scholarly journals Measuring the Competitiveness of Elections

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary W. Cox ◽  
Jon H. Fiva ◽  
Daniel M. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Electoral Competition ◽  
Proportional Representation ◽  
Vote Share ◽  
District Level ◽  
Representation Systems ◽  
Runoff Elections ◽  
Electoral Competitiveness

The concept of electoral competition plays a central role in many subfields of political science, but no consensus exists on how to measure it. One key challenge is how to conceptualize and measure electoral competitiveness at the district level across alternative electoral systems. Recent efforts to meet this challenge have introduced general measures of competitiveness which rest on explicit calculations about how votes translate into seats, but also implicit assumptions about how effort maps into votes (and how costly effort is). We investigate how assumptions about the effort-to-votes mapping affect the units in which competitiveness is best measured, arguing in favor of vote-share-denominated measures and against vote-share-per-seat measures. Whether elections under multimember proportional representation systems are judged more or less competitive than single-member plurality or runoff elections depends directly on the units in which competitiveness is assessed (and hence on assumptions about how effort maps into votes).

Wahlsystemreform in Deutschland

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peggy Matauschek
Keyword(s):  
Party System ◽  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Parallel Systems ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
Proportional Representation ◽  
Electoral Reform ◽  
Suitable Alternative ◽  
Representation Systems ◽  
District Magnitude ◽  
Alternative Vote

Is plurality or majority electoral reform a sensible option in Germany’s muddled electoral system debate? Yes, it is. Since Germany’s mixed-member proportional system fails to concentrate the party system in a sufficient way, Peggy Matauschek searches for a suitable alternative to the principle of proportional representation. She discusses the following options according to their contextual conditions: single-member plurality and majority electoral systems—like the alternative vote system—, parallel systems, proportional representation systems with a low district magnitude and majority bonus systems. In light of its balanced performance, the study advocates the introduction of a system with a majority bonus for a coalition.

Understanding the Impact of Electoral Systems on Women's Representation

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (03) ◽  
pp. 379-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank C. Thames
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Vote Share ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Women's Representation ◽  
Women’S Representation ◽  
The Impact

The study of electoral systems is a key area of research within political science. In part, the attention paid to electoral systems reflects their importance to democratic political systems. Electoral systems define “what constitutes” a vote, establish “a rule for how votes are totaled,” and create a mechanism for “translating vote share into seat allocations” for representative institutions (Bawn 1993, 966). These roles mean that electoral systems impact not only how interests are represented, but also how accountability is structured.

Electoral Systems and the Substantive Representation of Marginalized Groups: Evidence from Women’s Issue Bills in South Korea

2021 ◽  
pp. 106591292110282
Author(s):  
Yesola Kweon ◽  
Josh M. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Proportional Representation ◽  
Electoral Rules ◽  
Substantive Representation ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Representation Systems ◽  
Marginalized Groups ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
The Relationship

How do electoral rules shape the substantive representation of traditionally underrepresented groups? Using an original dataset of introduced and passed bills in the Korean National Assembly, which has both single-member districts and proportional representation, we examine the extent to which institutions condition the relationship between lawmaker gender and the substantive representation of women. While women lawmakers engage in higher levels of substantive representation of women, proportional representation allows both women and men to introduce more women’s issue bills than their counterparts elected through single-member districts. Furthermore, legislators elected through proportional representation are more effective at achieving passage of women’s issue legislation when compared with those elected in single-member districts, and this effect is especially pronounced for men. Our findings show that electoral systems matter for the representation of marginalized groups and that proportional representation systems allow both female and male politicians to increase their substantive representation of women.

Party nomination strategies in flexible-list systems

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 589-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey André ◽  
Sam Depauw ◽  
Matthew S Shugart ◽  
Roman Chytilek
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Literature ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Proportional Representation ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Representation Systems

A paradox in the comparative literature on electoral systems is that one of the most common systems in Europe – flexible-list proportional representation systems – may be the least understood. Any study of flexible-list systems must start by acknowledging a puzzle: why candidates spend time and effort striving to win preference votes when typically these votes make no difference between election and defeat. Offering the first comprehensive multi-country test of this key puzzle, we provide evidence from Belgium, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia that parties will promote to better list ranks in the next election those candidates who are successful at winning preference votes, thereby improving their prospects of election in the longer term and incentivizing them to cultivate personal reputations. Our findings have important implications for party scholars and practitioners when designing, or reforming, political institutions.

Plurality Maximization vs Vote Maximization: A Spatial Analysis with Variable Participation

1970 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 772-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melvin J. Hinich ◽  
Peter C. Ordeshook
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Analysis ◽  
Electoral Competition ◽  
Spatial Models ◽  
Proportional Representation ◽  
Party Competition ◽  
Representation Systems

Spatial models of party competition constitute a recent and incrementally developing literature which seeks to explore the relationships between citizens' decisions and candidates' strategies. Despite the mathematical and deductive rigor of this approach, it is only now that political scientists can begin to see the incorporation of those considerations which less formal analyses identify as salient, and perhaps crucial, features of election contests.One such consideration concerns the candidates' objectives. Specifically, spatial analysis often confuses the distinction between candidates who maximize votes and candidates who maximize plurality. Downs and Garvey, for example, assume explicitly that candidates maximize votes, though plurality maximization is clearly the assumption which Garvey actually employs, while Downs frequently assumes that vote maximization, plurality maximization, and the goal of winning are equivalent. Downs, nevertheless, attempts to disentangle these objectives, observing that plurality maximization is the appropriate objective for candidates in a single-member district, while vote maximization is appropriate in proportional representation systems with many parties. All subsequent spatial analysis research, however, assumes either implicitly or explicitly that candidates maximize plurality. If Downs is correct, therefore, this research may not be relevant for a general understanding of electoral competition in diverse constitutional or historical circumstances. The question then is whether those strategies that maximize votes differ from those strategies that maximize plurality.

Strategic Voting Versus Sincere Voting

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damien Bol ◽  
Tom Verthé
Keyword(s):  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Strategic Voting ◽  
Proportional Representation ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Class ◽  
Electoral Outcome ◽  
Representation Systems ◽  
The Government ◽  
Sincere Voting

People do not always vote for the party that they like the most. Sometimes, they choose to vote for another one because they want to maximize their influence on the outcome of the election. This behavior driven by strategic considerations is often labeled as “strategic voting.” It is opposed to “sincere voting,” which refers to the act of voting for one’s favorite party. Strategic voting can take different forms. It can consist in deserting a small party for a bigger one that has more chances of forming the government, or to the contrary, deserting a big party for a smaller one in order to send a signal to the political class. More importantly the strategies employed by voters differ across electoral systems. The presence of frequent government coalitions in proportional representation systems gives different opportunities, or ways, for people to influence the electoral outcome with their vote. In total, the literature identifies four main forms of strategic voting. Some of them are specific to some electoral systems; others apply to all.

Electoral Systems and the Number of Parties in Postcommunist States

1999 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 359-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert G. Moser
Keyword(s):  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Electoral System ◽  
Proportional Representation ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Standard Pattern ◽  
Representation Systems ◽  
Party Institutionalization ◽  
Number Of Parties ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Over Time

Scholars studying electoral systems have consistently found that single-member plurality elections tend to constrain the number of parties operating in a polity to a much greater extent than multimember proportional representation systems. This article tests this hypothesis in the post-communist context by examining the effects of proportional representation and single-member district elections on the number of parties in five postcommunist states. It is shown that some postcommunist states, most notably Poland and Hungary, have followed the standard pattern of party consolidation over time in reaction to incentives of electoral systems, while others, most notably Russia and Ukraine, have not. The author argues that the different effects of electoral systems can be attributed to different levels of party institutionalization found in postcommunist states.These findings have policy implications. Under conditions of extreme party underdevelopment, the electoral system that promotes the use of party labels—proportional representation—may be more effective than the plurality system in constraining the number of parties, provided a legal threshold is used. This runs counter to the conventional wisdom that plurality elections offer the greatest constraint on the number of parties.

scholarly journals Electoral systems and income inequality: a tale of political equality

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Izaskun Zuazu
Keyword(s):  
Income Inequality ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Instrumental Variable ◽  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Proportional Representation ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Representation Systems ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Mixed Systems

AbstractThe link between democracy and within-country income inequality remains an unresolved quest in the literature of political economy. To look into this debate, I propose exploring the implications of electoral systems, rather than political regimes, on income inequality. I surmise that proportional representation systems should be associated with lower income inequality than majoritarian or mixed systems. Further, I conjecture that the relationship between electoral systems and income inequality hinges on the de facto distribution of real political power, namely political equality. I use data on 85 countries covering the period 1960–2016 and specify models able to capture the persistence and mean reversion of income inequality. The estimates fail to significantly associate democracy with income inequality, and find other political institutions to significantly shape income inequality. The paper finds a robust association between more proportional systems and lower income inequality. However, this association depends on political equality. Changes towards proportional representation systems seem to lower income inequality at low and medium levels of political equality. Strikingly, instrumental variable estimates show that changes in electoral systems in political equal societies increases income inequality.

Interaction Effects in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems

2002 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 1027-1053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen E. Cox ◽  
Leonard J. Schoppa
Keyword(s):  
Centrifugal Force ◽  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Proportional Representation ◽  
District Level ◽  
The Past ◽  
Electoral Strategies ◽  
Elite Level ◽  
Election Results ◽  
Number Of Parties ◽  
Mixed Systems

The past decade has witnessed a surprising growth in the popularity of mixed-member electoral systems. Under these systems, voters choose representatives simultaneously under both proportional representation (PR) and single-member district plurality (SMDP) rules. It is widely accepted that SMDP rules tend to winnow competition down toward two large parties, and evidence from mixed systems suggests that this Duvergerian “gravity” reduces the number of parties surviving SMDP competition under mixed systems as well. Nevertheless, we argue, simultaneous balloting under PR rules softens this winnowing effect, operating as a “centrifugal force” that prevents Duvergerian gravity from reducing competition to the degree it does under pure SMDP systems. Thus, these newsystems produce effects unanticipated by their designers. To test for the presence of this centrifugal force, we examine elite-level electoral strategies in Germany, Japan, and Italy and compare district-level SMDP election results from pure systems with those of mixed-member systems.

Electoral Systems and Campaign Finance

2017 ◽  
pp. 532-554
Author(s):  
Joel W. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Political Corruption ◽  
Campaign Spending ◽  
Vote Share ◽  
District Level ◽  
Campaign Financing

Studies that emphasize the importance of legislative electoral systems for campaign finance mostly fit into one of two groups. One literature identifies consequences of electoral systems that foster intraparty competition, including high levels of campaign spending and campaign finance–motivated pork, particularism, and political corruption. The second literature studies “spending effects” (i.e., vote-share gains per unit of expenditure), especially whether they differ between incumbents and challengers. Although both literatures pay some attention to how electoral systems affect campaign financing at the district level, that subject is poorly understood. This chapter emphasizes two topics that merit study: how electoral systems influence spending-votes patterns among incumbents and how electoral coordination may concentrate funds on only M + 1 candidates per district.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document