分票制投票成本对有效选举权的影响

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2024-01-05 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102736
Germán Villegas Bauer , Carlos Federico Juncosa
{"title":"分票制投票成本对有效选举权的影响","authors":"Germán Villegas Bauer ,&nbsp;Carlos Federico Juncosa","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The features of electoral systems affect electoral outcomes even for fixed societal preferences. We analyze a quasi-experiment around a change in voting technology that reduces the cost of split-ticket voting. We find that the reform increases split-ticket voting, has no impact on vote shares in executive races, and benefits small parties in multiple-seat races, resulting in higher political fragmentation. This suggests that voters prioritize executive races and that, when the costs to split the ticket are large, straight-ticket voting is incentivized and decisions on the executive race drive decisions on other races. In particular, strategic voting on the single-seat race has spillovers to races with a proportional representation system, where strategic incentives are less prominent. The reform reduces the costs of disassociating executive from legislative races and allows voters to more easily express their preferences.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"87 ","pages":"Article 102736"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of split-ticket voting cost on effective enfranchisement\",\"authors\":\"Germán Villegas Bauer ,&nbsp;Carlos Federico Juncosa\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102736\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The features of electoral systems affect electoral outcomes even for fixed societal preferences. We analyze a quasi-experiment around a change in voting technology that reduces the cost of split-ticket voting. We find that the reform increases split-ticket voting, has no impact on vote shares in executive races, and benefits small parties in multiple-seat races, resulting in higher political fragmentation. This suggests that voters prioritize executive races and that, when the costs to split the ticket are large, straight-ticket voting is incentivized and decisions on the executive race drive decisions on other races. In particular, strategic voting on the single-seat race has spillovers to races with a proportional representation system, where strategic incentives are less prominent. The reform reduces the costs of disassociating executive from legislative races and allows voters to more easily express their preferences.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"volume\":\"87 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102736\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379423001580\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379423001580","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

摘要

即使社会偏好固定不变,选举制度的特点也会影响选举结果。我们分析了一个围绕投票技术改革的准实验,该改革降低了分票投票的成本。我们发现,改革增加了分票投票,但对行政选举中的得票率没有影响,而且有利于多席位选举中的小党派,导致政治分化加剧。这表明,选民会优先考虑行政选举,当分票成本较大时,直票投票会受到激励,行政选举的决策会推动其他选举的决策。特别是,对单席选举的战略性投票会溢出到比例代表制下的选举中,而在比例代表制下,战略性激励并不那么突出。改革降低了将行政和立法选举分开的成本,使选民更容易表达自己的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The effect of split-ticket voting cost on effective enfranchisement

The features of electoral systems affect electoral outcomes even for fixed societal preferences. We analyze a quasi-experiment around a change in voting technology that reduces the cost of split-ticket voting. We find that the reform increases split-ticket voting, has no impact on vote shares in executive races, and benefits small parties in multiple-seat races, resulting in higher political fragmentation. This suggests that voters prioritize executive races and that, when the costs to split the ticket are large, straight-ticket voting is incentivized and decisions on the executive race drive decisions on other races. In particular, strategic voting on the single-seat race has spillovers to races with a proportional representation system, where strategic incentives are less prominent. The reform reduces the costs of disassociating executive from legislative races and allows voters to more easily express their preferences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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