Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-krgqc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-13T00:22:01.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voter satisfaction and electoral systems: Does preferential voting in candidate‐centred systems make a difference?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

David M. Farrell  and
Ian Mcallister
David M. Farrell*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, UK;
Ian Mcallister
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: David M. Farrell, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. E‐mail: David.Farrell@manchester.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the years, many scholars have examined the relationship between electoral systems and measures of voter satisfaction with democracy. The tendency in these studies has been to explore the traditional Proportional Representation/non‐Proportional‐Representation dichotomy, assessing whether more proportional systems produce higher levels of satisfaction. This article examines another dimension of electoral system variation – namely the degree to which the ballot structure incorporates ordinal, or preferential features. Given that proponents of such systems extol their virtues as offering voters ‘greater choice’, it is interesting to explore how this actually plays with the voters. The article makes use of cross‐national data from the comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) project to examine the relationship between preferential voting and levels of satisfaction with democracy.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 45 , Issue 5 , August 2006 , pp. 723 - 749
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2006 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

Ames, B. (1995). Electoral strategy under open‐list proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science 39: 406–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. & Guillory, C. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross‐national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review 91: 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S. (1986). Reasoning voters, voter behaviour and institutions: The decision dependence of voting behaviour. In Farrell, D.et al. (eds), British elections and parties yearbook, 1996. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Bowler, S. & Farrell, D. (1993). Legislator shirking and voter monitoring: Impacts of European Parliament electoral systems upon legislator‐voter relationships. Journal of Common Market Studies 31: 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S. & Grofman, B. (eds) (2000). Elections in Australia, Ireland and Malta under the single transferable vote: Reflections on an embedded institution. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S., Carter, E. & Farrell, D. (2003). Changing party access to elections. In Cain, B., Dalton, R. & Scarrow, S. (eds), Democracy transformed? Expanding political opportunities in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, S. et al. (2002). Electoral reform and minority representation: Local experiments with alternative elections. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Cannache, D., Mondak, J.J. & Seligson, M.A. (2001). Meaning and measurement in cross‐national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly 65: 506–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J. & Shugart, M. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies 14: 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, F.G. (1994). The policy consequences of proportional representation: A sceptical commentary. Political Science 46: 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 34: 903–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtice, J. & Shively, W.P. (n.d.). Who represents us best? One member or many? (mimeo).Google Scholar
Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐HallGoogle Scholar
Farrell, B. (1985). Ireland: From friends and neighbours to clients and partisans: Some dimensions of parliamentary representation under PR‐STV. In Bogdanor, V. (ed.), Representatives of the people? Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. (2001). Electoral systems. London: Macmillan Palgrave.Google Scholar
Farrell, D. & Scully, R. (2003). Electoral reform and the British MEP. Journal of Legislative Studies 9: 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, D. & McAllister, I. (2005). Australia's electoral systems. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
Grofman, B. et al. (eds) (1999). Elections in Japan, Korea and Taiwan under the single non‐transferable vote: The comparative study of an embedded institution. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallett, G. (1984). Proportional representation with the single transferable vote: A basic requirement for legislative elections. In Lijphart, A. & Grofman, B. (eds), Choosing an electoral system: Issues and alternatives. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Horowitz, D. (1991). A democratic South Africa? Constitutional engineering in a divided society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, J. & Banducci, S.A. (2004). Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty‐five Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behavior. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Karp, J., Banducci, S. & Bowler, S. (2003). To know it is to love it? Satisfaction with democracy in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies 36: 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R. (1980). A theory of parties and electoral systems. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, R. (1997a). Representational roles. European Journal of Political Research 32: 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R. (1997b). Democracy and elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakeman, E. (1974). How democracies vote: A study of majority and proportional electoral systems (4th edn). London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Lawson, K. (ed.) (1980). Political parties and linkage: A comparative perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty‐seven democracies, 1945–1990. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty‐six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Linde, J. & Ekman, J. (2003). Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research 42: 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, S.M. (1966). Political man. London: Mercury Books.Google Scholar
Marsh, M. (2000). Candidate centered but party wrapped: Campaigning in Ireland under STV. In Bowler, S. & Grofman, B. (eds), Elections in Australia, Ireland and Malta under the single transferable vote: Reflections on an embedded institution. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McLean, I. (1991). Forms of representation and systems of voting. In Held, D. (ed.), Political theory today. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, P. (2000). Voters and their representatives: Electoral institutions and delegation in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37: 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (1999). Institutional explanations for political support. In Critical citizens: Global support for democratic governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (2004). Electoral engineering: Voting rules and electoral behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, D. (1967). The political consequences of electoral laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, B. (2001). Democracy in divided societies: Electoral engineering for conflict management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, A. (1999). Electoral systems and democratization in Southern Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, A. (ed.) (2002). The architecture of democracy: Constitutional design, conflict management and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Römmele, A., Farrell, D. & Ignazi, P. (eds) (2005). Political parties and political systems: The concept of linkage revisited. Westport, CT: Greenwood/Praeger.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R. (1992). What are the economic consequences of PR? London: Electoral Reform Society.Google Scholar
Rose, R. (ed.) (2000). International encyclopedia of elections. London: Macmillan Palgrave.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1968). Political development and political engineering. Public Policy 17: 261–298.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1976). Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1997). Comparative constitutional engineering: An inquiry into structures, incentives and outcomes (2nd edn). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, M. (2001). Electoral ‘efficiency’ and the move to mixed‐member systems. Electoral Studies 20: 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, M. & Wattenberg, M. (eds) (2001). Mixed‐member electoral systems: The best of both worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sisk, T. (1995). Democratization in South Africa: The elusive social contract. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Taagepera, R. (2002). Designing electoral rules and waiting for an electoral system to evolve. In Reynolds, A. (ed.), The architecture of democracy: Constitutional design, conflict management and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taagepera, R. & Shugart, M. (1989). Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thomassen, J. & Kolk, H. van der. (forthcoming). Economic performance and satisfaction with democracy. In Klingemann, H.‐D. (ed.), A comparative study of electoral systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, R.K. & Rockman, B.A. (eds) (1993). Do institutions matter? Government capabilities in the United States and abroad. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar