Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Measuring the Competitiveness of Elections

  • Gary W. Cox (a1), Jon H. Fiva (a2) and Daniel M. Smith (a3)

Abstract

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).

Copyright

Corresponding author

Footnotes

Hide All

Authors’ note: We thank Georgina Evans for research assistance, Royce Carroll, Olle Folke, Torben Iversen, Mark Kayser, Vincent Pons, Chi-lin Tsai, Janne Tukiainen, referees, and audience participants at the European Political Science Association meeting, Southern Political Science Association meeting, and UCSD for helpful comments, and Peter Selb for kindly sharing his replication data and codes. Replication materials for this article are available at the Political Analysis Dataverse as Cox, Fiva, and Smith (2019b).

Contributing Editor: Lonna Atkeson

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Abou-Chadi, T., and Orlowski, M.. 2016. “Moderate as Necessary: The Role of Electoral Competitiveness and Party Size in Explaining Parties’ Policy Shifts.” The Journal of Politics 78(3):868881.
Adcock, R., and Collier, D.. 2001. “Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research.” American Political Science Review 95(3):529546.
Aldrich, J. 1993. “Rational Choice and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 37(1):246278.
Bhatti, Y., Dahlgaard, J. O., Hansen, J. H., and Hansen, K. M.. 2019. “Is Door-to-Door Canvassing Effective in Europe? Evidence from a Meta-study across Six European Countries.” British Journal of Political Science 49(1):279290.
Blais, A., and Lago, I.. 2009. “A General Measure of District Competitiveness.” Electoral Studies 28:94100.
Carson, J. L., Engstrom, E. J., and Roberts, J. M.. 2007. “Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress.” American Political Science Review 101(2):289301.
Cox, G. W. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, G. W. 1988. “Closeness and Turnout: A Methodological Note.” The Journal of Politics 50(3):768775.
Cox, G. W. 1999. “Electoral Rules and the Calculus of Mobilization.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24(3):387419.
Cox, G. W. 2015. “Electoral Rules, Mobilization, and Turnout.” Annual Review of Political Science 18(1):4968.
Cox, G. W., Rosenbluth, F. M., and Thies, M. F.. 1998. “Mobilization, Social Networks, and Turnout.” World Politics 50(3):447474.
Cox, G. W., Fiva, J. H., and Smith, D. M.. 2016. “The Contraction Effect: How Proportional Representation Affects Mobilization and Turnout.” The Journal of Politics 78(4):12491263.
Cox, G. W., Fiva, J. H., and Smith, D. M.. 2019a. “Parties, Legislators, and the Origins of Proportional Representation.” Comparative Political Studies 52(1):102133.
Cox, G. W., Fiva, J. H., and Smith, D. M.. 2019b. “Replication Data for: Measuring the Competitiveness of Elections.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/FYRQQE, Harvard Dataverse, V1.
Cox, G. W., and Munger, M. C.. 1989. “Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in the 1982 U.S. House Elections.” American Political Science Review 83(1):217231.
Dahl, R. A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dalton, R. J., Farrell, D. M., and McAllister, I.. 2013. Political Parties & Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Denver, D. T., and Hands, H. T. G.. 1974. “Marginality and Turnout in British General Elections.” British Journal of Political Science 4(1):1735.
Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy . New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Dropp, K., and Peskowitz, Z.. 2012. “Electoral Security and the Provision of Constituency Service.” The Journal of Politics 74(1):220234.
Feigenbaum, J. J., Fouirnaies, A., and Hall, A. B.. 2017. “The Majority-Party Disadvantage: Revising Theories of Legislative Organization.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12(3):269300.
Fiorina, M. P. 1973. “Electoral Margins, Constituency Influence, and Policy Moderation: A Critical Assessment.” American Politics Quarterly 1(4):479498.
Fiva, J. H., and Smith, D. M.. 2017. “Norwegian Parliamentary Elections, 1906–2013: Representation and Turnout Across Four Electoral Systems.” West European Politics 40(6):13731391.
Folke, O. 2014. “Shades of Brown and Green: Party Effects in Proportional Election Systems.” Journal of the European Economic Association 12(5):13611395.
Franklin, M. N. 2004. Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freier, R., and Odendahl, C.. 2015. “Do Parties Matter? Estimating the Effect of Political Power in Multi-party Systems.” European Economic Review 80:310328.
Gerring, J., Palmer, M., Teorell, J., and Zarecki, D.. 2015. “Demography and Democracy: A Global, District-level Analysis of Electoral Contestation.” American Political Science Review 109(3):574591.
Griffin, J. D. 2006. “Electoral Competition and Democratic Responsiveness: A Defense of the Marginality Hypothesis.” The Journal of Politics 68(4):911921.
Grofman, B., and Selb, P.. 2009. “A Fully General Index of Political Competition.” Electoral Studies 28(2):291296.
Grofman, B., and Selb, P.. 2011. “Turnout and the (Effective) Number of Parties at the National and District Levels: A Puzzle-Solving Approach.” Party Politics 17(1):93117.
Hall, A. B., and Snyder, J. M. Jr. 2015. “How Much of the Incumbency Advantage is Due to Scare-Off?.” Political Science Research and Methods 3(3):493514.
Herrera, H., Morelli, M., and Palfrey, T.. 2014. “Turnout and Power Sharing.” The Economic Journal 124(574):F131F162.
Karp, J. A., Banducci, S. A., and Bowler, S.. 2008. “Getting Out the Vote: Party Mobilization in Comparative Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science 38(1):91112.
Kayser, M. A., and Lindstädt, R.. 2015. “A Cross-National Measure of Electoral Competitiveness.” Political Analysis 23:242253.
Kotakorpi, K., Poutvaara, P., and Terviö, M.. 2017. “Returns to Office in National and Local Politics: A Bootstrap Method and Evidence from Finland.” The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 33(3):413442.
Lizzeri, A., and Persico, N.. 2004. “Why did the Elites Extend the Suffrage? Democracy and the Scope of Government, with an Application to Britain’s ‘Age of Reform’.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(2):707765.
Rainey, C. 2015. “Strategic Mobilization: Why Proportional Representation Decreases Voter Mobilization.” Electoral Studies 37:8698.
Riker, W. H., and Ordeshook, P. C.. 1968. “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62:2542.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy . New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
Selb, P. 2009. “A Deeper Look at the Proportionality-Turnout Nexus.” Comparative Political Studies 42(4):527548.
Seymour, C. 1915. Electoral Reform in England and Wales . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Snyder, J. M. Jr, and Strömberg, D.. 2010. “Press Coverage and Political Accountability.” Journal of Political Economy 118(2):355408.
Stokes, S. C., Dunning, T., Nazareno, M., and Brusco, V.. 2013. Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Trochim, W. M. K., and Donnelly, J. P.. 2008. The Research Methods Knowledge Base . 3rd edn. Mason, OH: Atomic Dog/Cengage Learning.
Wagner, A. 2017. “A Micro Perspective on Political Competition: Electoral Availability in the European Electorates.” Acta Politica 52(4):502520.
MathJax
MathJax is a JavaScript display engine for mathematics. For more information see http://www.mathjax.org.

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Cox et al. supplementary material
Cox et al. supplementary material 1

 Unknown (756 KB)
756 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed