Political parties are key actors in electoral democracies: they organize the legislature, form governments, and citizens choose their representatives by voting for them. How citizens evaluate political parties and how well the parties that citizens evaluate positively perform thus provide useful tools to estimate the quality of representation from the individual’s perspective. We propose a measure that can be used to assess party preference representation at both the individual and aggregate levels, both in government and in parliament. We calculate the measure for over 160,000 survey respondents following 111 legislative elections held in 38 countries. We find little evidence that the party preferences of different socio-economic groups are systematically over or underrepresented. However, we show that citizens on the right tend to have higher representation scores than their left-wing counterparts. We also find that whereas proportional systems do not produce higher levels of representation on average, they reduce variance in representation across citizens.
AbramowitzAI (1989) Campaign spending in U.S. senate elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly14(4): 487–507.
2.
AbramsonPRAldrichJHDiskinA, et al. (2018) The effect of national and constituency level expectations on tactical voting in the British general election of 2010. In: StephensonLBAldrichJHBlaisA (eds) The Many Faces of Strategic Voting: Tactical Behavior in Electoral Systems Around the World. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 28–60.
3.
AbramsonPRAldrichJHPaolinoP, et al. (1992) “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review86(1): 55–69.
4.
AndersonCBlaisABowlerS, et al. (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
AndersonCJGuilloryCA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review91(1): 66–81.
6.
ArzheimerKEvansJLewis-BeckMS (eds) (2017) The SAGE Handbook of Electoral Behaviour. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
7.
BakkerRCatherine deVEricaE, et al. (2015) Measuring party positions in Europe: the Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics21(1): 143–152.
8.
BartelsLM (2016) Unequal democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
9.
BlaisABodetMA (2006) Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policymakers?Comparative Political Studies39: 1243–1262.
10.
BlaisAGuntermannEBodetMA (2017) Linking party preferences and the composition of government: a new standard for evaluating the performance of electoral democracy. Political Science Research and Methods5(2): 315–331.
11.
BormannN-CGolderM (2013) Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946–2011. Electoral Studies32: 360–369.
12.
BranhamJASorokaSNWlezienC (2017) When do the rich win?. Political ScienceQuarterly132: 43–62.
13.
BurnhagenPMarshM (2007) The partisan effects of low turnout: analyzing vote abstention as a missing data problem. Electoral Studies26(3): 548–560.
14.
ClaytonAZetterbergP (2018) Quota shocks: electoral gender quotas and government spending priorities worldwide. The Journal of Politics80: 916–932.
15.
DaltonRJFarrellDMMcAllisterI (2011) Political and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
De VriesCEHakhverdianALanceeB (2013) The dynamics of voters’ left/right identification: the role of economic and cultural attitudes. Political Science Research and Methods1(2): 223–238.
17.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.
GilensM (2005) Inequality and democratic responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly69(5): 778–796.
20.
GilensM (2012) Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
GolderMFerlandB (2018) Electoral rules and citizen-elite ideological congruence. In: HerronESPekkanenRJShugartMS (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 213–246.
22.
GolderMLloydG (2014) Re-evaluating the relationship between electoral rules and ideological congruence. European Journal of Political Research53: 200–212.
23.
GolderMStramskiJ (2010) Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science54: 90–106.
24.
GuntermannEDassonnevilleRMillerP (2020) Are inequalities in representation lower under compulsory voting?Policy Studies41(2–3): 151–171.
25.
EriksonRSMackuwenMBStimsonJA (2002) The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HanjalZL (2009) Who loses in American democracy? A count of votes demonstrates the limited representation of African Americans. American Political Science Review103(1): 37–57.
27.
HightonBWolfingerRE (2001) The political implications of higher turnout. British Journal of Political Science31(1): 179–192.
28.
HoboltSBKlemmemsenR (2005) Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark. Political Studies53(2): 379–402.
29.
HoboltSBKlemmemsenR (2008) Government responsiveness and political competition in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies41(1): 309–337.
30.
Holtz-BachaCKaidLL (2014) Political advertising in international comparison. In: ChengH (ed), The Handbook of International Advertising Research. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 554–575.
31.
HoogheMDassonnevilleROserJ (2019) Public opinion, turnout and social policy: a comparative analysis of policy congruence in European liberal democracies. Political Studies67(4): 992–1009.
32.
HuberJDPowellGBJr. (1994) Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics46(3): 291–326.
33.
IversenTSoskiceD (2006) Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: why some democracies redistribute more than others. American Political Science Review100(2): 165–181.
34.
KangS-GPowellGBJr (2010) Representation and policy responsiveness: the median voter, election rules, and redistributive welfare spending. Journal of Politics72(4): 1014–1028.
35.
KohlerU (2011) Estimating the potential outcome of nonvoter on outcomes of parliamentary elections in proportional systems with an application to German national elections from 1949 to 2009. Electoral Studies30(3): 497–509.
36.
LeighleyJENaglerJ (2014) Who Votes Now?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
LeighleyJEOserJ (2018) Representation in an era of political economic inequality: how and when citizen engagement matters. Perspectives on Politics16(2): 328–344.
38.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39.
MansbridgeJ (2003) Rethinking representation. American Political Science Review97(4): 515–528.
40.
MartinezMDGillJ (2005) The effects of turnout on partisan outcomes in U.S. presidential elections 1960–2000. The Journal of Politics67(4): 1248–1274.
41.
NevitteNBlaisAGidengilE, et al. (2009) Socioeconomic status and nonvoting: a cross-national comparative analysis. In: KlingemannH-D (ed), The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 85–107.
42.
PitkinH (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
43.
PiurkoYSchwartzSHDavidovE (2011) Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries. Political Psychology32(4): 537–561.
44.
PowellGBJr (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
45.
RubensonDBlaisAFournierF, et al. (2007) Does low turnout matter? Evidence from the 2000 Canadian Federal Election. Electoral Studies26(3): 589–597.
46.
ShugartMS (2005) Semi-presidential systems: dual executive and mixed authority patterns. French Politics3: 323–351.
47.
SorokaSWlezienC (2010) Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
SteckerCTausendpfundM (2016) Multidimensional government-citizen congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research55(3): 492–511.
49.
TsebelisG (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
Van BuurenSGroothuis-OudshoornK (2011) MICE: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software45(3): 1–67.
51.
Van der EijkCVan EgmondM (2007) Political effects of low turnout in national and European elections. Electoral Studies26(3): 561–573.
52.
Van SpanjeJVan der BrugW (2007) The party as pariah: the exclusion of anti-immigration parties and its effect on their ideological positions. West European Politics30(5): 1022–1040.
53.
WolbrechtCCampbellDE (2017) Role models revisited: youth, novelty, and the impact of female candidates. Politics, Groups, and Identities5: 418–434.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
