Democracy measured: Simon Otjes on political science and practice
Political scientists study topics that affect society, but their work often remains out of the spotlight. Not always: the research of Leiden political scientist Simon Otjes does have a visible impact.
The Leiden political scientist regularly advises the House of Representatives and the Ministry of the Interior, among others. We spoke to him about collaborating with your subject of study, the Otjes Formula, tweaking the electoral system, and the appeal of the mayor's profession.
Otjes' Formula
In 2021, at the request of the Ministry of the Interior, Otjes conducted research into involving Dutch citizens living abroad in the composition of the Senate. 'Perhaps the most unusual assignment I've had so far,' he says. 'Very technical and, for most people, political scientists included, probably boring. So, in a nutshell: the Senate is elected by the Provincial Councils and, since 2017, by electoral colleges in Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba. I looked at how an electoral college could be composed for Dutch citizens living abroad and how much weight the votes of this group of people should carry. This resulted in, among other things, the “formula for calculating the vote value for the non-resident electoral college”. This is now known as the “Otjes Formula”, which I find quite amusing.'
What levers can we pull?
Another consultancy assignment, also concerning democratic representation, turned out differently. Otjes explains: ‘Last summer, when the coalition agreement between the PVV, VVD, BBB and NSC had just been published, I received an email from the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK). They saw the outline agreement, which included a new electoral system, and wondered: ‘If we want to achieve this, what levers can we pull?’ The Ministry has a great deal of legal expertise, but few quantitative political scientists. So, together with Henk van der Kolk (University of Amsterdam and Twente) and Karel Kroese (Twente), I started puzzling and calculating.
Some context: the outgoing Schoof cabinet wanted to reform the electoral system. The NSC and BBB in particular argued for a stronger regional link between voters and MPs: less Randstad, more provincial vote. The Netherlands currently has a system of proportional representation: seats are allocated according to the national vote total, regardless of where the votes come from.
The NSC and BBB proposed that part of the House be elected through constituencies, depending on the population. The rest of the seats – “equalisation seats” – would then restore the national balance. How to make such a system fair and workable is precisely the kind of question that Simon Otjes has been grappling with since his student days.
'We set out to find out,' Otjes explains, 'under what circumstances and with what precise structure of such an electoral system party political proportionality is guaranteed or threatened. And we examined whether the new system does indeed contribute to better geographical representation within the House of Commons.'
To answer these questions, Otjes and his colleagues 'drew up a large number of scenarios and tested them against all election results since 1998. We also conducted a few ‘stress tests’ with hypothetical voting ratios to see how different rules would play out in unusual, or rather extreme, election results.'
The devil is in the details
In addition to a voluminous report, this also resulted in a number of publications aimed at the general public. And the research culminated in a concrete proposal for changes to the electoral system. Except... then the Schoof Cabinet fell. And so the proposal ended up on the proverbial back burner.
But the work was not in vain, Otjes believes: ‘I think we succeeded in showing how complex an electoral system is. The devil is in the details: “turning a small dial” can have major consequences. For example, the consequences of introducing an electoral threshold are often underestimated in political circles in The Hague.
‘“Turning a small dial” can have major consequences.’
The political scientist is quick to add that the change to the electoral law would not automatically have made the Netherlands more democratic. ‘There are a lot of factors that have not been taken into account. Think, for example, of the variation in the age of members of parliament. Or the under-representation of women. You could also debate the possible adverse consequences for small parties. And the same applies to the question of whether such a structural change would also bring about a different culture,’ Otjes puts into perspective. 'The fact that we have proposed a preferred option does not mean that we agree with a change in the electoral system in all respects. But it is great fun to work on this puzzle.'
Mayor positions
A recent example of “consultancy work” is Otjes' research into the popularity of the office of mayor. ‘The Ministry of the Interior noticed a decline in the number of applicants for mayor positions. Why is that? Opinion makers were quick to offer an explanation: administrators are increasingly reluctant to take on positions in which they are increasingly exposed to personal threats.’
Together with colleague Zahra Runderkamp (then at the University of Amsterdam, now an independent researcher), Otjes conducted extensive research. And they painted a more nuanced picture. ‘One of our findings was that the decline in interest in the mayoralty is actually not that bad. Certainly when you compare it to the overall shortage on the labour market. And the responses to threats vary greatly. Yes, we see cases of flight. But we also see administrators who choose to fight.’
'As a scientist, you look a little further,“ says Otjes. 'For example, we also took into account whether the design of the application procedure plays a role, or how pleasant the living environment is in the municipality with a mayoral vacancy.” As with the calculation of a new electoral system, the art of the social scientist here is to do justice to a complex reality. ‘Numerous factors play a role, some of which are quite difficult to analyse and weigh up. That requires creativity, perseverance and sometimes also making difficult choices.’
Contributing to the debate
Of course, not every piece of research makes a difference in practice. Otjes: ‘Some papers disappear into the infamous desk drawer. Fortunately, I am able to contribute to the debate here and there. This is also thanks to media attention and the fact that I can still do jobs for clients such as the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations.
‘The beauty of political science as a field, in my opinion, is that you are not stuck with one type of approach, one way of thinking.’
What drives Otjes? ‘I have been fascinated by politics since I was young. The beauty of political science as a field, in my opinion, is that you are not stuck with one type of approach, one way of thinking. For me, there is nothing more enjoyable than opening a new dataset. What do I see? What questions does it raise? How could I answer them? I like to try things out, and that sometimes leads to surprising insights.'
‘Pessimistic about the world; optimistic about the Netherlands’
Because democracy is a key concept in Otjes' work, we ask him whether we should be concerned about democracy. ‘Other colleagues know more about this, but I think the key question is which institutions exist and whether they concentrate or distribute power. In the United States, there are currently few checks on power and plenty of room for a president whose party has a majority in the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. Add to that an increasingly hostile political culture and you end up in dangerous waters. Fortunately, in the Netherlands we still value proportionality, cooperation between parties and the distribution of power. I was not a fan of the Schoof cabinet, especially not of the education cuts, but I am not sounding the alarm bells. I am pessimistic about the world; optimistic about democracy in the Netherlands.
About Social Sciences Connect
Each month, we publish an article showcasing how social science research and education contribute to solving societal challenges. Researchers, lecturers, students, and societal partners work together to make knowledge accessible and to make a difference. Through open science and engaged education, we strengthen the connection between the university and society. In this way, we build a future together in which science and society go hand in hand.