Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-mhzq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-17T20:32:05.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electoral Reform and Trade-Offs in Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2019

MICHAEL BECHER Open the ORCID record for MICHAEL BECHER [Opens in a new window]  and
IRENE MENÉNDEZ GONZÁLEZ Open the ORCID record for IRENE MENÉNDEZ GONZÁLEZ [Opens in a new window]
MICHAEL BECHER*
Affiliation:
Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse
IRENE MENÉNDEZ GONZÁLEZ*
Affiliation:
University of Mannheim
*
*Michael Becher, Assistant Professor in Political Science, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse and University Toulouse 1 Capitole, michael.becher@iast.fr.
†Irene Menéndez González, Assistant Professor in International Politics and Development, University of Mannheim, menendez@uni-mannheim.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the effect of electoral institutions on two important features of representation that are often studied separately: policy responsiveness and the quality of legislators. Theoretically, we show that while a proportional electoral system is better than a majoritarian one at representing popular preferences in some contexts, this advantage can come at the price of undermining the selection of good politicians. To empirically assess the relevance of this trade-off, we analyze an unusually controlled electoral reform in Switzerland early in the twentieth century. To account for endogeneity, we exploit variation in the intensive margin of the reform, which introduced proportional representation, based on administrative constraints and data on voter preferences. A difference-in-difference analysis finds that higher reform intensity increases the policy congruence between legislators and the electorate and reduces legislative effort. Contemporary evidence from the European Parliament supports this conclusion.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 113 , Issue 3 , August 2019 , pp. 694 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

For helpful comments on previous versions we are especially grateful to Lucy Barnes, Larry Bartels, José Cheibub, Ruth Dassonneville, Thomas Däubler, Dominik Duell, Albert Falcó-Gimeno, Mark Hallerberg, Carlo Horz, Mark Kayser, Carl Georg Maier, Bingham Powell, Nicolas Sauger, Christian Traxler, Thomas Zittel, Karine Van Der Straeten, four anonymous reviewers as well as conference/seminar participants at the annual meetings of MPSA (2017), APSA (2017), EPSA (2018), IAST/TSE, Democratic Anxieties Workshop (Berlin), Hertie School of Governance, IPERG-Barcelona, Sciences Po Paris and the University of Zürich. Víctor Quintas Martínez, Martina Buchinger and Ahmet Köken provided excellent research assistance. All mistakes, however, are our own. Financial support from the ANR-Labex IAST is gratefully acknowledged. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/H1CCWM.

