Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:57:26.392Z 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

Why Ballot Structure Matters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2013

Matthew S. Shugart
Matthew S. Shugart*
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. 818 - 820
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

André, Audrey, and Depauw, Sam. 2012. “District Magnitude and Home Styles of Representation in European Democracies.” Presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Antwerp, April 11–15.Google Scholar
André, Audrey, Depauw, Sam, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 2013. “The Effect of Electoral Institutions on Legislative Behavior.” In The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, ed. Martin, by Shane, Saalfeld, Thomas, and Strøm, Kaare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun. 2002. “Parties in Legislature: Two Competing Explanations.” In Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. and, R.J. Dalton, Wattenberg, M.P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, S., and Farrell, D. M.. 1993. Legislator Shirking and Voter Monitoring: Impacts of European Parliament Electoral Systems upon Legislative-Voter Relationships. Journal of Common Market Studies 31(1): 45–69.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce E., Ferejohn, John A., and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 92–107.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14(4): 417–39.Google Scholar
Crisp, Brian F. 2007. “Incentives in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: General Election Laws, Candidate Selection Procedures, and Cameral Rules.” Comparative Political Studies 40(12): 1460–85.Google Scholar
Crisp, Brian F., Escobar-Lemmon, Maria C., Jones, Bradford S., Jones, Mark P., and Taylor-Robinson, Michelle M.. 2004. “Electoral Incentives and Legislative Representation in Six Presidential Democracies.” The Journal of Politics 66(3): 823–46.Google Scholar
Curtice, John, and Shively, Phillips. 2009. “Who Represents Us Best? One Member or Many?” In The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, ed. Klingemann, H.D.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, D.M., and Scully, R.. 2007. Representing Europe's Citizens? Electoral Institutions and the Failure of Parliamentary Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ingall, Rachael E., and Crisp, Brian F.. 2001. “Determinants of Home Style: The Many Incentives for Going Home in Colombia.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26(3): 487–511.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Paul. 2000. “Voters and Their Representatives: Electoral Institutions and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 37(3): 335–51.Google Scholar
Samuels, David J. 2002. “Incentives to Cultivate a Party Vote in Candidate-Centric Electoral Systems: Evidence from Brazil.” Comparative Political Studies 32(4): 487–518.Google Scholar
Samuels, David. J., and Shugart, Matthew S.. 2010. Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.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
Strøm, K. 1997. “Rules, Reasons and Routines: Legislative Roles in Parliamentary Democracies.” In Members of Parliament in Western Europe: Roles and Behaviour, ed. Müller, W.C. and Saalfeld, T.. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar