Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-zmlw7 Total loading time: 0.222 Render date: 2021-06-18T00:48:32.841Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Linking Party Preferences and the Composition of Government: A New Standard for Evaluating the Performance of Electoral Democracy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2016

Abstract

We propose a new standard for evaluating the performance of electoral democracies: the correspondence between citizens’ party preferences and the party composition of governments that are formed after elections. We develop three criteria for assessing such correspondence: the proportion of citizens whose most preferred party is in government, whether the party that is most liked overall is in government, and how much more positively governing parties are rated than non-governing parties. We pay particular attention to the last criterion, which takes into account how each citizen feels about each of the parties as well as the intensity of their preferences. We find that proportional representation systems perform better on the first criterion. Majoritarian systems do better on the other two.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

André Blais is Professor in the Department of Political Science at Université de Montréal, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, C. P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada (andre.blais@umontreal.ca). Eric Guntermann is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Political Science at Université de Montréal, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, C. P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada (eric.guntermann@umontreal.ca). Marc. A. Bodet is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Université Laval, Pavillon Charles-De Koninck 1030, avenue des Sciences-Humaines, local 4437, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, G1V 0A6, Canada (marcandre.bodet@pol.ulaval.ca). The authors would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship for their support. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.78

References

Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., Blais, André, 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):4361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 2000. ‘A New Approach for Modelling Strategic Voting in Multiparty Elections’. British Journal of Political Science 30(1):5775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avdeenko, Alexandra, and Gilligan, Michael J.. 2015. ‘International Interventions to Build Social Capital: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Sudan’. American Political Science Review 109(3):427449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André. 1991. ‘The Debate Over Electoral Systems’. International Political Science Review 12(3):239260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, and Bodet, Marc André. 2006. ‘Does Proportional Representation Foster Closer Congruence Between Citizens and Policy Makers?’. Comparative Political Studies 39(10):12431262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, and Carty, R. Kenneth. 1987. ‘The Impact of Electoral Formulae on the Creation of Majority Governments’. Electoral Studies 6(3):209218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, and Carty, Richard K.. 1988. ‘The Effectiveness of the Plurality Rule’. British Journal of Political Science 18(4):550553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, and Nadeau, Richard. 1996. ‘Measuring Strategic Voting: A Two-Step Procedure’. Electoral Studies 15(1):3952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Nadeau, Richard, Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Nevitte, Neil. 2001. ‘Measuring Strategic Voting in Multiparty Plurality Elections’. Electoral Studies 20(3):343352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Lachat, Romain, Hino, Airo, and Doray-Demers, Pascal. 2011. ‘The Mechanical and Psychological Effects of Electoral Systems: A Quasi-Experimental Study’. Comparative Political Studies 44(12):15991621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, and McDonald, Michael D.. 2007. ‘Election and Party System Effects on Policy Representation: Bringing Time into a Comparative Perspective’. Electoral studies 26(1):168179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, José Antonio, Gandhi, Jennifer, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2010. ‘Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited’. Public Choice 143(1–2):67101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. ‘Rehabilitating Duverger’s Theory: Testing the Mechanical and Strategic Modifying Effects of Electoral Laws’. Comparative Political Studies 39(6):679708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2004. Political Choice in Britain. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 1997. ‘District Magnitude, Economic Performance, and Party-System Fragmentation in Five Latin American Countries’. Comparative Political Studies 30(2):156185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freedom House. 2014. ‘Freedom in the World 2014’. Available at http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Country%20Status%20and%20Ratings%2C%201973-2013%20%28FINAL%29_0.xls, accessed 12 January 2014.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Michael. 1991. ‘Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems’. Electoral Studies 10(1):3351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Jakulin, Aleks, Pittau, Maria Grazia, and Su, Yu-Sung. 2008. ‘A Weakly Informative Default Prior Distribution for Logistic and Other Regression Models’. The Annals of Applied Statistics 2(4):13601383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John, Palmer, Maxwell, Teorell, Jan, and Zarecki, Dominic. 