Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:12:58.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On S. E. Finer’s Electoral Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Arend Lijphart
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Dustjacket of S. E. Finer's Adversary Politics and electoral Reform, published in 1975, reminds us that his older brother Herman Finer was one of the staunchest and best-known opponents of proportional representation (PR), and points out that S. E. Finer long shared his brother's point of view: in fact, ‘until twelve months ago Professor Finer was still adhering to this view. In advocating proportional representation as he does in this book, . . . he has abandoned the intellectual convictions of a lifetime’. In his later essay ‘Adversary Politics and the Eighties,’ published in 1982, he again pinpoints 1974 as the year of his conversion to PR.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 29 , Issue 5 , 01 December 1994 , pp. 623 - 636
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1994

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

1 Finer, S. E. (ed.), Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform, London, Anthony Wigram, 1975.Google Scholar Subsequent references to this book will be to Finer’s introductory essay, also entitled ‘Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform’, pp. 3–32.

2 Finer, S. E., ‘Adversary Politics and the Eighties’, Electoral Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, 08 1982, p. 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar

4 Finer, ‘Adversary Politics and the Eighties’, p. 221 (italics in original).

5 ibid., pp. 221–22.

6 Arthur Lewis, W., Politics m West Africa, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1965, pp. 71, 79.Google Scholar

7 Rokkan, Stein, Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to The Comparative Study of the Processes of Development, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1970, p. 157.Google Scholar Rokkan’s chapter on ‘Electoral Systems’ in this book was originally published as a chapter in Sills, David (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York, Macmillan and Free Press, 1968, Vol. 5, pp. 6–21.Google Scholar

8 Finer, Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform, p. 10.

9 ibid., p. 26.

10 Strom, Kaare, Minority Government and Majority Rule, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

11 Finer, Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform, pp. 26–27.

12 ibid., p. 27.

13 Lewis, Politics in West Africa, p. 65.

14 Finer, Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform, p. 16.

15 Finer, ‘Adversary Politics and the Eighties’, p. 221.

16 Cited in Rose, Richard, What Are the Economic Consequences of PR?, London, Electoral Reform Society, p. 2.Google Scholar

17 Ronald, Rogowski, ‘Trade and the Variety of Democratic Institutions’, International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 2, Spring 1987, pp. 203–23.Google Scholar

18 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System: Towards a Better Democracy, Wellington, V. R. Ward, Government Printer, 1986, p. 58.

19 Finer, Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform, p. 23.

20 ibid., p. 23. The chapters to which he refers are by Geoffrey K. Roberts, ‘The Federal Republic of Germany’, pp. 203–22, and Hugh Berrington, ‘Electoral Reform and National Government’, pp. 269–91.

21 Finer, Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform, pp. 23, 25.

22 Taagepera, Rein and Shugart, Matthew Soberg, Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1989, p. 112.Google Scholar

23 Based on data in Lijphart, Arend, Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 161–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The Loosemore-Hanby index of disproportionality is the total percentage by which the overrepresented parties are overrepresented (or the total percentage of underrepresentation); see John, Loosemore, and Hanby, Victor J., ‘The Theoretical Limits of Maximum Distortion: Some Analytic Expressions for Electoral Systems’, British journal of Political Science, Vol. 1, No. 4, 10 1971, pp. 467–77.Google Scholar

24 The exact period for each country is from the first to the last parliamentary election between 1945 and 1990. If the German CDU-CSU were regarded as two parties instead of one, the percentage of time that Germany was governed by a coalition cabinet would go up from 96.2 to 99.9 per cent All of the percentages are based on data injaap Woldendorp, Reman, Hans, and Budge, Ian (eds), ‘Political Data 1945–1990: Party Government in 20 Democracies’, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, 07 1993, pp. 53,62, 104.Google Scholar

25 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, op. cit; Amy, Douglas J., Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for Proportional Representation in the United States, New York, Columbia University Press, 1993;Google Scholar Irvine, William P., Does Canada Need a New Electoral System?, Kingston, Ontario, Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University, 1979.Google Scholar

26 Arend, Lijphart, ‘Democracies: Forms, Performance, and Constitutional Engineering’, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 25, No. 1, 01 1994, pp. 4–8.Google Scholar

27 Rose, op. cit, p. 17.

28 ibid., p. 18.