Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Which Matters Most: Party Strategic Exit or Voter Strategic Voting? A Laboratory Experiment*

  • Damien Bol, André Blais and Simon Labbé St-Vincent
Abstract

There is abundant empirical evidence that the plurality rule constrains party competition and favors two-party systems. This reduction of party system fragmentation may be due to parties deciding not to enter elections for which they are not viable and/or voters voting strategically. Yet, no prior research has attempted to estimate the respective role of parties and voters in this process. To fill this gap, we conducted a unique laboratory experiment where some subjects played the role of parties and others played the role of voters, and where the two were able to respond to each other just as in real-life elections. We find that the reduction due to party strategic exit is higher than that due to strategic voting. We conclude that parties play a key role in the effect of the plurality rule on party system fragmentation.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Damien Bol, Lecturer in Political Behaviour, Department of Political Economy, Strand Building, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom WC2R 2LS (damien.bol@kcl.ac.uk). André Blais, Full Professor, Département de Science Politique, Université de Montréal, CP. 6128, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, QC, Canada H3C 3J7 (andre.blais@umontreal.ca). Simon Labbé St-Vincent, Research and Planning Analyst, Université de Montréal, 2900 Boulevard Edouard-Montpetit, Montréal, Canada QC H3T IJ4 (simon.labbe.st-vincent@umontreal.ca). The experiment conducted for this paper was conducted within the Making Electoral Democracy Work Project, which is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.39

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John A., Blais, André, Diamond, Matthew, Diskin, Abraham, Indridason, Indridi H., Lee, Daniel J., and Levine, Renan. 2009. ‘Comparing Strategic Voting Under FPTP and PR Systems’. Comparative Political Studies 43:6190.
Adams, James, Green, Jane, and Milazzo, Caitlin. 2012. ‘Has the British Public Depolarized Along With Political Elites? An American Perspective on British Public Opinion’. Comparative Political Studies 45:507530.
Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel III, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alvarez, Michael R., and Nagler, Jonathan. 2000. ‘A New Approach for Modelling Strategic Voting in Multiparty Elections’. British Journal of Political Science 30:5775.
Amorim Neto, Octavio, and Cox, Gary W.. 1997. ‘Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties’. American Journal of Political Science 41:149174.
Bélanger, Eric, and Godbout, Jean-François. 2010. ‘Why Do Parties Merge? The Case of the Conservative Party of Canada’. Parliamentary Affairs 63:4165.
Besley, Timothy, and Coate, Stephen. 1997. ‘An Economic Model of Representative Democracy’. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112:85114.
Blais, André, Laslier, Jean-François, and Van der Straeten, Karine. (eds). 2016. Voting Experiments. New York: Springer.
Blais, André, and Carty, Kenneth R.. 1991. ‘The Psychological Impact of Electoral Laws: Measuring Duverger’s Elusive Factor’. British Journal of Political Science 21:7993.
Blais, André, Labbé-St-Vincent, Simon, Lasler, Jean-François, Sauger, Nicolas, and Van der Straeten, Karine. 2011. ‘Strategic Vote Choice in One-Round and Two-Round Elections: An Experimental Study’. Political Research Quarterly 64:637645.
Bol, Damien, Blais, André, Laslier, Jean-François, and Macé, Antonin. 2016. ‘Electoral System and Number of Candidates: Candidate Entry Under Plurality and Majority Runoff’. In André Blais, Jean-François Laslier, and Karine Van der Straeten (eds), Voting Experiments, 303333. New York: Springer.
Cadigan, John. 2005. ‘The Citizen Candidate Model: An Experimental Analysis’. Public Choice 123:197216.
Clark, William R., and Golder, Matt. 2006. ‘Rehabilitating Duverger’s Theory: Testing the Mechanical and Strategic Modifying Effects of Electoral Laws’. Comparative Political Studies 39:679708.
Coppock, Alexander, and Green, Donald P.. 2015. ‘Assessing the Correspondence Between Experimental Results Obtained in the Lab and Field: A Review of Recent Social Science Research’. Political Science Research and Method 3:113131.
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
Duverger, Maurice. 1951. Les Partis Politiques. Paris: Colin.
Forsythe, Robert L., Horowitz, Joel L., Savin, NE, and Sefton, Martin. 1994. ‘Fairness in Simple Bargaining Games’. Games and Economic Behavior 6:347369.
Gaines, Brian J. 2009. ‘Does the United Kingdom Obey Duverger’s Law?’ In Bernard Grofman, André Blais and Shaun Bowler (eds), Duverger’s Law of Plurality Voting: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States, 115134. New York: Springer.
Grosser, Jens, and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2014. ‘Candidate Entry and Political Polarization: An Antimedian Voter Theorem’. American Journal of Political Science 58:127143.
Guinjoan, Marc. 2014. Parties, Elections and Electoral Contests: Competition and Contamination Effects. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Johnston, Richard, and Cutler, Fred. 2009. ‘Canada: The Puzzle of Local Three-Party Competition’. In Bernard Grofman, André Blais and Shaun Bowler (eds), Duverger’s Law of Plurality Voting: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States, 8396. New York: Springer.
Laakso, Markku, and Taagepera, Rein. 1979. ‘Effective Number of Parties: A Measure With Application to West Europe’. Comparative Political Studies 12:327.
Lago, Ignacio, and Martinez, Ferran. 2007. ‘The Importance of Electoral Rules: Comparing the Number of Parties in Spain’s Lower and Upper Houses’. Electoral Studies 26:381391.
Lijphart, Arend. 1994. Electoral System and Party System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meguid, Bonnie. 2005. ‘Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success’. American Political Science Review 99:347359.
Osborne, Martin J., and Slivinski, Al. 1996. ‘A Model of Political Competition With Citizen-Candidates’. Quarterly Journal of Economics 111:6596.
Palfrey, Thomas R. 1984. ‘Spatial Equilibrium With Entry’. The Review of Economic Studies 51:139156.
Powell, Bingham G. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Reynolds, Andrew, Reilly, Ben, and Ellis, Andrew. 2005. Electoral System Design: The New IDEA International Handbook. Stockholm: International IDEA.
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1991. Models of Multiparty Electoral Competition. London: Harwood Press.
Stimson, James A., MacKuen, Michael B., and Erikson, Robert S.. 1995. ‘Dynamic Representation’. American Political Science Review 89:543565.
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Van der Straeten, Karine, Laslier, Jean-François, Sauger, Nicolas, and Blais, André. 2010. ‘Strategic, Sincere, and Heuristic Voting Under Four Election Rules’. Social Choice and Welfare 35:435472.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Science Research and Methods
  • ISSN: 2049-8470
  • EISSN: 2049-8489
  • URL: /core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Bol supplementary material S2
Bol supplementary material

 Unknown (78 KB)
78 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Bol supplementary material S3
Bol supplementary material

 Unknown (514 KB)
514 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Bol et al. Dataset
Dataset

 Unknown
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Bol supplementary material S4
Bol supplementary material

 Unknown (30 KB)
30 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Bol supplementary material S1
Online Appendix

 Word (37 KB)
37 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Bol supplementary material S5
Bol supplementary material

 Unknown (398 KB)
398 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 13
Total number of PDF views: 168 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 4th October 2016 - 20th September 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.