2015. ‘Demography and Democracy: A Global, District-Level Analysis of Electoral Contestation’. American Political Science Review 109(3):574591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, Jeff. 2008. Bayesian Methods: A Social and Behavioral Sciences Approach, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Golder, Matt, and Lloyd, Gabriella. 2014. ‘Re-Evaluating the Relationship Between Electoral Rules and Ideological Congruence’. European Journal of Political Research 53(1):200212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, Matt, and Stramski, Jacek. 2010. ‘Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions’. American Journal of Political Science 54(1):90106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gschwend, Thomas. 2007. ‘Ticket-Splitting and Strategic Voting Under Mixed Electoral Rules: Evidence from Germany’. European Journal of Political Research 46(1):123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara Binzer, and Klemmemsen, Robert. 2005. ‘Responsive Government? Public Opinion and Government Policy Preferences in Britain and Denmark’. Political Studies 53(2):379402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara Binzer, and Klemmensen, Robert. 2008. ‘Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective’. Comparative Political Studies 41(3):309337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, John D., and Powell, G. Bingham. 1994. ‘Congruence Between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy’. World Politics 46(3):291326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, and Tingley, Dustin. 2010. ‘A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis’. Psychological Methods 15(4):309334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackman, Simon. 2009. Bayesian Analysis for the Social Sciences. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Shin-Goo, and Powell, G. Bingham. 2010. ‘Representation and Policy Responsiveness: The Median Voter, Election Rules, and Redistributive Welfare Spending’. The Journal of Politics 72(4):10141028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Richard S. 1997. Democracy and Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Democracies. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam. 2014. ‘Party Polarization and Mass Partisanship: A Comparative Perspective’. Political Behavior 37(2):331356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, Michael, Sinnott, Richard, Garry, John, and Kennedy, Fiachra. 2008. The Irish Voter: The Nature of Electoral Competition in the Republic of Ireland. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael D., and Budge, Ian. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Michael D., Mendes, Silvia M., and Budge, Ian. 2004. ‘What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate’. British Journal of Political Science 34(1):126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meffert, Michael F., and Gschwend, Thomas. 2010. ‘Strategic Coalition Voting: Evidence from Austria’. Electoral Studies 29(3):339349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang C. 1999. ‘Austria’. In Robert Elgie (ed.), Semi-Presidentialism in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2006. ‘Election Laws and Representative Governments: Beyond Votes and Seats’. British Journal of Political Science 36(2):291315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2009. ‘The Ideological Congruence Controversy: The Impact of Alternative Measures, Data, and Time Periods on the Effects of Election Rules’. Comparative Political Studies 42(12):14751497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham, and Vanberg, Georg S.. 2000. ‘Election Laws, Disproportionality and Median Correspondence: Implications for Two Visions of Democracy’. British Journal of Political Science 30(3):383412.Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas. 1967. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S. 2005. ‘Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns’. French Politics 3(3):323351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S. 2008. ‘Inherent and Contingent Factors in Reform Initiation in Plurality Systems’. In André Blais (ed.), To Keep or to Change First Past the Post? The Politics of Electoral Reform. 760. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, and Soroka, Stuart N.. 2012. ‘Political Institutions and the Opinion-Policy Link’. West European Politics 35(6):14071432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2009. Introductory Econometrics. Mason, OH: South Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2014. ‘GDP Per Capita (Current US$)’. Available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD, accessed 12 January 2014.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Blais supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Blais supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 163 KB
15
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Linking Party Preferences and the Composition of Government: A New Standard for Evaluating the Performance of Electoral Democracy*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Linking Party Preferences and the Composition of Government: A New Standard for Evaluating the Performance of Electoral Democracy*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Linking Party Preferences and the Composition of Government: A New Standard for Evaluating the Performance of Electoral Democracy*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *