Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-vdhp9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T08:04:54.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The international diffusion of electoral systems: The spread of mechanisms tempering proportional representation across Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Damien Bol ,
Jean‐Benoit Pilet  and
Pedro Riera
Damien Bol*
Affiliation:
University of Montreal, Canada
Jean‐Benoit Pilet
Affiliation:
Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
Pedro Riera
Affiliation:
Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain
*
Address for correspondence: Damien Bol, Department of Political Science, University of Montreal, Pavillon Lionel‐Groulx, CP 6128, Succursale Centre‐ville, H3C 3J7 Montreal, Canada. E‐mail: damien.bol@umontreal.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is an assumption in much of the electoral engineering literature that domestic episodes of electoral system choice occur in a vacuum, isolated from international influences. Yet this assumption remains largely untested, despite the comparative focus of much of that literature. This article focuses on part of this gap by considering two electoral mechanisms that seek to limit party system fragmentation under proportional representation – low district magnitudes and high electoral thresholds – and shows that the mechanisms have spread across many European countries during the post‐1945 period. Analyses reveal that national legislators are more likely to adopt one of these electoral mechanisms when a large number of peer countries have made similar choices within the last two or three years. This effect is robust to various model specifications and to the inclusion of multiple controls. The article also offers some qualitative evidence from case studies and parliamentary debates.

Keywords

electoral systemselectoral reformsdiffusionproportional representation

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , May 2015 , pp. 384 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 European Consortium for Political Research

