Electoral Rule Disproportionality and Platform Polarization

This paper studies the effect of electoral rule disproportionality and the effect of the number of competing parties on the degree of platform polarization by the means of a unidimensional spatial model with policy motivated parties. We show that platform polarization is decreasing in the level of disproportionality of the electoral rule and increasing in the number of competing parties. By allowing parties to strategically decide whether to enter an electoral race or not we further show that the number of competing parties is decreasing in the level of disproportionality of the electoral rule. Therefore, an increase in the level of electoral rule disproportionality decreases platform polarization both directly and indirectly (through the reduction of the number of competing parties). By constructing a large and homogeneous dataset we provide empirical evidence in support of our theoretical findings; electoral rule disproportionality is the major determinant factor of the level of platform polarization while the number of competing parties has minor explanatory power (due to its dependency on the level of electoral rule disproportionality).

[1]  Arnaud Dellis,et al.  Policy convergence under approval and plurality voting: the role of policy commitment , 2007, Soc. Choice Welf..

[2]  Christina Gathmann,et al.  HOW DO ELECTORAL SYSTEMS AFFECT FISCAL POLICY? EVIDENCE FROM CANTONAL PARLIAMENTS, 1890–2000 , 2013 .

[3]  Massimo Morelli,et al.  Party Formation and Policy Outcomes Under Different Electoral Systems , 1998 .

[4]  R. Jackman Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[5]  I. Budge,et al.  Choices Parties Define , 2006 .

[6]  D. Wittman Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories , 1983, American Political Science Review.

[7]  I. Indridason Proportional Representation, Majoritarian Legislatures, and Coalitional Voting , 2009 .

[8]  M. Gallagher Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems , 1991 .

[9]  G. Cox Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems , 1990 .

[10]  M. Duverger Political Parties Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State , 1964 .

[11]  T. Besley,et al.  Electoral Bias and Policy Choice: Theory and Evidence , 2006 .

[12]  Ignacio Ortuño Ortín A spatial model of political competition and proportional representation , 1997 .

[13]  Gary King Electoral Responsiveness and Partisan Bias in Multiparty Democracies , 1990 .

[14]  B. Grofman DOWNS AND TWO-PARTY CONVERGENCE , 2004 .

[15]  On the Nature of Competition in Alternative Electoral Systems , 2009 .

[16]  S. Merrill,et al.  The effects of alternative power-sharing arrangements: Do “moderating” institutions moderate party strategies and government policy outputs? , 2007 .

[17]  Tim Groseclose,et al.  A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage , 2001 .

[18]  Nicholas A. Valentino,et al.  DOWNS AND TWO-PARTY CONVERGENCE , 2005 .

[19]  R. Myerson Incentives to Cultivate Favored Minorities Under Alternative Electoral Systems , 1993, American Political Science Review.

[20]  Stefano DellaVigna,et al.  The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting , 2006 .

[21]  D. Austen-Smith Redistributing Income under Proportional Representation , 2000, Journal of Political Economy.

[22]  (Don’t) Make My Vote Count , 2015 .

[23]  Ingemar Hansson,et al.  Voting competitions with interested politicians: Platforms do not converge to the preferences of the median voter , 1984 .

[24]  Arnaud Dellis The two-party system under alternative voting procedures , 2013, Soc. Choice Welf..

[25]  D. P. Baron,et al.  Elections, Governments, and Parliaments in Proportional Representation Systems , 2001 .

[26]  J. Karp,et al.  Voters and coalition governments , 2010 .

[27]  Rein Taagepera,et al.  Reformulating the Cube Law for Proportional Representation Elections , 1986, American Political Science Review.

[28]  G. Tabellini,et al.  Electoral Rules and Corruption , 2001, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[29]  Francesco De Sinopoli,et al.  A spatial voting model where proportional rule leads to two-party equilibria , 2000, Int. J. Game Theory.

[30]  Gary A. Stradiotto,et al.  THE STABILITY OF REPRESENTATION: A CROSS‐NATIONAL ANALYSIS OF PARTY POLICY DISPERSION , 2007 .

[31]  CuriniLuigi,et al.  Missing Links in Party-System Polarization: How Institutions and Voters Matter , 2012 .

[32]  D. P. Baron,et al.  A dynamic theory of parliamentary democracy , 2012 .

[33]  John D. Huber,et al.  Congruence between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy , 1994, World Politics.

[34]  M. Osborne,et al.  A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates , 1996 .

[35]  G. Tullock Efficient Rent Seeking , 2001 .

[36]  Georges Casamatta,et al.  On the influence of extreme parties in electoral competition with policy-motivated candidates , 2005, Soc. Choice Welf..

[37]  J. Banks,et al.  Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes , 1988, American Political Science Review.

[38]  Humberto Llavador Electoral Platforms, Implemented Policies, and Abstention , 2006, Soc. Choice Welf..

[39]  L. Ezrow Parties' Policy Programmes and the Dog that Didn't Bark: No Evidence that Proportional Systems Promote Extreme Party Positioning , 2008, British Journal of Political Science.

[40]  Jane Green When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition , 2007 .

[41]  Selim Jürgen Ergun From plurality rule to proportional representation , 2010 .

[42]  Russell J. Dalton The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems , 2008 .

[43]  Jean-François Laslier,et al.  Optimal Apportionment , 2013, Journal of Political Economy.

[44]  S. Hix,et al.  The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low‐Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems , 2011 .

[45]  Emanuele Bracco Optimal districting with endogenous party platforms , 2013 .

[46]  Csaba Nikolenyi A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors , 2005, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique.

[47]  Alessandro Lizzeri,et al.  The provision of public goods under alternative electoral incentives , 2001 .

[48]  Ignacio Ortuño-Ortin,et al.  Political compromise and endogenous formation of coalitions , 1998 .

[49]  D. Soskice,et al.  Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More Than Others , 2006, American Political Science Review.

[50]  A. Downs An Economic Theory of Democracy , 1957 .

[51]  Ben Lockwood,et al.  Multiple Equilibria in the Citizen-Candidate Model of Representative Democracy , 2002 .

[52]  Brian G. Knight,et al.  Socially Optimal Districting: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration , 2007 .

[53]  R. Calvert Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence* , 1985 .

[54]  D. Wittman Candidates with policy preferences: A dynamic model , 1977 .

[55]  Han Dorussen,et al.  Equilibrium in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting , 1999 .

[56]  Ernesto Calvo,et al.  Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives under Different Electoral Systems , 2011 .

[57]  M. Morelli,et al.  Turnout Across Democracies , 2014 .

[58]  T. Palfrey,et al.  Turnout and Power Sharing , 2014 .

[59]  Jay K. Dow A comparative spatial analysis of majoritarian and proportional elections , 2000 .

[60]  T. Palfrey,et al.  Candidate Entry and Political Polarization: An Antimedian Voter Theorem , 2014 .

[61]  Paul V. Warwick Government Survival in Parliamentary Democracies , 1994 .

[62]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Effectiveness of Electoral Systems for Reducing Government Corruption: A Game-Theoretic Analysis , 1993 .

[63]  Gerald Schneider,et al.  Polarization and Conflict: Theoretical and Empirical Issues , 2008 .

[64]  J. Roemer A theory of policy differentiation in single issue electoral politics , 1994 .

[65]  R. Aumann Almost Strictly Competitive Games , 1961 .

[66]  The Desired Political Entropy , 1969 .

[67]  Tom S. Clark,et al.  Should I Use Fixed or Random Effects? , 2014, Political Science Research and Methods.

[68]  Georg Vanberg,et al.  Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work , 2004, The Journal of Politics.

[69]  S. White,et al.  The political parties , 2005 .

[70]  Power sharing and electoral equilibrium , 2014 .

[71]  Jay K. Dow Party-System Extremism in Majoritarian and Proportional Electoral Systems , 2010, British Journal of Political Science.

[72]  Timothy Frye The Perils of Polarization: Economic Performance in the Postcommunist World , 2002 .

[73]  S. Merrill,et al.  Why Small, Centrist Third Parties Motivate Policy Divergence by Major Parties , 2006, American Political Science Review.

[74]  I. Glicksberg A FURTHER GENERALIZATION OF THE KAKUTANI FIXED POINT THEOREM, WITH APPLICATION TO NASH EQUILIBRIUM POINTS , 1952 .

[75]  Rein Taagepera,et al.  “Effective” Number of Parties , 1979 .

[76]  Areno Lijphart,et al.  A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies 1945-1990 , 1995 .

[77]  Francesco De Sinopoli,et al.  Extreme voting under proportional representation: the multidimensional case , 2008, Soc. Choice Welf..

[78]  R. Tollison,et al.  Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society , 1982 .

[79]  David R. Herron Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries . By Arend Lijphart. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984. Pp. xv + 229. $22.50, cloth; $6.95, paper.) , 1985, American Political Science Review.

[80]  J. Friedman On characterizing equilibrium points in two person strictly competitive games , 1983 .

[81]  Seok-ju Cho Voting Equilibria Under Proportional Representation , 2014, American Political Science Review.