Skip to main content Accessibility help

Linking Party Preferences and the Composition of Government: A New Standard for Evaluating the Performance of Electoral Democracy*

  • André Blais, Eric Guntermann and Marc A. Bodet


We propose a new standard for evaluating the performance of electoral democracies: the correspondence between citizens’ party preferences and the party composition of governments that are formed after elections. We develop three criteria for assessing such correspondence: the proportion of citizens whose most preferred party is in government, whether the party that is most liked overall is in government, and how much more positively governing parties are rated than non-governing parties. We pay particular attention to the last criterion, which takes into account how each citizen feels about each of the parties as well as the intensity of their preferences. We find that proportional representation systems perform better on the first criterion. Majoritarian systems do better on the other two.



Hide All

André Blais is Professor in the Department of Political Science at Université de Montréal, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, C. P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada ( Eric Guntermann is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Political Science at Université de Montréal, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, C. P. 6128, succ. Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada ( Marc. A. Bodet is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Université Laval, Pavillon Charles-De Koninck 1030, avenue des Sciences-Humaines, local 4437, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, G1V 0A6, Canada ( The authors would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship for their support. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit



Hide All
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., Blais, André, Diamond, Matthew, Diskin, Abraham, Indridason, Indridi H., Lee, Daniel J., and Levine, Renan. 2010. ‘Comparing Strategic Voting Under FPTP and PR’. Comparative Political Studies 43(1):4361.
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 2000. ‘A New Approach for Modelling Strategic Voting in Multiparty Elections’. British Journal of Political Science 30(1):5775.
Avdeenko, Alexandra, and Gilligan, Michael J.. 2015. ‘International Interventions to Build Social Capital: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Sudan’. American Political Science Review 109(3):427449.
Blais, André. 1991. ‘The Debate Over Electoral Systems’. International Political Science Review 12(3):239260.
Blais, André, and Bodet, Marc André. 2006. ‘Does Proportional Representation Foster Closer Congruence Between Citizens and Policy Makers?’. Comparative Political Studies 39(10):12431262.
Blais, André, and Carty, R. Kenneth. 1987. ‘The Impact of Electoral Formulae on the Creation of Majority Governments’. Electoral Studies 6(3):209218.
Blais, André, and Carty, Richard K.. 1988. ‘The Effectiveness of the Plurality Rule’. British Journal of Political Science 18(4):550553.
Blais, André, and Nadeau, Richard. 1996. ‘Measuring Strategic Voting: A Two-Step Procedure’. Electoral Studies 15(1):3952.
Blais, André, Nadeau, Richard, Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Nevitte, Neil. 2001. ‘Measuring Strategic Voting in Multiparty Plurality Elections’. Electoral Studies 20(3):343352.
Blais, André, Lachat, Romain, Hino, Airo, and Doray-Demers, Pascal. 2011. ‘The Mechanical and Psychological Effects of Electoral Systems: A Quasi-Experimental Study’. Comparative Political Studies 44(12):15991621.
Budge, Ian, and McDonald, Michael D.. 2007. ‘Election and Party System Effects on Policy Representation: Bringing Time into a Comparative Perspective’. Electoral studies 26(1):168179.
Cheibub, José Antonio, Gandhi, Jennifer, and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2010. ‘Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited’. Public Choice 143(1–2):67101.
Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. ‘Rehabilitating Duverger’s Theory: Testing the Mechanical and Strategic Modifying Effects of Electoral Laws’. Comparative Political Studies 39(6):679708.
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2004. Political Choice in Britain. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Coppedge, Michael. 1997. ‘District Magnitude, Economic Performance, and Party-System Fragmentation in Five Latin American Countries’. Comparative Political Studies 30(2):156185.
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Freedom House. 2014. ‘Freedom in the World 2014’. Available at, accessed 12 January 2014.
Gallagher, Michael. 1991. ‘Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems’. Electoral Studies 10(1):3351.
Gelman, Andrew, Jakulin, Aleks, Pittau, Maria Grazia, and Su, Yu-Sung. 2008. ‘A Weakly Informative Default Prior Distribution for Logistic and Other Regression Models’. The Annals of Applied Statistics 2(4):13601383.
Gerring, John, Palmer, Maxwell, Teorell, Jan, and Zarecki, Dominic. 2015. ‘Demography and Democracy: A Global, District-Level Analysis of Electoral Contestation’. American Political Science Review 109(3):574591.
Gill, Jeff. 2008. Bayesian Methods: A Social and Behavioral Sciences Approach, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Golder, Matt, and Lloyd, Gabriella. 2014. ‘Re-Evaluating the Relationship Between Electoral Rules and Ideological Congruence’. European Journal of Political Research 53(1):200212.
Golder, Matt, and Stramski, Jacek. 2010. ‘Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions’. American Journal of Political Science 54(1):90106.
Gschwend, Thomas. 2007. ‘Ticket-Splitting and Strategic Voting Under Mixed Electoral Rules: Evidence from Germany’. European Journal of Political Research 46(1):123.
Hobolt, Sara Binzer, and Klemmemsen, Robert. 2005. ‘Responsive Government? Public Opinion and Government Policy Preferences in Britain and Denmark’. Political Studies 53(2):379402.
Hobolt, Sara Binzer, and Klemmensen, Robert. 2008. ‘Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective’. Comparative Political Studies 41(3):309337.
Huber, John D., and Powell, G. Bingham. 1994. ‘Congruence Between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy’. World Politics 46(3):291326.
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, and Tingley, Dustin. 2010. ‘A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis’. Psychological Methods 15(4):309334.
Jackman, Simon. 2009. Bayesian Analysis for the Social Sciences. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Kang, Shin-Goo, and Powell, G. Bingham. 2010. ‘Representation and Policy Responsiveness: The Median Voter, Election Rules, and Redistributive Welfare Spending’. The Journal of Politics 72(4):10141028.
Katz, Richard S. 1997. Democracy and Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Democracies. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Lupu, Noam. 2014. ‘Party Polarization and Mass Partisanship: A Comparative Perspective’. Political Behavior 37(2):331356.
Marsh, Michael, Sinnott, Richard, Garry, John, and Kennedy, Fiachra. 2008. The Irish Voter: The Nature of Electoral Competition in the Republic of Ireland. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
McDonald, Michael D., and Budge, Ian. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
McDonald, Michael D., Mendes, Silvia M., and Budge, Ian. 2004. ‘What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate’. British Journal of Political Science 34(1):126.
Meffert, Michael F., and Gschwend, Thomas. 2010. ‘Strategic Coalition Voting: Evidence from Austria’. Electoral Studies 29(3):339349.
Müller, Wolfgang C. 1999. ‘Austria’. In Robert Elgie (ed.), Semi-Presidentialism in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Powell, G. Bingham. 2006. ‘Election Laws and Representative Governments: Beyond Votes and Seats’. British Journal of Political Science 36(2):291315.
Powell, G. Bingham. 2009. ‘The Ideological Congruence Controversy: The Impact of Alternative Measures, Data, and Time Periods on the Effects of Election Rules’. Comparative Political Studies 42(12):14751497.
Powell, G. Bingham, and Vanberg, Georg S.. 2000. ‘Election Laws, Disproportionality and Median Correspondence: Implications for Two Visions of Democracy’. British Journal of Political Science 30(3):383412.
Rae, Douglas. 1967. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shugart, Matthew S. 2005. ‘Semi-Presidential Systems: Dual Executive and Mixed Authority Patterns’. French Politics 3(3):323351.
Shugart, Matthew S. 2008. ‘Inherent and Contingent Factors in Reform Initiation in Plurality Systems’. In André Blais (ed.), To Keep or to Change First Past the Post? The Politics of Electoral Reform. 760. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Soroka, Stuart N. 2014. Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wlezien, Christopher, and Soroka, Stuart N.. 2012. ‘Political Institutions and the Opinion-Policy Link’. West European Politics 35(6):14071432.
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2009. Introductory Econometrics. Mason, OH: South Western Cengage Learning.
World Bank. 2014. ‘GDP Per Capita (Current US$)’. Available at, accessed 12 January 2014.
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Blais supplementary material
Online Appendix

 PDF (163 KB)
163 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed