Mapping the Indices of Seats–Votes Disproportionality and Inter-Election Volatility

Abstract

Measures of electoral system disproportionality and of party system volatility (as well as malapportionment and vote splitting) present similar statistical issues in terms of deciding what index is most appropriate, but it is not common to view indices of disproportionality and volatility as serving similar ends. Making use of 12 different criteria, we evaluate 19 indices that have been previously proposed as measures of either disproportionality of electoral seats–votes results or over-time volatility of party vote (or seat) shares. We suggest that, on balance, Gallagher’s (1991) index, which has achieved increasing acceptance in the seats–votes literature on disproportionality (see esp. Lijphart, 1994) offers the most desirable combination of features, although the advantages it offers over the Loosemore-Hanby index are not large and are debatable. We also find that Dalton’s principle of transfers presents an ambiguity when one party has a larger number of excess seats, while another has a larger proportion of them.

Keywords

Dalton’s principle of transfers malapportionment proportionality volatility of party shares vote splitting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bartolini, S. and P. Mair (1990) Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of European Electorates 1885–1985. New York: Cambridge University Press .

Coppedge, M. (1996) ‘Latin American Parties: Political Darwinism in the Lost Decade’ . Paper presented at the Conference on Political Parties and Democracy, National Endowment for Democracy, Washington, D.C., November 18–19.

Coulter, P. B. (1980) ‘Measuring the Inequity of Urban Political Services’ , Policy Studies Journal 8: 683–698 .

Cox, G. W. and M. S. Shugart (1991) ‘Comment on Gallagher’s “Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems” ’ , Electoral Studies 10: 348–352 .

Duncan, O. D. and B. Duncan (1955) ‘A Methodical Analysis of Segregation Indexes’ , American Sociological Review 20: 210–217 .

Fry, V. and I. McLean (1991) ‘A Note on Rose’s Proportionality Index’ , Electoral Studies 10: 52–59 .

Galeotti, G. (1994) ‘On Proportional Non-Representation’ , Public Choice 80: 359–370 .

Gallagher, M. (1991) ‘Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems’ , Electoral Studies 10: 33–51 .

Grilli di Cortona, P. , C. Manzi , A. Pennisi , F. Ricca and B. Simeone (1999) Evaluation and Optimization of Electoral Systems. Philadelphia: SIAM .

10.

Grofman, B. (mid-1980s) Private communication, cited in Lijphart (1994: 61).

11.

Grofman, B. , W. Koetzle and T. Brunell (1997) ‘An Integrated Perspective on the Three Potential Sources of Partisan Bias: Malapportionment, Turnout Differences, and the Geographic Distribution of Party Vote Shares’ , Electoral Studies 16: 457–470 .

12.

Laakso, M. and R. Taagepera (1979) ‘ “Effective” Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe’ , Comparative Political Studies 12: 3–27 .

13.

Li, J.-S. (1995) ‘Analyse critique des indices de disproportionnalitÈ Èlectoral et de stabilitÈ. Application aux cas de l’Allemagne et du Japon’ , Revue internationale de politique compareÈ 2: 369–388 .

14.

Lijphart, A. (1984) Democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .

15.

Lijphart, A. (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press .

16.

Loosemore, J. and V. Hanby (1971) ‘The Theoretical Limits of Maximum Distortion: Some Analytical Expressions for Electoral Systems’ , British Journal of Political Science 1: 467–477 .

17.

McAllister, I. and S. White (2000) ‘Split Ticket Voting in the 1995 Russian Duma Elections’ , Electoral Studies 19: 563–567 .

18.

Monroe, B. L. (1994) ‘Disproportionality and Malapportionment: Measuring Electoral Inequity’ , Electoral Studies 13: 132–149 .

19.

Mudambi, R. (1997) ‘A Complete Information Index for Measuring the Proportionality of Electoral Systems’ , Applied Economics Letters 4: 101–104 .

20.

Nagel, S. S. (1984) Public Policy: Goals, Measurement, and Methods. New York: St. Martin’s Press .

21.

Pennisi, A. (1998) ‘Disproportionality Indexes and Robustness of Proportional Allocation Methods’ , Electoral Studies 17: 3–19 .

22.

Przeworski, A. (1975) ‘Institutionalization of Voting Patterns , or Is Mobilization a Source of Decay?’ American Political Science Review 69: 49–67 .

23.

Rae, D. W. (1967) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .

24.

Taagepera, R. (1979) ‘Inequality, Concentration, Imbalance’ , Political Methodology 6: 275–291 .

25.

Taagepera, R. (1997) ‘Effective Number of Parties for Incomplete Data’ , Electoral Studies 16: 145–51 .

26.

Taagepera, R. and B. Grofman (1981) ‘Effective Size and Number of Components’ , Sociological Methods and Research 10: 63–81 .

27.

Taagepera, R. and M. S. Shugart (1989) Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .

28.

Westholm, A. (1997) ‘Distance versus Direction: the Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice’ , American Political Science Review 91: 865–883 .

29.

White, M. J. (1986) ‘Segregation and Diversity Measures in Population Distribution’ , Population Index 52: 193–221 .