Having two votes for the same election or two simultaneous elections with different electoral systems provides a golden opportunity to ascertain the impact of the electoral system and to sort out the relative magnitude of mechanical and psychological effects on parties and voters. The authors propose a new methodology for estimating such effects and apply that methodology to 13 elections, 9 in Switzerland and 4 in Japan. The authors find mechanical effects to dominate in half of the elections examined, most particularly in the more recent Swiss elections. They discuss the implications of these findings.
AlvarezR. M.BoehmkeF. J.NaglerJ. (2006). Strategic voting in British elections. Electoral Studies, 25, 1-19.
2.
AlvarezR. M.NaglerJ. (2000). A new approach for modelling strategic voting in multiparty elections. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 57-75.
3.
BlaisA.BodetM. A. (2006). How do voters form expectations about the parties’ chances of winning the election?Social Science Quarterly, 87, 477-493.
4.
BlaisA.CartyK. (1991). The psychological impact of electoral laws: Measuring Duverger’s elusive factor. British Journal of Political Science, 21, 79-93.
5.
BlaisA.Dostie-GouletE.BodetM. A. (2009). Voting strategically in Canada and Britain. In GrofmanB.BlaisA.BowlerS. (Eds.), Duverger’s law of plurality voting: The logic of party competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States (pp. 13-26). New York, NY: Springer.
6.
ClarkW.GolderM. (2006). Rehabilitating Duverger’s law: Testing the mechanical and strategic modifying effects of electoral laws. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 679-708.
7.
CoxG. W. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CoxK. E.SchoppaL. J. (2002). Interaction effects in mixed-member electoral systems. Comparative Political Studies, 35, 1027-1053.
9.
DuvergerM. (1951). Les partis politiques [Political Parties]. Paris, France: Seuil.
10.
FerraraF.HerronE. S. (2005). Going it alone? Strategic entry under mixed electoral rules. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 16-31.
11.
GauglhoferM. (1988). Analyse der Sitzverteilungsverfahren bei Proportionalwahlen [Analysis of seat allocation methods in proportional elections]. Chur, Switzerland: Rüegger.
12.
GidengilE. (1995). Economic man-social woman? The case of the gender gap in support for the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. Comparative Political Studies, 28, 384-408.
13.
GidengilE.BlaisA.NadeauR.NevitteN. (1999). Making sense of regional voting in the 1997 Canadian Federal Election: Liberal and reform support outside Quebec. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 32, 247-272.
14.
HonakerJ.KatzJ. N.KingG. (2002). A fast, easy, and efficient estimator for multiparty electoral data. Political Analysis, 10, 84-100.
15.
JacksonJ. E. (2002). A seemingly unrelated regression model for analyzing multiparty elections. Political Analysis, 10, 49-65.
16.
KamakuraW. A.MazzonJ. A. (2007). Accounting for voter heterogeneity within and across districts with a factor-analytic voter-choice model. Political Analysis, 15, 67-84.
17.
KatzJ. N.KingG. (1999). A statistical model for multiparty electoral data. American Political Science Review, 93, 15-32.
18.
KatzR. S. (1997). Democracy and elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
KingG.TomzM.WittenbergJ. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 347-361.
20.
KrausV. (1986). Group differences: The issue of decomposition. Quality & Quantity, 20, 181-190.
21.
KriesiH. (1998). Le système politique suisse [The Swiss Political System] (2nd ed.). Paris, France: Economica.
22.
KriesiH.LachatR.SelbP.BorbschierS.HelbingM. (Eds.). (2005). Der Aufstieg der SVP. Acht Kantone im Vergleich [The rise of the Swiss People’s Party : Eight cantons compared]. Zurich, Switzerland: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
23.
KriesiH.TrechselA. H. (2008). The politics of Switzerland: Continuity and change in a consensus democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
LaaksoM.TaageperaR. (1979). “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12, 3-27.
25.
LachatR. (2006). A tale of two councils: Explaining the weakness of the SVP in the upper house of the federal parliament. Swiss Political Science Review, 12, 77-99.
26.
LagoI.MonteroJ. R. (2009). Coordination between electoral arenas in multilevel countries. European Journal of Political Research, 48, 176-203.
27.
LijphartA. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28.
MassicotteL.BlaisA. (1999). Mixed electoral systems: A conceptual and empirical survey. Electoral Studies, 18, 341-366.
29.
TaageperaR.ShugartM. S. (1989). Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
TomzM.TuckerJ. A.WittenbergJ. (2002). An easy and accurate regression model for multiparty electoral data. Political Analysis, 10, 66-83.
