This paper addresses the effects of the mixed system used for the last three elections in Lesotho (2002, 2007 and 2012), a small African country with a turbulent history regarding opposition acceptance of elections. The decision to implement a mixed system was in part to encourage democratic stability, yet whether the electoral system has become more conducive to democratic competition is unclear. Through an analysis of national and district-level results, this paper addresses the following questions. First, at the district level, is competition consistent with Duverger’s law or the contamination thesis and is a progression over time evident? Second, does the population size of a district influence the number of candidates and the concentration of votes? Finally, following recent research on detecting electoral fraud, this paper tackles whether the reports of district results suggest extra-institutional manipulation.
AminSamir (1972) Underdevelopment and dependence in Black Africa: Origins and contemporary forms. Journal of Modern African Studies10(4): 503–524.
2.
Amorim-NetoOCoxGW (1997) Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 149–174.
3.
BartoliniS (2002) The political consequences of the Italian mixed electoral system. Paper presented at the Conference on Elections and Democracy, Social Science Institute, University of Lisbon, 1–2 February.
4.
BawnK (1999) Voter responses to electoral complexity: Ticket splitting, rational voters, and representation in the Federal Republic of Germany. British Journal of Political Science29: 487–505.
5.
BeberBScaccoA (2012) What the numbers say: A digit-based test for election fraud. Political Analysis20(2): 211–234.
6.
BlaisAAartsK (2006) Electoral systems and turnout. Acta Politica41: 180–196.
7.
BlaisADobrzynskaA (1998) Turnout in electoral democracies. European Journal of Political Research33: 239–261.
8.
BrockingtonD (2004) The paradox of proportional representation: The effect of party systems and coalitions on individuals’ electoral participation. Political Studies52(3): 469–490.
9.
ChhibberPKollmanK (2004) The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
ChoWBrattonM (2006) Electoral institutions, partisan status, and political support in Lesotho. Electoral Studies25: 731–750.
11.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Co-ordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CoxKESchoppaLJ (2002) Interaction effects in mixed-member electoral systems. Comparative Political Studies35(9): 1027–1053.
13.
DiwakarR (2007) Duverger’s law and the size of the Indian party system. Party Politics13: 539–561.
14.
DuvergerM (1954) Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen and Company.
15.
DuvergerM (1986) Duverger’s law: Forty years later. In: GrofmanBLijphartA (eds) Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press, 69–84.
16.
ElklitJ (2002) Lesotho 2002: Africa’s first MMP elections. Journal of African Elections1(2): 1–10.
17.
FerraraFedericoHerronErik S (2005) Going it alone? Strategic entry under mixed electoral rules. American Journal of Political Science49(1): 16–31.
18.
FerraraFHerronESNishikawaM (2005) Mixed Electoral Systems: Combination and its Consequences. New York: Palgrave.
19.
FranklinMN (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
FranklinMLyonsPMichaelM (2004) Generational basis of turnout decline in established democracies. Acta Politica39(2): 115–151.
21.
GiliomeeH (1998) South Africa’s emerging dominant party regime. Journal of Democracy9(4): 128–142.
22.
GolderSN (2006) Pre-electoral coalition formation in parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science36(2): 193–212.
23.
HerronESNishikawaM (2001) Contamination effects and the number of parties in mixed superposition electoral systems. Electoral Studies20(1): 63–86.
24.
JackmanRW (1987) Political institutions and voter turnout in industrial democracies. American Political Science Review81: 405–424.
25.
JohnstonDeborah (1996) The state and development: An analysis of agricultural policy in Lesotho, 1970–1993. Journal of Southern African Studies22(1): 119–137.
26.
JonesMP (1999) Electoral laws and the effective number of candidates in presidential elections. Journal of Politics61(1): 171–184.
27.
KabembaClaude (2003) From military rule to multiparty democracy: Political reforms and challenges in Lesotho. Electoral Institute of Southern Africa: Research Report2: 1–87.
28.
KingG (1990) Electoral responsiveness and partisan bias in multiparty democracies. Legislative Studies Quarterly15(2): 159–181.
29.
KostadinovaT (2003) Voter turnout dynamics in post communist Europe. European Journal of Political Research42(6): 741–759.
30.
LancasterTDPattersonWD (1990) Comparative pork barrel politics: Perceptions from the West German Bundestag. Comparative Political Studies22(4): 458–477.
31.
LijphartA (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
MakoaFK (2004) Electoral reform and political stability in Lesotho. African Journal on Conflict Resolution4(2): 79–95.
33.
MatlosaK (2006) Electoral system design and conflict mitigation: The case of Lesotho. In: Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) (ed.) Democracy, Conflict and Human Security: Pursuing Peace in the 21st Century, Vol. 2. Pretoria: Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), 94–110.
34.
MatlosaKShaleV (2006) Impact of Floor Crossing on Party Systems and Representative Democracy: The Case of Lesotho. Paper presented for a Workshop on ‘Impact of Floor Crossing on Party Systems and Representative Democracy in Southern Africa,’ Co-hosted by EISA and KAS, The Vineyard Hotel, Cape Town, South Africa, 15 November. Revised 29 November.
35.
McCartneyWJA (1973) The Lesotho general election of 1970. Government and Opposition8(4): 473–494.
36.
MebaneWRJr (2006) Election Forensics: Vote Counts and Benford’s Law (working paper).
37.
MebaneWRJrSekhonJS (2004) Robust estimation and outlier detection for overdispersed multinomial models of count data. American Journal of Political Science48(2): 392–411.
38.
MoserRG (1995) The impact of the electoral system on post-communist party development: The case of the 1993 Russian parliamentary elections. Electoral Studies14(4): 377–398.
39.
MoserRG (1997) The impact of parliamentary electoral systems in Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs13(3): 284–302.
40.
MoserRGScheinerE (2004) Mixed electoral systems and electoral system effects: Controlled comparison and cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies23: 575–599.
41.
MosimannJEDahlbergJEDavidianNMKruegerJW (2002) Terminal digits and the examination of questioned data. Accountability in Research9(2): 75–92.
42.
MosimannJERatnaparkhiMV (1996) Uniform occurrence of digits for folded and mixture distributions on finite intervals. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation25(2): 481–506.
43.
MosimannJEWisemanCVEdelmanRE (1995) Data fabrication: Can people generate random digits?Accountability in Research4(1): 31–55.
44.
MozaffarSScarrittJRGalaichG (2003) Electoral institutions, ethnopolitical cleavages, and party systems in Africa’s emerging democracies. American Political Science Review97(3): 379–390.
45.
NagayamaM (1997) Shousenkyoku no Kako to Genzai [The past and present of SMDs]. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Japan Political Science Association, Tokyo.
NishikawaM (2002) Does the Duverger’s law really work?Public Choice Studies (Japanese) 38: 19–30.
48.
NorrisP (2004) Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
OlaleyeW (2004) Democratic consolidation and political parties in Lesotho. The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) Occasional Paper, No. 15, December.
50.
OrdeshookPShvetsovaO (1994) Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science38: 100–123.
51.
PattersonDFadiga-StewartL (2005) The Strategy of Dominant Party Politics: Electoral Institutions and Outcomes in Africa. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC, 1 September. Available at: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p41406_index.html (accessed 10 September 2008).
52.
PempelTJ (1990) Conclusion. In: PempelTJ (ed.) Uncommon Democracies: The One Party Dominant Regimes. Ithaca, NJ: Cornell University Press, 333–360.
53.
PherudiML (2001) The Lesotho Liberation Army (LLA): Formation, mission and schisms. South African History Journal45(1): 266–277.
54.
PowellGB (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
55.
RaeDouglas (1971) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
56.
RaeDouglas (1995) Using district magnitude to regulate political party competition. Journal of Economic Perspectives9(1): 63–75.
57.
ReedSR (2001) Duverger’s law is working in Italy. Comparative Political Studies34: 312–327.
58.
ReedSR (2007) Duverger’s law is working in Japan. Japanese Journal of Electoral Studies22: 96–106.
59.
ReynoldsAReillyBEllisA (eds) (2005) Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
60.
RichT (2013) Institutional Influences on Turnout in Mixed Member Legislative Systems: An Exploratory Analysis. Unpublished paper.
SartoriG (1976) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
SartoriG (1997) Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes. New York: New York University Press.
64.
ShugartMWattenbergMP (eds) (2001) Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
SimkinsCGiliomeeH (1999) Conclusion. In: SimkinsCGiliomeeH (eds) The Awkward Embrace: One Party-Domination and Democracy. Cape Town: Tafelberg Publishers, 338–341.
66.
StratmannTBaurM (2002) Plurality rule, proportional representation, and the German Bundestag: How incentives to pork barrel differ across electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science46(3): 506–514.
67.
TaageperaRAllikM (2006) Seat share distribution of parties: Models and empirical patterns. Electoral Systems25: 696–713.
68.
TaageperaRShugartM (1989) Seats and Votes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
69.
TaageperaRShugartM (1993) Predicting the number of parties: A quantitative model of Duverger’s mechanical effect. American Political Science Review87(2): 455–464.
70.
TangriRoger (1993.) Foreign business and political unrest in Lesotho. African Affairs92(367): 223–238.
71.
TeixeiraR (1992) The Disappearing American Voter. Washington, DC: Brookings.
72.
TurkonD (2008) Commoners, kings, and subaltern: Political factionalism and structured inequality in Lesotho. POLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review31(2): 203–223.
73.
VenterDenis (2003) Democracy and multiparty politics in Africa: Recent elections in Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Lesotho. Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review19(1): 1–39.
74.
WandJNShottsKWSekhonJSMebaneWRJrHerronMCBradyHE (2001) The butterfly did it: The aberrant vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida. American Political Science Review95(4): 793–810.
75.
WattenbergMP (2002) Where Have All the Voters Gone?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
