Proportionality and Party Success in Europe

This thesis consists of four articles and an introductory section. The main research questions in all the articles are about proportionality and party success in Europe, at European, national or district levels. Proportionality in this thesis denotes the proximity of seat shares parties receive compared to their respective vote shares, after the electoral system’s allocation process. This proportionality can be measured through numerous indices that illustrate either the overall proportionality of an electoral system or a particular election. The correspondence of a single party’s seat shares to its vote shares can also be measured. The overall proportionality is essential in three of the articles (1, 2 and 4), where the system’s performance is studied by means of plots. In article 3, minority party success is measured by advantage-ratios that reveal single party’s winnings or losses in the votes to seat allocation process. The first article asks how proportional are the European parliamentary (EP) electoral systems, how do they compare with results gained from earlier studies and how do the EP electoral systems treat different sized parties. The reasons for different outcomes are looked for in explanations given by traditional electoral studies i.e. electoral system variables. The countries studied (EU15) apply electoral systems that vary in many important aspects, even though a certain amount of uniformity has been aspired to for decades. Since the electoral systems of the EP elections closely resemble the national elections, the same kinds of profiles emerge as in the national elections. The electoral systems indeed treat the parties differentially and six different profile types can be found. The counting method seems to somewhat determine the profile group, but the strongest variables determining the shape of a countries’ profile appears to be the average district magnitude and number of seats allocated to each country. The second article also focuses on overall proportionality performance of an electoral system, but here the focus is on the impact of electoral system changes. I have developed a new method of visualizing some previously used indices and some new indices for this purpose. The aim is to draw a comparable picture of these electoral systems’ changes and their effects. The cases, which illustrate this method, are four elections systems, where a change has occurred in one of the system variables, while the rest remained unchanged. The studied cases include the French, Greek and British European parliamentary systems and the Swedish national parliamentary system. The changed variables are electoral type (plurality changed to PR in the UK), magnitude (France splitting the nationwide district into eight smaller districts), legal threshold (Greece introducing a three percent threshold) and counting method (d’Hondt was changed to modified Sainte-Laguë in Sweden). The radar plots from elections after and before the changes are drawn for all country cases. When quantifying the change, the change in the plots area that is created has also been calculated. Using these radar plots we can observe that the change in electoral system type, magnitude, and also to some extent legal threshold had an effect on overall proportionality and accessibility for small parties, while the change between the two highest averages counting method had none. The third article studies the success minority parties have had in nine electoral systems in European heterogeneous countries. This article aims to add more motivation as to why we should care how different sized parties are treated by the electoral systems. Since many of the parties that aspire to represent minorities in European countries are small, the possibilities for small parties are highlighted. The theory of consociational (or power-sharing) democracy suggests that, in heterogeneous societies, a proportional electoral system will provide the fairest treatment of minority parties. The OSCE Lund Recommendations propose a number of electoral system features, which would improve minority representation. In this article some party variables, namely the unity of the minority parties and the geographical concentration of the minorities were included among possible explanations. The conclusions are that the central points affecting minority success were indeed these non-electoral system variables rather than the electoral system itself. Moreover, the size of the party was a major factor governing success in all the systems investigated; large parties benefited in all the studied electoral systems. In the fourth article the proportionality profiles are again applied, but this time to district level results in Finnish parliamentary elections. The level of proportionality distortion is also studied by way of indices. The average magnitudes during the studied periodrange from 7.5 to 26.2 in the Finnish electoral districts and this opens up unequal opportunities for parties in different districts and affects the shape of the profiles. The intra-country case allows the focus to be placed on the effect of district magnitude, since all other electoral systems are kept constant in an intra-country study. The time span in the study is from 1962 to 2007, i.e. the time that the districts have largely been the same geographically. The plots and indices tell the same story, district magnitude and electoral alliances matter. The district magnitude is connected to the overall proportionality of the electoral districts according to both indices, and the profiles are, as expected, also closer to perfect proportionality in large districts. Alliances have helped some small parties to gain a much higher seat share than their respective vote share and these successes affect some of the profiles. The profiles also show a consistent pattern of benefits for the small parties who ally with the larger parties.

Is All Fair in Law and War? The Ambiguous Principle of Proportionality of Collateral Damage and the CIA Drone Attacks in Pakistan

Tutkielma käsittelee Yhdysvaltain CIAn miehittämättömiä lennokki-iskuja Pakistanissa kansainvälisen humanitaarisen oikeuden suhteellisuusperiaatteen näkökulmasta. Suhteellisuusperiaatteen mukaan aseellisista iskuista saatavan sotilaallisen hyödyn tulee olla suhteellinen verrattuna siviileille aiheutuvaan haittaan. CIAn iskuja Pakistanissa on kritisoitu, että ne eivät täytä suhteellisuusperiaatteen asettamia vaatimuksia. Tutkielmassa perehdytään ensinnäkin selvittämään ne velvollisuudet, jotka suhteellisuusperiaate asettaa hyökkääjille. Sen jälkeen CIAn lennokki-iskuja tutkitaan näiden velvollisuuksien valossa. Tutkielmassa pyritään selvittämään antaako suhteellisuusperiaatteen luomat oikeudelliset velvollisuudet riittävää suojaa Pakistanin siviileille lennokki-iskujen tuhoja vastaan. Lisäksi pyritään selvittämään, onko lennokki-iskuissa viitteitä suhteellisuusperiaatteen vastaisista iskuista. Tutkimusmenetelmänä käytetään positivistista lainopin metodia, jonka avulla selvitetään voimassa olevaa kansainvälisen humanitaarisen tapaoikeuden suhteellisuusperiaatteen sisältöä. Oikeudellisina lähteinä käytetään pääasiassa humanitaarista tapaoikeutta, mutta tulkinnallisena apuna myös kansainvälisiä sopimuksia sekä oikeuden päätöksiä. Lisäksi oikeudellinen kirjallisuus on tutkimuksessa tärkeässä asemassa. Tutkimuksessa päädytään siihen, että suhteellisuusperiaatteen asettamat velvollisuudet hyökkääjälle ovat niin epämääräiset, että ne eivät anna riittävää suojaa siviileille. Ensinnäkin hyökkääjä voi määrittää sotilaallisen hyödyn omien päämääriensä mukaisesti suhteellisuusanalyysissä. Lisäksi kynnys sille, mikä katsotaan suhteellisuusperiaatteen vastaisuudeksi on hyvin epämääräinen ja korkea. Tämän vuoksi varotoimenpiteet iskujen suunnittelussa ovat hyvin tärkeässä asemassa myös suhteellisuusanalyysissä. Kuitenkin jos hyökkääjä edes jossain määrin osoittaa, että on tehnyt iskut hyvässä uskossa niiden laillisuudesta, iskujen katsotaan yleensä olevan suhteellisuusperiaatteen mukaisia. CIAn lennokki-iskuissa Pakistanissa on viitteitä suhteellisuusperiaatteen vastaisuudesta erityisesti ”tunnusmerkki-iskujen” osalta. ”Tunnusmerkki-iskut” johtavat yleensä vain vähäiseen sotilaalliseen hyötyyn aiheuttaen silti siviiliuhreja. Lisäksi erityisesti tunnusmerkki-iskuissa edellytetään korkeampaa tarkkuutta varotoimenpiteissä. Kuitenkin useat siviiliuhrit voivat merkitä sitä, että näitä varotoimenpiteitä ei ole noudatettu iskuissa.

The Dalhousie Dentistry Story: A Case for Proportionality, Professionalism, and the Promotion of Moral Character

La tribune de l'éditeur / Editor's Soapbox

On the question of proportionality of the count of observed Scrapie cases and the size of holding

