on the Hamilton, Jefferson, and Webster methods to address these issues and create a fairer representation system. Comparative analysis has shown that the proposed methods namely Hamilton and Webster provide a more equitable, fair, and balanced distribution of MPs compared to the current system. The study emphasizes the significant impact of electoral systems and distribution methodologies on representation justice and efficiency in democratic systems, highlighting the need for reform in Turkey's election system. The article aims to contribute to the strengthening of democratic representation by encouraging further research and discussion in this field, offering alternatives with the potential to improve representation justice through in-depth examination of the effects of electoral systems and MP distribution methods on democratic representation.

Keywords

• Electoral system
• Turkish parliamentary elections
• justice in representation
• district magnitude
• apportionment methods

Seçim Çevrelerine Milletvekili Bölüştürme Yöntemlerinin Değerlendirilmesi: Türkiye için Model Önerileri

Abstract

Bu makale, Türkiye'de milletvekili bölüştürme yöntemlerinin demokratik temsil ilkeleriyle uyumunu analiz ederek, mevcut sistemin yarattığı temsil adaletsizliğini gidermek için alternatif modeller önermektedir. Türkiye'nin mevcut seçim sistemindeki seçim çevresi büyüklüklerini belirleyen bölüştürme parametresi, nüfus farklılıklarını ve bölgesel dağılımları yeterince yansıtmamakta, bu da temsilde adaletsizliklere yol açmaktadır. Bu kapsamda Hamilton, Jefferson ve Webster metotları temelinde geliştirilen modifiye edilmiş bölüştürme modelleri, 2000'li yıllardaki genel seçim verileriyle analiz edilmiştir. Genelleştirilmiş entropi formülünü kullanan karşılaştırmalı analiz sonucu, Hamilton ile Webster metotlarının nüfus oranlarına göre daha dengeli temsil sağladığı belirlenmiştir. Hamilton yönteminin yalınlığı ve yasal uygulanabilirliğini vurgulayan çalışmada Türkiye'nin seçim sisteminde reform yapılmasının gerekliliğine dikkat çekilmiştir. Aynı zamanda bu makale, demokratik temsilin güçlendirilmesine yönelik daha fazla araştırma ve tartışmaya zemin hazırlamayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Seçim sistemleri
• TBMM seçimleri
• Temsilde adalet
• Seçim çevresi büyüklüğü
• Bölüştürme yöntemleri

References

1. Balinski, Michel L. ve H. Peyton Young (2010), Fair Representation: Meeting The Ideal of One Man, One Vote (Washington: Brookings Institution Press).
2. Biró, Péter, László Á Kóczy ve Balázs Sziklai (2015), “Fair Apportionment in the View of the Venice Commission’s Recommendation”, Mathematical Social Sciences, 77: 32-41.
3. Coulter, Philip B. (1989), Measuring Inequality: A Methodological Handbook (New York: Westview Press).
4. Cowell, Frank A. ve Kiyoshi Kuga (1981), “Inequality Measurement: An Axiomatic Approach”, European Economic Review, 15(3): 287-305.
5. Duverger, Maurice (1954), Political Parties: Their Organization and Activities in the Modern State (Yorkshire: Methuen).
6. Göksel, Türkmen ve Yetkin Çınar (2011), Mevcut Seçim Sisteminin İyileştirilmesine Yönelik Sayısal Analizler ve Politika Önerileri (Ankara: TEPAV Yayınları).
7. Kamahara, Yuta, Junichiro Wada ve Yuko Kasuya (2021), “Malapportionment in Space and Time: Decompose It!”, Electoral Studies, 71, 102301.
8. Kubiak, Wieslaw (2008), Proportional Optimization and Fairness (New York: Springer Science+Business Media). Lauwers, Luc ve Tom Van Puyenbroeck (2008), “Minimally Disproportional Representation: Generalized Entropy and Stolarsky Mean-Divisor Methods of Apportionment”, SSRN Working Papers, 2008/24.

9. Lijphart, Arend (1997), “The Difficult Science of Electoral Systems: A Commentary on the Critique by Alberto Penadés”, Electoral Studies, 16(1): 73-77.
10. Lijphart, Arend (1999), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press).
11. Monroe, Burt L. (1994), “Disproportionality and Malapportionment: Measuring Electoral Inequity”, Electoral Studies, 13(2): 132–149.
12. Olgun, Kenan (2011), “Türkiye’de Cumhuriyetin İlanından 1950’ye Genel Seçim Uygulamaları”, Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, 27(79): 1-36.
13. Powell, G. Bingham ve G. Bingham Powell Jr. (2000), Elections As İnstruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions (New Haven: Yale University Press).
14. Pukelsheim, Friedrich (2017), Proportional Representation (New York: Springer).
15. Reynolds, Andrew (2005), “Reserved Seats in National Legislatures: A Research Note”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30(2): 301-310.
16. Reynolds, Andrew, Ben Reilly ve Andrew Ellis (2008), Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook (Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).
17. Samuels, David ve Richard Snyder (2001), “The Value of A Vote: Malapportionment in Comparative Perspective”, British Journal of Political Science, 31(4): 651-671.
18. Sartori, Giovanni (2005), Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis (Colchester: ECPR Press).
19. Schuster, Karsten, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mathias Drton ve Norman R. Draper (2003), “Seat Biases of Apportionment Methods for Proportional Representation”, Electoral Studies, 22(4), 651-676.
20. Taagepera, Rein ve Matthew S. Shugart (1989), “Designing Electoral Systems”, Electoral Studies, 8(1): 49-58. Theil, Henri (1969), “The Desired Political Entropy”, The American Political Science Review, 63: 521-525.
21. Van Assche, Kristof ve Anna-Katharina Hornidge (2023), Rural Development: Knowledge and Expertise in Governance (Wageningen: Wageningen Publishers).