Electoral system preferences of citizens compared: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Political Science Review Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI:10.1017/s1755773923000218
Eric Linhart, M. Jankowski, M. Tepe
{"title":"Electoral system preferences of citizens compared: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom","authors":"Eric Linhart, M. Jankowski, M. Tepe","doi":"10.1017/s1755773923000218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Electoral systems fulfill different functions. Typically, they cannot meet all demands at the same time, so that the evaluation of specific electoral systems depends on subjective preferences about the single demands. We argue that it is the electorate which transfers its power to representatives and, therefore, its preferences should be considered in debates about electoral systems. Consequently, our contribution presents results of citizens’ demands regarding electoral system attributes. Specifically, we rely on a large-scale conjoint experiment conducted in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK in which subjects were asked to choose between two electoral systems which randomly differed on a set of attributes referring to electoral systems’ core functions. Our results show that all core functions are generally of importance for the respondents but reveal a higher preference for proportional electoral systems. These preferences are largely stable for citizens in different countries but also for other subgroups of subjects.","PeriodicalId":47291,"journal":{"name":"European Political Science Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755773923000218","RegionNum":1,"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

Electoral systems fulfill different functions. Typically, they cannot meet all demands at the same time, so that the evaluation of specific electoral systems depends on subjective preferences about the single demands. We argue that it is the electorate which transfers its power to representatives and, therefore, its preferences should be considered in debates about electoral systems. Consequently, our contribution presents results of citizens’ demands regarding electoral system attributes. Specifically, we rely on a large-scale conjoint experiment conducted in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK in which subjects were asked to choose between two electoral systems which randomly differed on a set of attributes referring to electoral systems’ core functions. Our results show that all core functions are generally of importance for the respondents but reveal a higher preference for proportional electoral systems. These preferences are largely stable for citizens in different countries but also for other subgroups of subjects.
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
比较公民的选举制度偏好:来自德国、荷兰和英国联合实验的证据
选举制度具有不同的功能。通常,它们不能同时满足所有需求,因此对特定选举制度的评估取决于对单一需求的主观偏好。我们认为,是选民将权力移交给代表,因此,在关于选举制度的辩论中,应该考虑选民的偏好。因此,我们的贡献体现了公民对选举制度属性的要求。具体而言,我们依赖于在德国、荷兰和英国进行的一项大规模联合实验,在该实验中,受试者被要求在两种选举制度之间进行选择,这两种选举系统在涉及选举制度核心功能的一组属性上随机不同。我们的结果表明,所有核心职能对受访者来说通常都很重要,但显示出他们更倾向于比例选举制度。这些偏好在很大程度上对不同国家的公民是稳定的,但对其他受试者群体也是如此。
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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
50
期刊最新文献
Solidarity in question: activation of dormant political dispositions and Latino support for Trump in 2020 Deliberative ecologies: a relational critique of deliberative systems Who looks up to the Leviathan? Ideology, political trust, and support for restrictive state interventions in times of crisis The micro-foundations of social democratic welfare chauvinism and inclusion: class demand and policy reforms in Western Europe, 1980−2018 Religiosity and electoral turnout among Muslims in Western Europe
×
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