Background: The present paper investigates the question of a suitable basic model for the number of scrapie cases in a holding and applications of this knowledge to the estimation of scrapie-ffected holding population sizes and adequacy of control measures within holding. Is the number of scrapie cases proportional to the size of the holding in which case it should be incorporated into the parameter of the error distribution for the scrapie counts? Or, is there a different - potentially more complex - relationship between case count and holding size in which case the information about the size of the holding should be better incorporated as a covariate in the modeling? Methods: We show that this question can be appropriately addressed via a simple zero-truncated Poisson model in which the hypothesis of proportionality enters as a special offset-model. Model comparisons can be achieved by means of likelihood ratio testing. The procedure is illustrated by means of surveillance data on classical scrapie in Great Britain. Furthermore, the model with the best fit is used to estimate the size of the scrapie-affected holding population in Great Britain by means of two capture-recapture estimators: the Poisson estimator and the generalized Zelterman estimator. Results: No evidence could be found for the hypothesis of proportionality. In fact, there is some evidence that this relationship follows a curved line which increases for small holdings up to a maximum after which it declines again. Furthermore, it is pointed out how crucial the correct model choice is when applied to capture-recapture estimation on the basis of zero-truncated Poisson models as well as on the basis of the generalized Zelterman estimator. Estimators based on the proportionality model return very different and unreasonable estimates for the population sizes. Conclusion: Our results stress the importance of an adequate modelling approach to the association between holding size and the number of cases of classical scrapie within holding. Reporting artefacts and speculative biological effects are hypothesized as the underlying causes of the observed curved relationship. The lack of adjustment for these artefacts might well render ineffective the current strategies for the control of the disease.

The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions

The global temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 is often quantified by metrics such as equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response1. These approaches, however, do not account for carbon cycle feedbacks and therefore do not fully represent the net response of the Earth system to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Climate–carbon modelling experiments have shown that: (1) the warming per unit CO2 emitted does not depend on the background CO2 concentration2; (2) the total allowable emissions for climate stabilization do not depend on the timing of those emissions3, 4, 5; and (3) the temperature response to a pulse of CO2 is approximately constant on timescales of decades to centuries3, 6, 7, 8. Here we generalize these results and show that the carbon–climate response (CCR), defined as the ratio of temperature change to cumulative carbon emissions, is approximately independent of both the atmospheric CO2 concentration and its rate of change on these timescales. From observational constraints, we estimate CCR to be in the range 1.0–2.1 °C per trillion tonnes of carbon (Tt C) emitted (5th to 95th percentiles), consistent with twenty-first-century CCR values simulated by climate–carbon models. Uncertainty in land-use CO2 emissions and aerosol forcing, however, means that higher observationally constrained values cannot be excluded. The CCR, when evaluated from climate–carbon models under idealized conditions, represents a simple yet robust metric for comparing models, which aggregates both climate feedbacks and carbon cycle feedbacks. CCR is also likely to be a useful concept for climate change mitigation and policy; by combining the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, carbon sinks and climate–carbon feedbacks into a single quantity, the CCR allows CO2-induced global mean temperature change to be inferred directly from cumulative carbon emissions.

Do soldiers' lives matter? A view from proportionality

A military operation is about to take place during an ongoing international armed conflict; it can be carried out either by aerial attack, which is expected to cause the deaths of enemy civilians, or by using ground troops, which is expected to cause the deaths of fewer enemy civilians but is expected to result in more deaths of compatriot soldiers. Does the principle of proportionality in international humanitarian law impose a duty on an attacker to expose its soldiers to life-threatening risks in order to minimise or avert risks of incidental damage to enemy civilians? If such a duty exists, is it absolute or qualified? And if it is a qualified duty, what considerations may be taken into account in determining its character and scope? This article presents an analytic framework under the current international humanitarian law (IHL) legal structure, following a proportionality analysis. The proposed framework identifies five main positions for addressing the above queries. The five positions are arranged along two ‘axes’: a value ‘axis’, which identifies the value assigned to the lives of compatriot soldiers in relation to lives of enemy civilians; and a justification ‘axis’, which outlines the justificatory bases for assigning certain values to lives of compatriot soldiers and enemy civilians: intrinsic, instrumental or a combination thereof. The article critically assesses these positions, and favours a position which attributes a value to compatriot soldiers’ lives, premised on a justificatory basis which marries intrinsic considerations with circumscribed instrumental considerations, avoiding the indeterminacy and normative questionability entailed by more expansive instrumental considerations.