Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T12:08:02.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electoral system preferences of citizens compared: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2023

Eric Linhart Open the ORCID record for Eric Linhart [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael Jankowski  and
Markus Tepe
Eric Linhart*
Affiliation:
Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany
Michael Jankowski
Affiliation:
University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
Markus Tepe
Affiliation:
University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
*
Corresponding author: Eric Linhart; Email: eric.linhart@phil.tu-chemnitz.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Electoral systems fulfill different functions. Typically, they cannot meet all demands at the same time, so that the evaluation of specific electoral systems depends on subjective preferences about the single demands. We argue that it is the electorate which transfers its power to representatives and, therefore, its preferences should be considered in debates about electoral systems. Consequently, our contribution presents results of citizens’ demands regarding electoral system attributes. Specifically, we rely on a large-scale conjoint experiment conducted in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK in which subjects were asked to choose between two electoral systems which randomly differed on a set of attributes referring to electoral systems’ core functions. Our results show that all core functions are generally of importance for the respondents but reveal a higher preference for proportional electoral systems. These preferences are largely stable for citizens in different countries but also for other subgroups of subjects.

Keywords

electoral systemsconjoint experimentpreferencesrepresentation
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , November 2023 , pp. 671 - 689
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

References

Anderson, Christopher J., and Guillory, Christine A.. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Crossnational Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” American Political Science Review 91.1 (1997): 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansak, Kirk, Hainmueller, Jens, and Hangartner, Dominik. “How Economic, Humanitarian, and Religious Concerns Shape European Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers.” Science 354 (2016): 217–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bansak, Kirk, Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. “Conjoint Survey Experiments.” In James N. Druckman and Donald P. Green (eds.), Advances in Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp. 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, Sarah. “Electoral Institutions and Popular Confidence in Electoral Processes: A Cross-National Analysis.” Electoral Studies 27.2 (2008): 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Laslier, Jean-Francois, Poinas, Francois, and Van Der Straeten, Karine. “Citizens’ Preferences about Voting Rules: Self-Interest, Ideology, and Sincerity.” Public Choice 164 (2015): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Sevi, Semra, and Plescia, Carolina. “Are Voters’ Views about Proportional Outcomes Shaped by Partisan Preferences? A Survey Experiment in the Context of a Real Election.” Political Science Research and Methods 10.2 (2022): 445–451. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2021.24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Farrell, David M., and Pettitt, Robin T.. “Expert Opinion on Electoral Systems: So Which Electoral System Is ‘Best’?.” Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties 15.1 (2005): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., and Hix, Simon. “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2011): 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., Hix, Simon, Mozaffar, Shaheen, and Reynolds, Andrew. “Report from the Field: Two Surveys of Political Scientists. In Mala Htun and G. Bingham Powell (eds.), Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association, 2013, pp. 62–83.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah, and Cowley, Philip. “The Politics of Local Presence: Is There a Case for Descriptive Representation?” Political Studies 59.1 (2011): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, Patrick, Margetts, Helen, and Weir, Stuart. “The 1992 Election and the Legitimacy of British Democracy.” British Elections and Parties Yearbook 3.1 (1993): 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. “Which Is the Best Electoral System?” In Arend Lijphart and Bernard Grofman (eds.), Choosing an Electoral System. Issues and Alternatives. New York: Praeger, 1984, pp. 31–39.Google Scholar
Farrell, David M. Electoral Systems. A Comparative Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, David M., and McAllister, Ian. “Voter Satisfaction and Electoral Systems: Does Preferential Voting in Candidate-Centred Systems Make a Difference?” European Journal of Political Research 45 (2006): 723–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournier, Patrick, van der Kolk, Henk, Carty, R. Kenneth, Blais, André, and Rose, Jonathan. When Citizens Decide: Lessons from Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Gary P. “Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States.” The International Migration Review 29 (1995): 881–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallagher, Michael. “Conclusion.” In Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 535–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Michael, and Mitchell, Paul. “Introduction to Electoral Systems.” In Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 3–23.10.1093/0199257566.003.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, and Bowler, Shaun. “STV’s Place in the Family of Electoral Systems: The Theoretical Comparisons and Contrasts.” Representation 43 (1996): 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grotz, Florian. “Kriterien und Ansatzpunkte einer nachhaltigen Wahlsystemreform.” In Joachim Behnke, Frank Decker, Florian Grotz, Robert Vehrkamp, and Philipp Weinmann (eds.), Reform des Bundestagswahlsystems. Bewertungskriterien und Reformoptionen. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2017, pp. 41–63.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis 22 (2014): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICPR [Independent Commission to Review Britain’s Experience of PR Voting Systems]. Changed Voting, Changed Politics. Lessons of Britain’s Experience of PR since 1997. London: The Constitution Unit, 2003.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Michael, Linhart, Eric, and Tepe, Markus. “Keep It Simple! German Voters’ Limited Competence to Evaluate Electoral Systems’ Functions.” German Politics 31.4 (2022): 579–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins Report. Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System [the Jenkins Report]. London: Stationery Office, 1998.Google Scholar
Jou, Willy. “Public Opinion and Electoral System Preference in New Zealand: A Longitudinal Study.” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 51.4 (2013): 524–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey A. “Political Knowledge about Electoral Rules: Comparing Mixed Member Proportional Systems in Germany and New Zealand.” Electoral Studies 25.4 (2006): 714–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey A. “Reforming the Electoral College and Support for Proportional Outcomes.” Representation 43.4 (2007): 239–250.10.1080/00344890701574856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Richard S. Elections and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakeman, Enid. How Democracies Vote: A Study of Electoral Systems. London: Faber and Faber, 1974.Google Scholar
Leeper, Thomas, Hobolt, Sara B., and Tilley, James. “Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis 28.2 (2020): 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. “Trying to Have the Best of Both Worlds: Semi-Proportional and Mixed Systems.” In Arend Lijphart and Bernard Grofman (eds.), Choosing an Electoral System. Issues and Alternatives. Westport: Praeger, 1984, pp. 207–215.Google Scholar
Linhart, Eric, Raabe, Johannes, and Statsch, Patrick. “Mixed-Member Proportional Electoral Systems – The Best of Both Worlds?” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 29.1 (2019): 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Guoer, and Shiraito, Yuki. “Multiple Hypothesis Testing in Conjoint Analysis.” Political Analysis 31 (2023): 1–16. doi: 10.1017/pan.2022.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. Uninformed: Why People Seem to Know So Little about Politics and What We Can Do about It. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, William J. M. Free Elections: An Elementary Textbook. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1958.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan, and Jankowski, Michael. “Do Voters Really Prefer More Choice? Determinants of Support for Personalised Electoral Systems.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 29.2 (2019): 262–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nohlen, Dieter. “Two Incompatible Principles of Representation.” In Arend Lijphart and Bernard Grofma (eds.), Choosing an Electoral System. Issues and Alternatives. Westport: Praeger, 1984, pp. 83–89.Google Scholar
Nohlen, Dieter. Elections and Electoral Systems, 2nd edition. New Delhi: Macmillan India Limited, 1996.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Nai, Alessandro, eds. Election Watchdogs: Transparency, Accountability, and Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa, Coma, Ferran Martinez I, and Frank, Richard W.. “Measuring Electoral Integrity Around the World: A New Dataset.” PS: Political Science and Politics 47.4 (2014): 1–10.Google Scholar
Pappi, Franz U., and Thurner, Paul W.. “Electoral Behavior in a Two-Vote System: Incentives for Ticket Splitting in German Bundestag Elections.” European Journal of Political Research 41.2 (2002): 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plescia, Carolina, Blais, André, and Högström, John. “Do People Want a ‘Fairer’ Electoral System? An Experimental Study in Four Countries.” European Journal of Political Research 59.4 (2020): 733–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Raabe, Johannes, and Linhart, Eric. “Which Electoral Systems Succeed at Providing Proportionality and Concentration? Promising Designs and Risky Tools.” European Political Science Review 10.2 (2018): 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, Steven R., and Thies, Michael F.. “The Causes of Electoral Reform in Japan.” In Matthew S. Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds.), Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 152–172.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co, 1982.Google Scholar
RCES [Royal Commission on the Electoral System]. Towards a Better Democracy. Wellington: New Zealand Government Printer, 1986.Google Scholar
Renwick, Alan. “Electoral Reform in Europe since 1945.” West European Politics 34 (2011): 456–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saalfeld, Thomas. “Germany: Stability and Strategy in a Mixed-Member Proportional System.” In Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes, 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Armin, and Schoen, Harald. “Mehr Demokratie, aber nur für wenige? Der Zielkonflikt zwischen mehr Beteiligung und politischer Gleichheit.” Leviathan 41 (2013): 94–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S. “Electoral ‘Efficiency’ and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems.” Electoral Studies 20 (2001): 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S., and Wattenberg, Martin P.. “Conclusion: Are Mixed-Member Systems the Best of Both Worlds? In Matthew S. Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds.), Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 571–596.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion and Policy: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Vowles, Jack. “Why Voters Prefer Coalitions: Rationality or Norms? Political Science 63.1 (2011): 126–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vowles, Jack, Banducci, Susan A., and Karp, Jeffrey A.. “Forecasting and Evaluating the Consequences of Electoral Change in New Zealand.” Acta Politica 41.3 (2006): 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Linhart et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Linhart et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2.6 MB