References

REFERENCES

Ahmed, Amel. 2013. Democracy and the Politics of Electoral System Choice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alt, James E., and Dreyer Lassen, David. 2006. “Transparency, Political Polarization, and Political Budget Cycles in OECD Countries.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (4): 530–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beath, Andrew, Christia, Fotini, Egorov, Georgy, and Enikolopov, Ruben. 2016. “Electoral Rules and Political Selection: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan.” The Review of Economic Studies 83 (3): 932–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth. 2007. “Electoral Laws as Political Consequences: Explaining the Origins Change of Electoral Institutions.” Annual Review of Political Science 10: 363–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernheim, Douglas B., Peleg, Bezalel, and Whinston, Michael D.. 1987. “Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria I. Concepts.” Journal of Economic Theory 42: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy. 2006. Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, Folke, Olle, Persson, Torsten, and Rickne, Johanna. 2017. “Gender Quotas and the Crisis of the Mediocre Man: Theory and Evidence from Sweden.” The American Economic Review 107 (8): 2204–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, and Bodet, Marc André. 2006. “Does Proportional Representation Foster Closer Congruence between Citizens and Policy Makers?” Comparative Political Studies 39 (10): 1243–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boix, Carles. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies.” American Political Science Review 93 (3): 609–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Rodden, Jonathan. 2015. “The Achilles Heel of Plurality Systems: Geography and Representation in Multiparty Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 789–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Colin A., Gelbach, Jonah B., and Miller, Douglas L.. 2008. “Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 90 (3): 414–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., and Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14 (4): 417–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., and Hix, Simon. 2011. “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 383–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., Fiva, Jon H., and Smith, Daniel M.. 2016. “The Contraction Effect: How Proportional Representation Affects Mobilization and Turnout.” The Journal of Politics 78 (4): 1249–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal Bó, Ernesto, Finan, Frederico, Folke, Olle, Persson, Torsten, and Rickne, Johanna. 2017. “Who Becomes a Politician?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 132 (4): 1877–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C. 2014. “Partisanship and Electoral Accountability: Evidence from the UK Expenses Scandal.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9 (4): 441–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C. 2015. “Proportionality and Turnout: Evidence from French Municipalities.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (2): 135–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. 1986. “Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control.” Public Choice 50 (1–3): 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisman, Raymond, Harmon, Nikolaj A., Kamenica, Emir, and Munk, Inger. 2015. “Labor Supply of Politicians.” Journal of the European Economic Association 13 (5): 871–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, Patricia, and Gathmann, Christina. 2013. “How Do Electoral Rules Affect Fiscal Policy? Evidence from Cantonal Parliaments, 1890–2000.” Journal of the European Economic Association 11 (5): 1178–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagliarducci, Stefano, Nannicini, Tommaso, and Naticchioni, Paolo. 2011. “Electoral Rules and Politicians’ Behavior: A Micro Test.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3 (3): 144–74.Google Scholar
Galasso, Vincenzo, and Nannicini, Tommaso. 2011. “Competing on Good Politicians.” American Political Science Review 105 (1): 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galasso, Vincenzo, and Nannicini, Tommaso. 2017. “Political Selection under Alternative Electoral Rules.” Public Choice 171 (3–4): 257–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, Matt, and Stramski, Jacek. 2010. “Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruner, Erich. 1977. Die Parteien in der Schweiz. 2nd edition. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Gruner, Erich, ed. 1978. Die Wahlen in den Schweizerischen Nationalrat 1848–1919. Vol. 1. Bern: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Hinnerich, Björn Tyrefors, and Pettersson-Lidbom, Per. 2014. “Democracy, Redistribution, and Political Participation: Evidence from Sweden 1919–1938.” Econometrica 82 (2): 961–93.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul G., and Roland, Gérard. 2007. Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høyland, Bjørn, Hobolt, Sara B., and Hix, Simon. 2017. “Career Ambitions and Legislative Participation: The Moderating Effect of Electoral Institutions.” British Journal of Political Science. Published online 21 March 2017.Google Scholar
Htun, Mala, and Powell, G. Bingham Jr., eds. 2013. Between Science and Engineering: Reflections on the APSA Presidential Task Force on Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Kummer, Peter. 1969. Der Zürcherische Proporzkampf. Zürich: Juris.Google Scholar
Leemann, Lucas, and Mares, Isabela. 2014. “The Adoption of Proportional Representation.” The Journal of Politics 76 (2): 461–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupu, Noam, Selios, Lucía, and Warner, Zach. 2017. “A New Measure of Congruence: The Earth Mover’s Distance.” Political Analysis 25 (1): 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2009. “A ‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (4): 369–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2011. “Clarifying the Concept of Representation.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 621–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America. Cambridge, MA; London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government. London: Parker, Son, and Bourne.Google Scholar
Morelli, Massimo. 2004. “Party Formation and Policy Outcomes under Different Electoral Systems.” The Review of Economic Studies 71 (3): 829–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, Roger B. 1993. “Effectiveness of Electoral Systems for Reducing Government Corruption: A Game-Theoretic Analysis.” Games and Economic Behavior 5: 118–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemoto, Kuniaki, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 2013. “Localism and Coordination under Three Different Electoral Systems: The National District of the Japanese House of Councillors.” Electoral Studies 32 (1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Torsten, and Tabellini, Guido. 2000. Political Economics. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Persson, Torsten, and Tabellini, Guido. 2003. The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmann, Marco, Stadelmann, David, and Eichenberger, Reiner. 2012. “District Magnitude and Representation of the Majority’s Preferences: Evidence from Popular and Parliamentary Votes.” Public Choice 151 (3–4): 585–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr.. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr.. 2009. “The Ideological Congruence Controversy: The Impact of Alternative Measures, Data, and Time Periods on the Effects of Election Rules.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (3): 1475–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham Jr., and Vanberg, Georg S.. 2000. “Election Laws, Disproportionality and Median Correspondence: Implications for Two Visions of Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science 30 (3): 383–411.Google Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan. 2010. “The Geographic Distribution of Political Preferences.” Annual Review of Political Science 13 (1): 321–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, Lukas, and Däubler, Thomas. 2016. “Holding Individual Representatives Accountable: The Role of Electoral Systems.” The Journal of Politics 78 (3): 746–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Søberg, Valdini, Melody Ellis, and Suominen, Kati. 2005. “Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under Proportional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 437–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas, and Baur, Martin. 2002. “Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag: How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ across Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 506–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Becher and González Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/H1CCWM
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Becher and González supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Becher and González supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 408.5 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.