Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T01:19:20.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Vote Au Pluriel: How People Vote When Offered to Vote Under Different Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2013

Karine Van der Straeten
Affiliation:
Toulouse School of Economics (CNRS), France
Jean-François Laslier
Affiliation:
Ecole Polytechnique (CNRS), France
André Blais
Affiliation:
University of Montreal, Canada

Abstract

This article reports on an Internet-based quasi-experiment that took place during the French 2012 presidential election. We designed a website where French voters could vote under different voting rules. Based on the observation of more than 8,000 participants, we find that a substantial minority (10% to 15%) vote differently under the different systems, with 17% of the voters not voting for their preferred candidate in the one-round election, this percentage dropped to 12% in the alternative vote (first choice). Compared to the two-rounds election, at the aggregate level, the top two candidates get slightly more votes under one round, while the minor candidates obtain more first choices under the alternative vote. These findings are consistent with what the literature suggests about the impact of these voting systems on voters' choice.

Type
Features
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

REFERENCES

Abramson, P. R., Aldrich, J. H., Blais, A., Diamond, M., Diskin, A., Indridason, I. H., Lee, D., and Levine, R.. 2010. “Comparing Strategic Voting under FPTP and PR Systems.” Comparative Political Studies 43: 6190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André. 2003. “Strategic Voting in the 2002 French Presidential Election.” In The French Voter: Before and After the 2002 Elections, ed. Lewis-Beck, M.. Hampshire: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Blais, A., and Carty, K.. 1991. “The Psychological Impact of Electoral Laws: Measuring Duverger's Elusive Factor.” British Journal of Political Science 21: 7993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A., Héroux-Legault, M., Stephenson, L., Cross, W., and Gidengil, E.. forthcoming. “Assessing the Psychological and Mechanical Impact of Electoral Rules: A Quasi-Experiment.” Electoral Studies.Google Scholar
Clark, W., and Golder, M.. 2006. “Rehabilitating Duverger's Law: Testing the Mechanical and Strategic Modifying Effects of Electoral Laws.” Comparative Political Studies 39: 679708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laslier, Jean.-François. 2012. “Heuristic Voting under the Alternative Vote.” Working paper, Ecole Polytechnique.Google Scholar
Tideman, Nicola. 2006. Collective Decisions and Voting: The Potential for Public Choice. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar