Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:20:14.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between Science and Engineering: Reflections on the APSA Presidential Task Force on Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance

How Context Shapes the Effects of Electoral Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2013

Karen E. Ferree ,
G. Bingham Powell  and
Ethan Scheiner
Karen E. Ferree
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
G. Bingham Powell
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Ethan Scheiner
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political scientists have contributed to the world of electoral systems as scientists and as engineers. Taking stock of recent scientific research, we show that context modifies the effects of electoral rules on political outcomes in specific and systematic ways. We explore how electoral rules shape the inclusion of women and minorities, the depth and nature of political competition, and patterns of redistribution and regulation, and we consider institutional innovations that could promote political equality. Finally, we describe the diverse ways that political scientists produce an impact on the world by sharing and applying their knowledge of the consequences of electoral rules and global trends in reform.

Type
Symposium: Between Science and Engineering
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 810 - 814
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013 

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

Blais, Andre, and Bodet, Marc A.. 2006. “Does Proportional Representation Foster Closer Congruence between Citizens and Policymakers?” Comparative Political Studies 39: 1243–63.Google Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep, and Kollman, Ken. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Ferree, Karen. 2011. Framing the Race in South Africa: The Political Origins of Racial-Census Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferree, Karen, Gibson, Clark, and Hoffman, Barak. 2011. “Social Diversity, Electoral Rules, and South Africa's Local Party Systems.” Unpublished manuscript, University of California–San Diego.Google Scholar
Ferree, Karen E., Powell, G. Bingham, and Scheiner, Ethan. 2012. “APSA Presidential Task Force on Electoral Rules and Democratic Governance: How Context Shapes Electoral Rule Effects” Prepared for delivery at the American Political Science Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA, August 29–September 2.Google Scholar
Filippov, Mikhail, Ordeshook, Peter, and Shvetsova, Olga. 1999. “Party Fragmentation and Presidential Elections in Post-Communist Democracies.” Constitutional Political Economy 10(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Bowler, Shaun, and Blais, Andre. 2009. “Introduction: Evidence for Duverger's Law in Four Countries.” In Duverger's Law of Plurality Elections: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States, ed. Grofman, B., Blais, A., and Bowler, S.. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen. 2009. Building Party Systems in Developing Nations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hicken, Allen, and Stoll, Heather. 2011. “Presidents and Parties: How Presidential Elections Shape Coordination in Legislative Elections.” Comparative Political Studies 44(7): 854–83.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Donald. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Huber, John D., and Powell, G. Bingham Jr. 1994. “Congruence between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy.” World Politics 46: 291–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Schofield, Norman. 1990. Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael D., Mendes, S., and Budge, Ian. 2004. “What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate.” British Journal of Political Science 34: 1–26.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1958 [1861]. Considerations on Representative Government, ed. Shields, C.V.. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Paul, and Nyblade, Benjamin. 2008. “Government Formation and Cabinet Type.” In Cabinets and Coalition Bargaining, ed. Strøm, Kaare, Mueller, Wolfgang, and Bergman, Torgjoern. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moser, Robert G., and Scheiner, Ethan. 2012. Electoral Systems and Political Context: How the Effects of Rules Vary Across New and Established Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, Robert G., Scheiner, Ethan, and Milazzo, Caitlin. 2011. “Social Diversity Affects the Number of Parties Even under First-Past-the-Post Rules.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2009. “The Ideological Congruence Controversy.” Comparative Political Studies 42: 1475–97.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2011. “Party Polarization and the Ideological Congruence of Governments.” In Citizens, Context and Choice, ed. Dalton, Russell J. and Anderson, Christopher J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas. 1967. The Political Consequences of Election Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Andrew, Reilly, Ben, and Ellis, Andrew. 2005. Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm: IDEA.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 2002a. “The Menu of Manipulation.” Journal of Democracy 13: 36–50.Google Scholar
Scheiner, Ethan. 2008. “Does Electoral System Reform Work? Electoral System Lessons from Reforms of the 1990s.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 161–81.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S. 2005. “Comparative Electoral Systems Research: The Maturation of a Field and New Challenges Ahead.” In The Politics of Electoral Systems, ed. Gallagher, Michael and Mitchell, Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein. 2007. Predicting Party Sizes: The Logic of Simple Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar