Many of the small island democracies of the South Pacific are natural laboratories for constitutional and electoral experimentation, but have tended to be ignored by comparative political science research. This article examines one apparently unknown case of electoral innovation from the region: the use of Borda count voting procedures for elections in the Pacific Island states of Nauru and Kiribati. It introduces the basic concept of the Borda count and its relation to other electoral systems, and surveys arguments about the virtues and drawbacks of Borda count electoral systems. It then discusses in some detail the way that the Borda count is used for elections in Nauru and Kiribati, including the political impact of the system, and empirical examples of different types of strategic behaviour at work. It concludes by examining the broader significance of these cases for comparative studies of democracy, elections, social choice, and voting theory.
Beaglehole, J.C. (1966). The Exploration of the Pacific. London: A. & C. Black.
2.
Birch, A.H. (1964). Representative and Responsible Government. London: Allen and Unwin.
3.
Black, D. (1958). The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Cox, G. (1987). “Electoral Equilibrium under Alternative Voting Institutions.”American Journal of Political Science, 31(1): 82-108.
5.
Crocombe, R. and C. Giese (1988). “Nauru: The Politics of Phosphate.” In Micronesian Politics (A. Ali and R. Crocombe, eds). Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.
6.
Daunou, P.C.F.(1995) [1803]. “A Paper on Elections by Ballot.” In Classics of Social Choice (I. McLean and A.B. Urken, eds). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Dummett, M. (1997). Principles of Electoral Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
Dunleavy, P., H. Margetts, B. O'Duffy, and S. Weir (1997). “Making Votes Count: Replaying the 1990s General Elections Under Alternative Electoral Systems.” Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom, Human Rights Centre, University of Essex.
9.
Emerson, P. (1998). Beyond the Tyranny of the Majority. Belfast: The De Borda Institute.
10.
Fabricius, W. (1992). ”Nauru 1888-1900: An Account in German and English based on official records of the Colonial Section of the German Foreign Office held by the Deutsches Zentralarchiv in Potsdam.”Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
11.
Freedom House (1999). Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1998-1999. New York: Freedom House.
12.
Green, D.P. and I. Shapiro (1994). Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, ct: Yale University Press.
13.
Grofman, B. , S. Lee, E. Winckler, and B. Woodall (eds) (1999). Elections in Japan, Korea and Taiwan under the Single Non-Transferable Vote: The Comparative Study of an Embedded Institution. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
14.
Hare, T. (1873). The Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.
15.
Hart, J. (1992). Proportional Representation: Critics of the British Electoral System 1820-1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
16.
Horowitz, D.L. (1991). A Democratic South Africa? Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
Joslyn, R.A. (1976). “The Impact of Decision Rules in Multi-candidate Campaigns: The Case of the 1972 Democratic Presidential Nomination.”Public Choice, 25: 1-17.
18.
Lal, B.V. and P. Larmour (eds) (1997). Electoral Systems in Divided Societies: the Fiji Constitution Review. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies.
19.
Larmour, P. (1994). “`A Foreign Flower?' Democracy in the South Pacific.”Pacific Studies, 17(1): 45-77.
20.
LeDuc, L. , R.G. Niemi, and P. Norris (eds) (1996). Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.
21.
Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven, ct: Yale University Press.
22.
Lijphart, A. (1991). “The Alternative Vote: A Realistic Alternative for South Africa?”Politikon, 18(2): 91-101.
23.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, ct: Yale University Press.
24.
McLean, I. (1988). “Ships that Pass in the Night: Electoral Reform and Social Choice Theory.”Political Quarterly, 59: 63-71.
25.
McLean, I. and F. Hewitt (eds) (1994). Condorcet: Foundations of Social Choice and Political Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
26.
McLean, I. and J. London (1990). “The Borda and Condorcet Principles: Three Medieval Applications.”Social Choice and Welfare, 7: 99-108.
27.
McLean, I. and A. McMillan (1996). “19th Century Debates on the Properties of Electoral Systems and their Implications for 20th-Century Debate.” Paper presented to the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
28.
McLean, I. , A. McMillan and B. Monroe (eds) (1998). “Editors' Introduction.” In The Theory of Committees and Elections (by D. Black) and Committee Decisions with Complementary Valuation (by D. Black and R.A. Newing), rev. 2nd edn.Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29.
McLean, I. and A.B. Urken (eds) (1995). Classics of Social Choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
30.
Mehra, N.N. (1990). “Practice and Procedure of the Parliament of Nauru”. Nauru: Parliament of Nauru.
31.
Merrill, S. (1984). “A Comparison of the Efficiency of Multicandidate Electoral Systems.”American Journal of Political Science, 28: 23-48.
32.
Powell, G.B. (1982). Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.
33.
Reilly, B. (1997). “Electoral Systems of the South Pacific.” Paper presented at the South Pacific Electoral Administrators' Conference, Suva, Fiji, 8-10 October.
34.
Reilly, B. (2001). Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Reilly, B. and M. Gratschew (forthcoming). “Nauru.” In Elections in Asia: A Data Handbook (D. Nohlen, F. Grotz, and C. Hartmann, eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
Rokkan, S. (1968). “Electoral Systems.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (D.L. Sills, ed.). New York: Macmillan.
37.
Saari, D.G. (1994). Geometry of Voting. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
38.
Smith, B. (1960). European Vision and the South Pacific: A Study in the History of Art and Ideas 1768-1850. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
Stepan, A. and C. Skach (1993). “Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarism versus Presidentialism.”World Politics, 46(1): 1-22.
40.
Tabarrok, A. and L. Spector (1999). “Would the Borda Count Have Avoided the Civil War?”Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11(2): 261-288.
41.
Van Trease, H. (1993). “The Presidential Election.” In Atoll Politics: The Republic of Kiribati (H. Van Trease, ed). Christchurch and Suva: Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury and Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.
42.
Van Trease, H. (ed.) (1995). Melanesian Politics: Stael blong Vanuatu. Christchurch and Suva: Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury and Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.
43.
Viviani, N. (1970). Nauru, Phosphate and Political Progress. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
44.
Wesley-Smith, T. (1994). New Directions for Pacific Islands Studies. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
45.
Withey, L. (1987). Voyages of Discovery: Captain Cook and the Exploration of the Pacific. Berkeley: University of California Press.
