Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:48:01.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Electoral Sweet Spot in the Lab

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2016

Simon Labbé St-Vincent ,
André Blais  and
Jean-Benoit Pilet
Simon Labbé St-Vincent
Affiliation:
Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; e-mail: simon.labbe.st-vincent@umontreal.ca
André Blais
Affiliation:
Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; e-mail: Andre.blais@umontreal.ca
Jean-Benoit Pilet
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium; e-mail: jpilet@ulb.ac.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carey and Hix (2011) propose that a proportional electoral system with a moderate number of seats per district offers the best compromise between (1) accurate representation and (2) strong accountability. The argument is that there is a district magnitude (DM) level where the trade-off between proportionality and fragmentation of parties is optimal. This DM is called the sweet spot. We explore this proposition through lab experiments conducted in Brussels and Montreal. We find that the probability of achieving a “good” outcome on both proportionality and the number of parties is slightly higher at moderate DMs. We note, however, that this probability remains low.

Keywords

Electoral systemproportional representationaccountabilitydistrict magnitude (DM)lab experiment
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Spring 2016 , pp. 75 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2016 

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

Anderson, C. J. 2000. “Economic Voting and Political Context: A Comparative Perspective.” Electoral Studies 19 (2–3): 151–70.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. 2000. “Which Electoral Formula Is the Most Proportional? A New Look with New Evidence.” Political Analysis 8 (4): 381–8.Google Scholar
Bingham Powell, G. and Whitten, G. D.. 1993. “A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting. Taking Account of the Political Context.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 391–414.Google Scholar
Blais, A. and Massicotte, L.. 2002. “Electoral Systems,” In Comparing Democracies, ed. Le Duc, Lawrence, Niemi, Richard G., and Norris, Pippa. vol. 2. London: Sage Publications, pp. 40–69.Google Scholar
Bouhon, F. and Reuchamps, M.. 2012. Les systèmes électoraux de la Belgique. Brussels: Bruylant.Google Scholar
Bowler, S., Farrell, D., and Pettitt, R.. 2005. “Expert Opinions on Electoral Systems: So Which Electoral System is Best?.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 15 (1): 3–19.Google Scholar
Carey, J. and Hix, S.. 2011. “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 383–97.Google Scholar
Cox, G. W. 1997. Making Votes Count – Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U. 2007. “Z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Ready-Made Economic Experiments.” Experimental Economics 10 (2): 171–8.Google Scholar
Gallagher, M. 1991. “Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems.” Electoral Studies 10: 33–51.Google Scholar
Greiner, B. 2004. “An online recruitment system for economic experiments.” In eds. K. Kremer and V. Macho, dir., Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003.Google Scholar
Grofman, B. N. and Lijphart, A., eds. 1986. Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
Hellwig, T. and Samuels, D.. 2007. “Electoral Accountability and the Variety of Democratic Regimes.” British Journal of Political Science 38: 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R. S. 1997. Democracy and Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kedar, O., Harsgor, L., and Sheinerman, R. A.. 2013. “Are Voters Equal Under Proportional Representation.” Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the European Political Science Association, Barcelona, June 20–22.Google Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., Budge, I., and McDonald, M.. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, the European Union and the OECD, 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laakso, M. and Taagepera, R.. 1979. “Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe.” Comparative Political Studies 12: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lago, I., Bermúdez, S., Guinjoan, M., Rowe, K., and Simón, P.. 2013. “Party Mobilization and Electoral Systems”, Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the European Political Science Association, Barcelona, June 20–22.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. 1990. “The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945–1985.” American Political Science Review 84: 481–95.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. B. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Taagepera, R. and Shugart, M.. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

St-Vincent supplementary material

Appendix

Download St-Vincent supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 730.5 KB