IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v54y2010i1p90-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Matt Golder
  • Jacek Stramski

Abstract

Although the literature examining the relationship between ideological congruence and electoral rules is quite large, relatively little attention has been paid to how congruence should be conceptualized. As we demonstrate, empirical results regarding ideological congruence can depend on exactly how scholars conceptualize and measure it. In addition to clarifying various aspects of how scholars currently conceptualize congruence, we introduce a new conceptualization and measure of congruence that captures a long tradition in democratic theory emphasizing the ideal of having a legislature that accurately reflects the preferences of the citizenry as a whole. Our new measure is the direct counterpart for congruence of the vote‐seat disproportionality measures so heavily used in comparative studies of representation. Using particularly appropriate data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, we find that governments in proportional democracies are not substantively more congruent than those in majoritarian democracies. Proportional democracies are, however, characterized by more representative legislatures.

Suggested Citation

  • Matt Golder & Jacek Stramski, 2010. "Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 90-106, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:54:y:2010:i:1:p:90-106
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00420.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00420.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00420.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Powell, G. Bingham, 2006. "Election Laws and Representative Governments: Beyond Votes and Seats," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 291-315, April.
    2. Alvarez, R. Michael & Nagler, Jonathan, 2004. "Party System Compactness: Measurement and Consequences," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 46-62, January.
    3. repec:cup:apsrev:v:98:y:2004:i:01:p:191-207_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Aldrich, John H. & McKelvey, Richard D., 1977. "A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 111-130, March.
    5. Gay, Claudine, 2001. "The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 589-602, September.
    6. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    7. McDONALD, MICHAEL D. & MENDES, SILVIA M. & BUDGE, IAN, 2004. "What Are Elections For? Conferring the Median Mandate," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-26, January.
    8. Weissberg, Robert, 1978. "Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 535-547, June.
    9. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    10. Kollman, Ken & Miller, John H. & Page, Scott E., 1992. "Adaptive Parties in Spatial Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(4), pages 929-937, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Gallego & Norman Schofield & Kevin McAlister & Jee Jeon, 2014. "The variable choice set logit model applied to the 2004 Canadian election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 427-463, March.
    2. Katsuya Kobayashi & Hideo Konishi, 2016. "Endogenous party structure," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 317-351, November.
    3. A. J. McGann, 2002. "The Advantages of Ideological Cohesion," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 14(1), pages 37-70, January.
    4. Ferris, J. Stephen & Voia, Marcel-Cristian, 2023. "Do rival political parties enforce government efficiency? Evidence from Canada 1867–2021," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    5. L. Lambertini, 2010. "Oligopoly with Hyperbolic Demand: A Differential Game Approach," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 108-119, April.
    6. John Maloney & Andrew Pickering, "undated". "Voting and the macroeconomy: separating trend from cycle," Discussion Papers 11/14, Department of Economics, University of York.
    7. Matthew I. Jones & Antonio D. Sirianni & Feng Fu, 2022. "Polarization, abstention, and the median voter theorem," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Michael J. Ensley & Michael W. Tofias & Scott De Marchi, 2009. "District Complexity as an Advantage in Congressional Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 990-1005, October.
    9. Fabian Gouret, 2021. "Empirical foundation of valence using Aldrich–McKelvey scaling," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 25(3), pages 177-226, September.
    10. Hee Min Kim & Richard C. Fording, 2012. "Do voter preferences matter between elections? Democratic performance in Western Democracies," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 15(2), pages 122-140, June.
    11. Poole, Keith T. & Lewis, Jeffrey B. & Rosenthal, Howard & Lo, James & Carroll, Royce, 2016. "Recovering a Basic Space from Issue Scales in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 69(i07).
    12. Kollman, Ken & Miller, John H. & Page, Scott E., 1997. "Landscape formation in a spatial voting model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 121-130, August.
    13. John Jackson, 2014. "Location, location, location: the Davis-Hinich model of electoral competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 197-218, April.
    14. Bendor, Jonathan & Diermeier, Daniel & Ting, Michael M., 2000. "A Behavioral Model of Turnout," Research Papers 1627, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    15. Michael Ensley & Scott Marchi & Michael Munger, 2007. "Candidate uncertainty, mental models, and complexity: Some experimental results," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 231-246, July.
    16. Christopher Jan Carman, 2006. "Public Preferences for Parliamentary Representation in the UK: An Overlooked Link?," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(1), pages 103-122, March.
    17. Emily Clough, 2008. "Still Converging? a Downsian Party System Without Polls," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(4), pages 461-476, October.
    18. Samuel Merrill & James Adams, 2007. "The effects of alternative power-sharing arrangements: Do “moderating” institutions moderate party strategies and government policy outputs?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 413-434, June.
    19. Bärbel M. R. Stadler, 1998. "Abstention Causes Bifurcations in Two-Party Voting Dynamics," Working Papers 98-08-072, Santa Fe Institute.
    20. Harry Garretsen & Janka I. Stoker & Rob Alessie & Joris Lammers, 2014. "Simply a Matter of Luck & Looks? Predicting Elections when Both the World Economy and the Psychology of Faces Count," CESifo Working Paper Series 4857, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:54:y:2010:i:1:p:90-106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.