In practice, democracies privilege plurality parties. Theories of the democratic process challenge the democratic credentials of this practice. Abstract social choice theory wonders whether an electoral majority even exists. A more optimistic line of argument, prominent in research on collective representation, assumes that the policy position of the median voter embodies the majority electoral preference. The conflict between what democracies actually do and what two leading theories of the democratic process say calls for a comparative inquiry into electoral majoritarianism. For each of a dozen countries, the authors ask whether any political party commands a predominant majoritarian position among voters—that is, is a Condorcet winner—and, if so, which party it is. They find that a Condorcet winning party exists in all 12 countries and that the plurality party can lay more claim to representing the popular majority than the left—right median party. These findings have important implications for the study of democratic representation, which the authors consider in their conclusions.
AbramsonP. R.AldrichJ. H.BlaisA.DiamondM.DiskinA.IndridasonI. H.. . . LevineR. (2010). Comparing strategic voting under FPTP and PR. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 61-90.
2.
AdamsJ. (2001a). Party competition and responsible party government: A theory of spatial competition based upon insights from behavioral research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
3.
AdamsJ. (2001b). A theory of spatial competition with biased voters. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 121-158.
4.
AdamsJ.ClarkM.EzrowL.GlasgowG. (2004). Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: Do parties respond to public opinion or past election results?British Journal of Political Science, 34, 589-610.
5.
AdamsJ. F.MerrillS.GrofmanB. (2005). A unified theory of party competition: A cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
AndersonC. J. (2007). The end of economic voting? contingency dilemmas and the limits of democratic accountability. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 271-296.
7.
ArrowK. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York, NY: John Wiley.
8.
ArrowK. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
BestR. E.McDonaldM. D. (2011). The role of party positions in the operation of democracy. In AndersonC. J.DaltonR. (Eds.), Citizens, context, and choice. (pp. 79-102). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
BlackD. (1948). On the rationale of group decision making. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 23-34.
11.
BlackD. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BlaisA.BodetM. A. (2006). Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policymakers?Comparative Political Studies, 39, 1243-1262.
13.
BlaisA.YoungR.TurcotteM. (2005). Direct or indirect: Assessing two approaches to the measurement of strategic voting. Electoral Studies, 24, 163-176.
14.
BrowneE.FranklinM. (1973). Aspects of coalition payoffs in European parliamentary democracies. American Political Science Review, 67, 453-469.
15.
BudgeI.KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.TannenbaumE.BaraJ. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, governments and electorates 1945–1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
ColomerJ. M. (2001). Political institutions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
CondorcetM. J. A. N.deCaritatdeMarquis. (1785). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des decisions rendues à la pluralité des voix [Essay on the application of the probabilistic analysis of majority vote decisions]. Paris, France: Imprimerie Royale.
18.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In ApterD. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-261). New York, NY: Free Press.
19.
ConverseP. E. (1966). The problem of party distances in models of voting change. In JenningsM. K.ZeiglerL. H. (Eds.), The electoral process (pp. 175-207). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
ConverseP. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. In TufteE. R. (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168-189). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
21.
ConverseP. E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 331-353.
22.
DahlR. A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
DeMeyerF.PlottC. R. (1970). The probability of a cyclical majority. Econometrica, 38, 345-354.
24.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
25.
GamsonW. A. (1961). A theory of coalition formation. American Sociological Review, 26, 373-382.
26.
GolderM.StramskiJ. (2010). Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 90-106.
27.
HotellingH. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 39, 41-57.
28.
HuberJ. D.PowellG. B. (1994). Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics, 46, 291-326.
29.
KimH.FordingR. C. (1998). Voter ideology in Western democracies 1946–1989. European Journal of Political Research, 33, 73-97.
30.
KimH.PowellG. B.FordingR. C. (2010). Electoral systems, party systems and ideological representation. Comparative Politics, 43, 167-185.
31.
KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.BudgeI.McDonaldM. D. (2006). Mapping policy preferences II. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
LaverM.SchofieldN. (1990). Multiparty government: The politics of coalition in Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
33.
LijphartA. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.
McDonaldM. D.BudgeI. (2005). Elections, parties, democracy: Conferring the median mandate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
McDonaldM. D.MendesS. M.BudgeI. (2004). What are elections for? Conferring the median mandate. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 1-26.
36.
McKelveyR. D. (1976). Intransitivities in multi-dimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory, 12, 472-482.
37.
MillerN. (2007). In search of the uncovered set. Political Analysis, 15, 21-45.
38.
MüllerW. C.StrømK. (2000). Coalition governments in Western Europe: An introduction. In MüllerW. C.StrømK. (Eds.), Coalition government in Western Europe (pp. 1-31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
NiemiR. G. (1969). Majority decision-making with partial unidimensionality. American Political Science Review, 63, 488-497.
40.
NiemiR. G. (1983). Why so much stability? Another opinion. Public Choice, 42, 261-270.
41.
PowellG. B.Jr. (2000). Elections as instrument of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
PowellG. B.Jr. (2009). The ideological congruence controversy. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 1475-1497.
43.
PowellG. B.Jr.VanbergG. (2000). Election laws, disproportionality, and median correspondence: Implications for two visions of democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 383-411.
44.
RabinowitzG.MacDonaldS. E. (1989). A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 83, 93-121.
45.
RegenwetterM.GrofmanB.MarleyA. A. J.TsetlinI. M. (2006). Behavioral social choice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
RikerW. H. (1982). Liberalism against populism: A confrontation between the theory of democracy and the theory of social choice. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
47.
SandersD.CareyS. (2002). Temporal variations in economic voting: A comparative cross-national analysis. In DorussenH.TaylorM. (Eds.), Economic voting (pp. 200-231). London, UK: Routledge.
48.
SchmittH.LovelessM.AdamS.BraunD.TokaG.Van der EijkC.Van der BrugW.WustA.DumontP.PapageorgiouB. . . . Costa LoboM. (2004). European Election Study 2004: Design, data description and documentation. Mannheim, Germany: MZES.
49.
SchofieldN. (1978). Instability of simple dynamic games. Review of Economic Studies, 45, 575-594.
50.
SchofieldN. (1985). Social choice and democracy. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag.
51.
SchofieldN. (2003). Valence competition in spatial stochastic models. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15, 371-383.
52.
SchofieldN. (2004). Equilibrium in the spatial valence model of elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16, 447-481.
53.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper. (Original work published 1942)
54.
ShepsleK. A. (1979). Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 27-59.
55.
ShepsleK. A.WeingastB. R. (1981). Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice, 37, 503-519.
56.
ShugartM. S.TaageperaR. (1994). Plurality versus majority election of presidents: A proposal for a “double complement rule.”Comparative Political Studies, 27, 323-348.
57.
StokesD. E. (1966). Some dynamic elements of contests for the presidency. American Political Science Review, 60, 19-28.
58.
TaageperaR.ShugartM. S. (1989). Seats and votes: The effects and determinants of electoral systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
59.
Van DeemanA. (1999). The probability of the paradox of voting for weak preference orderings. Social Choice and Welfare, 16, 171-182.
60.
WarwickP. V. (2009). Bilateralism or the median mandate? An examination of rival perspectives on democratic governance. European Journal of Political Science, 49, 1-24.
61.
WarwickP. V.DruckmanJ. N. (2006). The portfolio allocation paradox: An investigation into the nature of a very strong but puzzling relationship. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 635-665.
62.
WeberJ. S. (1993). An elementary proof of the conditions for a generalized Condorcet paradox. Public Choice, 77, 415-419.
63.
ZallerJ. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
