Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:20:40.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voting Equilibria Under Proportional Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2014

SEOK-JU CHO
SEOK-JU CHO*
Affiliation:
Yale University
*
Seok-ju Cho is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Yale University, 115 Prospect Street, P.O. Box 208301, New Haven, CT 06520 (seok-ju.cho@yale.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article studies the consequences of strategic voting by outcome-oriented voters in elections under proportional representation (PR). I develop a model of elections under PR, in which voters choose among an arbitrary finite number of parties, and the policy outcome is determined in a postelection bargaining stage. I use a new solution concept, robust equilibrium, which greatly mitigates the well-known problem of indeterminate predictions in multicandidate competition. Applying the equilibrium concept to the model, I find that PR promotes representation of small parties in general, even when voters are strategic. However, the median voter plays a critical role in shaping policy outcomes, which reflects the majoritarian nature of parliamentary policy making rules. Thus, PR may not be incompatible with the majoritarian vision of representative democracy if voters’ main concern is policy outcomes.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 108 , Issue 2 , May 2014 , pp. 281 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., Blais, Andre, Diamond, Matthew, Diskin, Abraham, Indridason, Indridi H., Lee, Daniel J., and Levine, Renan. 2010. “Comparing Strategic Voting under FPTP and PR.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (1): 61–90.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garret. 2006. “Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 513–29.Google Scholar
Adams, James, and Merrill, Samuel III. 1999. “Party Policy Equilibrium for Alternative Spatial Voting Model: An Application to the Norwegian Storting.” European Journal of Political Research 36: 235–55.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John, Blais, André, Indridason, Indiridi H., and Levine, Renan. 2004. Coalition Consideration and the Vote. In The 2003 Israeli Election, eds. Asher, Arian and Shamir, Michael. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 180–211.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David. 2000. “Redistributing Income under Proportional Representation.” Journal of Political Economy 108 (6): 1235–69.Google Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey S.. 1988. “Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes.” American Political Science Review 82 (2): 405–22.Google Scholar
Bargsted, Matias A., and Kedar, Orit. 2009. “Coalition-Targeted Dubergerian Voting: How Expectations Affect Voter Choice under Proportional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 307–23.Google Scholar
Baron, David P., and Diermeier, Daniel. 2001. “Elections, Governments, and Parliaments in Proportional Representation Systems.” Quaterly Journal of Economics 116 (3): 933–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P., Diermeier, Daniel, and Fong, Pohan. 2012. “A Dynamic Theory of Parliamentary Democracy.” Economic Theory 49 (3): 703–38.Google Scholar
Bergman, Torbjörn. 2000. “Sweden: When Minority Cabinets Are the Rule and Majority Coaltions the Exception.” In Coalition Government in Western Europe, eds. Müller, Wolfgang C. and Strøm, Kaare. New York: Oxford University Press, 192–230.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Aldrich, John, Indridason, Indridi H., and Levine, Renan. 2006. “Do Voters Care about Government Coalitions? Testing Downs’ Pessimistic Conclusion.” Party Politics 12 (6): 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Seok-ju. 2014. “Three-Party Competition in Parliamentary Democracy with Proportional Representation.” Public Choice. DOI: 10.1007/s11127-014-0165-3.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1996. “Strategic Voting Under Proportional Representation.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 12 (2): 299–324.Google Scholar
Declair, Edward G. 1999. Politics on the Fringe: The Peoples, Policies, and Organization of the French National Front. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
De Sinopoli, Francesco, and Iannantuoni, Giovanna. 2007. “A Spatial Model Where Proportional Rule Leads to Two-Party Equilibria.” International Journal of Game Theory 35 (2): 267–86.Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., May, Jeff, and Armstrong II, David A.. 2010. “Coalition-directed Voting in Multiparty Democracies.” American Political Science Review 104 (4): 698–719.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Gerber, Anke, and Ortuno-Ortín, Ignacio. 1998. “Political Compromise and Endogenous Formation of Coalitions.” Social Choice and Welfare 15 (3): 445–54.Google Scholar
Gschwend, Thomas. 2007. “Ticket-splitting and Strategic Voting under Mixed Electoral Rules: Evidence from Germany.” European Journal of Political Research 46 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Hermens, Ferdinand A. 1941. Democracy or Anarchy? A Study of Proportional Representation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Karp, Jeffrey A.. 2010. “Voters and Coalition Governments.” Electoral Studies 29: 299–307.Google Scholar
Indridason, Indridi H. 2011. “Proportional Representation, Majoritarian Legislatures, and Coalitional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (4): 955–72.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben. 1994. “The Logics of Electoral Politics: Spatial, Directional, and Mobilization Effects.” Comparative Political Studies 27 (2): 155–89.Google Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. “When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections.” American Political Science Review 99 (2): 185–99.Google Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2009. Voting for Policy, Not Parties: How Voters Compensate for Power Sharing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2012. “Voter Choices and Parliamentary Politics: An Emerging Research Agenda.” British Journal of Political Science 42 (3): 537–53.Google Scholar
Klumpp, Tilman. 2010. “Strategic Voting and Conservatism in Legislative Elections.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Meffert, Michael F., Huber, Sascha, Gschwend, Thomas, and Pappi, Franz Urban. 2011. “More than Wishful Thinking: Causes and Consequences of Voters’ Electoral Expectations about Parties and Coalitions.” Electoral Studies 30: 804–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John S. 1991. Considerations on Representative Government. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Möller, Tommy. 1999. “The Swedish Election 1998: A Protest Vote and the Birth of a New Political Landscape?” Scandinavian Political Science 22 (3): 261–76.Google Scholar
Ortuno-Ortín, Ignacio. 1997. “A Spatial Model of Political Competition and Proportional Representation.” Social Choice and Welfare 14 (3): 427–38.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr., and Vanberg, George S.. 2000. “Election Laws, Disproportionality, and the Median Correspondence: Implications for Two Visions of Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science 30 (3): 383–411.Google Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1978. “Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo.” Public Choice 33 (4): 27–43.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Cho Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Cho Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 131.2 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.