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrews, J.T. & Jackman, R.W. (2005). Strategic fools: Electoral rule choice under extreme uncertainty. Electoral Studies 24(1): 65–84.10.1016/j.electstud.2004.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, K. (1993). The logic of institutional preferences: German electoral laws as a social choice outcome. American Journal of Political Science 37(4): 965–989.10.2307/2111539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, K. (2004). Models of electoral system change. Electoral Studies 23(3): 363–389.10.1016/S0261-3794(03)00020-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, K. (2007). Electoral laws as political consequences: Explaining the origins and change of electoral institutions. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 363–390.10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.101608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, S. et al. (2002). Embodying democracy: Electoral system design in post‐communist Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781403914248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A. & Bodet, M.‐A. (2006). Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policymakers? Comparative Political Studies 39(10): 1243–1262.10.1177/0010414005284374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A. & Massicotte, L. (1997). Electoral formulas: A macroscopic perspective. European Journal of Political Research 32(1): 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A., Dobrzynska, A. & Indridason, I.H. (2005). To adopt or not to adopt PR: The politics of institutional choice. British Journal of Political Science 35(1): 182–190.10.1017/S0007123405000098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, C. (1999). Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review 93(3): 604–624.10.2307/2585577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bormann, N.‐C. & Golder, M. (2013). Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946–2011. Electoral Studies 32(2): 360–369.10.1016/j.electstud.2013.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouché, V. & Volden, C. (2011). Privatization and the diffusion of innovations. Journal of Politics 73(2): 428–442.10.1017/S0022381611000041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S. & Farrell, D.M. (2006). We know which one we prefer but we don't really know why: The curious case of mixed‐member electoral systems. British Journal of Political Science 8(3): 445–460.Google Scholar
Box‐Steffensmeier, J.M. & Zorn, C.J. (2002). Duration models for repeated events. Journal of Politics 64(4): 1069–1094.10.1111/1468-2508.00163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinks, D.M. & Coppedge, M. (2006). Diffusion is no illusion: Neighbor emulation in the third wave of democracy. Comparative Political Studies 39(4): 463–489.10.1177/0010414005276666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, S.M. (2007). When does diffusion matter? Explaining the spread of structural pension reforms across nations. Journal of Politics 69(3): 701–715.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00569.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, S. (2011). International politics and the spread of quotas for women in legislatures. International Organization 65(1): 103–137.10.1017/S0020818310000287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J.M. & Hix, S. (2011). The electoral sweet spot: Low‐magnitude proportional electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 55(2): 383–397.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00495.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomer, J.M. (2004). The strategy and history of electoral system choice. In Handbook of electoral system choice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230522749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomer, J.M. (2005). It's parties that choose electoral systems (or Duverger's laws upside down)? Political Studies 53(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusack, T.R., Iversen, T. & Soskice, D. (2007). Economic interests and the origin of electoral systems. American Political Science Review 101(3): 373–391.10.1017/S0003055407070384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkins, Z. (2010). Diffusion and the constitutionalization of Europe. Comparative Political Studies 43(8–9): 969–999.10.1177/0010414010370433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilardi, F. (2010). Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes? American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 650–666.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00452.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, M. & Stramski, J. (2010). Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science 34(1): 90–106.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00420.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, E.R., Shipan, C.R. & Volden, C. (2013). The diffusion of policy diffusion research in political science. British Journal of Political Science 43(3): 673–701.10.1017/S0007123412000415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, B., Mikkel, E. & Taagepera, R. (1999). Electoral system change in Estonia, 1989–1993. Journal of Baltic Studies 30(3): 227–249.10.1080/01629779900000081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, M. & Deschouwer, K. (2011). Veto players and electoral reform in Belgium. West European Politics 34(3): 636–643.10.1080/01402382.2011.555987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karvonen, L. (2010). The personalization of politics: A study of parliamentary democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Katz, R.S. (2005). Why are there so many (or so few) electoral reforms? In Gallagher, M. & Mitchell, P. (eds), The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kopecky, P. (2004). The Czech Republic: Entrenching proportional representation. In Colomer, J.M. (ed.), Handbook of electoral system choice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Laakso, M. & Taagepera, R. (1979). Effective number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12(1): 3–27.10.1177/001041407901200101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1992). Democratization and constitutional choices in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, 1989–91. Journal of Theoretical Politics 4(2): 207–223.10.1177/0951692892004002005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198273479.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery, D. et al. (2010). Unpacking logM: Towards a more general theory of party system density. American Journal of Political Science 54(4): 921–935.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00469.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundell, K. (2010). The origin of electoral systems in the postwar era: A worldwide study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meseguer, C. & Escribà‐Folch, A. (2011). Learning, political regimes and the liberalization of trade. European Journal of Political Research 50(6): 775–810.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01982.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolenyi, C. (2011). When electoral reform fails: The stability of proportional representation in post‐communist democracies. West European Politics 34(3): 607–625.10.1080/01402382.2011.555986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilet, J.‐B. (2007). Changer pour gagner? Les réformes électorales en Belgique. Brussels: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Pilet, J.‐B. & Bol, D. (2011). Party preferences and electoral reform: How time in government affects the likelihood of supporting electoral change. West European Politics 34 ( 3): 568–586.10.1080/01402382.2011.555984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G.B. & Vanberg, G. (2000). Election laws, disproportionality and median correspondence: Implications for two visions of democracy. British Journal of Political Science 30(3): 383–411.Google Scholar
Quintal, D.P. (1970). The theory of electoral systems. Western Political Quarterly 23(4): 752–761.10.1177/106591297002300405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahat, G. (2011). The politics of electoral reform: The state of research. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 21(4): 523–543.10.1080/17457289.2011.609618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahat, G. & Hazan, R.Y. (2011). The barriers to electoral system reform: A synthesis of alternative approaches. West European Politics 34(3): 478–494.10.1080/01402382.2011.555976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remmer, K.L. (2008). The politics of institutional change: Electoral reform in Latin America, 1978–2002. Party Politics 14(1): 5–30.10.1177/1354068807083821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renwick, A. (2010). The politics of electoral reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511676390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rogowski, R. (1987). Political cleavages and changing exposure to trade. American Political Science Review 81(4): 1121–1137.10.2307/1962581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhlen, M. (1987). A guide to the world languages, Volume 1: Classification. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9781503621336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selb, P. (2012). Strategic adaptations to new electoral systems. European Journal of Political Research 51(5): 583–606.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02049.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipan, C.R. & Volden, C. (2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 840–857.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00346.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, M.S. (2001). ‘Extreme electoral systems’ and the appeal of the mixed‐member alternative. In Shugart, M.S. & Wattenberg, M.P. (eds), Mixed‐member electoral systems: The best of both worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shugart, M.S. (2008). Inherent and contingent factors in reform initiation in plurality systems. In Blais, A. (ed.), To keep or to change first past the post? The politics of electoral reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, B. & Elkins, Z. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review 98(1): 171–189.10.1017/S0003055404001078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taagepera, R. & Shugart, M.S. (1989). Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar