Even in the best of both worlds, you can't have it all: How German voters navigate the trilemma of mixed-member proportionality

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102797
Lukas Haffert , Pascal Langenbach , Tobias Rommel
{"title":"Even in the best of both worlds, you can't have it all: How German voters navigate the trilemma of mixed-member proportionality","authors":"Lukas Haffert ,&nbsp;Pascal Langenbach ,&nbsp;Tobias Rommel","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The growing fragmentation of party systems confronts mixed-member proportional electoral systems with a trilemma. Combining the goals of proportionality and of a guaranteed representation of district winners makes it ever more difficult to also achieve a third goal: the fixed size of parliament. Against the background of electoral reform in Germany, this paper studies how citizens position themselves in this trilemma. Using original survey data, we find that all goals are popular and no combination of goals commands majority support. In a context where institutional reform becomes politicized, the trilemma is thus not only a logical, but also an empirical constraint. Moreover, abstract preferences in the trilemma systematically predict how voters evaluate the status quo and specific reform proposals. At the same time, voters are receptive to the logical constraints of the system: Informing respondents about the trilemma trade-offs in an experimental setting makes them more accepting of reform proposals.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"90 ","pages":"Article 102797"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000556/pdfft?md5=7bca149b9cbf521db650372f25ab3ec5&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379424000556-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000556","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The growing fragmentation of party systems confronts mixed-member proportional electoral systems with a trilemma. Combining the goals of proportionality and of a guaranteed representation of district winners makes it ever more difficult to also achieve a third goal: the fixed size of parliament. Against the background of electoral reform in Germany, this paper studies how citizens position themselves in this trilemma. Using original survey data, we find that all goals are popular and no combination of goals commands majority support. In a context where institutional reform becomes politicized, the trilemma is thus not only a logical, but also an empirical constraint. Moreover, abstract preferences in the trilemma systematically predict how voters evaluate the status quo and specific reform proposals. At the same time, voters are receptive to the logical constraints of the system: Informing respondents about the trilemma trade-offs in an experimental setting makes them more accepting of reform proposals.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
即使在最好的两个世界里,你也不可能拥有一切:德国选民如何应对混合成员比例的三难困境
政党体系的日益分裂使混合议员比例选举制面临三难困境。将比例目标和保证选区优胜者的代表权目标结合起来,就越来越难以实现第三个目标:固定的议会规模。本文以德国的选举改革为背景,研究了公民在三难选择中的自我定位。通过使用原始调查数据,我们发现所有目标都不受欢迎,没有任何目标组合能获得多数支持。因此,在制度改革政治化的背景下,三难选择不仅是一种逻辑限制,也是一种经验限制。此外,三难中的抽象偏好会系统地预测选民如何评价现状和具体的改革提案。同时,选民也乐于接受系统的逻辑约束:在实验环境中让受访者了解三难权衡,会让他们更容易接受改革提案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
期刊最新文献
Does disability affect support for political parties? Economic growth, largest-party vote shares, and electoral authoritarianism Targeting voters online: How parties’ campaigns differ Masking turnout inequality. Invalid voting and class bias when compulsory voting is reinstated Does decentralization boost electoral participation? Revisiting the question in a non-western context
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1