Do electoral reforms tend to favour the incumbents? A quantitative analysis

Author:

Patkós VeronikaORCID,Stump Árpád

Abstract

AbstractElectoral reforms offer an opportunity to incumbents to change the rules strategically, for their own benefits. From this aspect, the low number of studies addressing the effect of incumbents’ potential strategic manipulations of the electoral rules is striking. Most research analyses single reform cases, offering an overview of the context, the negotiations, and the outcome of the reform process. Comparative research on strategic electoral manipulation, however, is scarce, and almost non-existent on non-transitional settings or established democracies. To fill this gap, the present study examines whether European electoral reforms have served the short-term interest of the incumbent parties, analysing data in 30 European countries of all relevant electoral reforms carried out between 1960 and 2011. Interestingly, the results do not support the assumption that incumbent parties generally benefit from carrying out a reform. Moreover, it finds no substantial differences in this regard between major and minor reforms, and neither the age of democracies nor the timing of the reform has a significant effect on reformers’ gains. The paper discusses possible explanations for the negative effect found, and it concludes that, apart from promoting self-interest and the unpredictability of the reforms’ effects, the most probable causes are the reformers’ alternative goals.

Funder

Nemzeti Kutatási, Fejlesztési és Innovaciós Alap

Emberi Eroforrások Minisztériuma

Magyar Tudományos Akadémia

Centre for Social Sciences

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Political Science and International Relations

Reference34 articles.

1. Andrews, Josephine T., and Robert W. Jackman. 2005. Strategic Fools: Electoral Rule Choice under Extreme Uncertainty. Electoral Studies 24 (1): 65–84.

2. Armingeon, Klaus, Virginia Wenger, Fiona Wiedemeier, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, and David Weisstanner. 2018a. Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set—Government Composition 1960–2016. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne.

3. Armingeon, Klaus, Virginia Wenger, Fiona Wiedemeier, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, David Weisstanner, and Sarah Engler. 2018b. Comparative Political Data Set 1960–2016. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne.

4. Bawn, Kathleen. 1993. The Logic of Institutional Preferences: German Electoral Law as a Social Choice Outcome. American Journal of Political Science 37: 965–89.

5. Bedock, Camille. 2014. ‘Reforming Democracy: Institutional Engineering in Western Europe, 1990–2010’. PhD Thesis.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3