Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Curtice, John; Seyd, Ben (2011)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: JA
Researchers have paid little attention to the way citizens evaluate different electoral systems. This reflects the limited knowledge citizens are presumed to have about alternative electoral arrangements. However, the establishment of a legislature under new electoral rules creates conditions in which citizens can make more informed judgements. Such a situation occurred with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, elected under the Additional Member system. Using data collected in 1999 and 2003, we consider Scottish voters' reactions to the new electoral rules. We examine how voters evaluated various features and outcomes of the rules, the structure of voters' attitudes, and which features and outcomes of the rules were decisive in shaping overall support for plurality and proportional voting systems.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Amy, D.J., 1993. Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for Proportional Representation Elections in the United States. Columbia University Press, New York.
    • Anderson, C.J., 1998. Parties, party systems and satisfaction with democratic performance in the new Europe. Political Studies 46 (3), 572-588.
    • Anderson, C.J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T. and Listhaug, O., 2005. Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • Banducci, S.A., and Karp, J.A., 1999. Perceptions of fairness and support for proportional representation. Political Behavior 21 (3), 217-238.
    • Blais, A., and Carty, R.K., 1990. Does proportional representation foster voter turnout?. European Journal of Political Research 18 (2), 167-81.
    • Blau, A., 2004. Fairness and electoral reform. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6 (2), 165-81.
    • Bogdanor, V., 1984. What is Proportional Representation? Martin Robertson, Oxford.
    • Bowler, S., and Donovan. T., 2007. Reasoning about institutional change: winners, losers and support for electoral reform. British Journal of Political Science 37 (3), 455-476.
    • Bowler, S., Farrell, D.M., and Pettitt, R.T., 2005. Expert opinion on electoral systems: so which electoral system is 'best'? Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 15 (1), 3-20.
    • Bromley, C., Curtice, J., McCrone, D. and Park, A., (Eds.) 2006. Has Devolution Delivered? Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
    • Budge, I., and Keman, H., 1990. Parties and Democracy: Coalition Formation and Government Functioning in Twenty States. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • Carey, J. and Shugart, M.S., 1995. Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies 14 (4), 417-439.
    • Colomer, J.M., 2004. The strategy and history of electoral system choice. In: Colomer, J.M. (Ed.) Handbook of Electoral System Choice. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp3-78.
    • Crewe, I., 1985. MPs and their constituents in Britain: how strong are the links? In: Bogdanor, V. (Ed.) Representatives of the People? Parliamentarians and Constituents in Western Democracies. Gower, Aldershot.
    • Curtice, J., 2006. Forecasting and evaluating the consequences of electoral change: Scotland and Wales. Acta Politica 41 (3), 300-314.
    • Curtice, J., 2009. Neither representative nor accountable: first-past-the-post in Britain. In: Grofman, B., Blais, A., and Bowler, S., (Eds.) Duverger’s Law of Plurality Voting: The Logic of Party Competition in Canada, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. Springer, New York.
    • Curtice, J., and Jowell, R., 1998. Is there really a demand for constitutional change? Scottish Affairs special edition, pp.61-92.
    • Curtice, J., Seyd, B., Park, A., and Thomson, K., 2000. Wise after the Event? Attitudes to voting reform following the 1999 Scottish and Welsh elections. Constitution Unit, London.
    • Curtice, J., and Shively. W.P., 2009. Who represents us best? One member or many?. In: Klingemann, H-D., (Ed.) The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • Donovan, T., Parry, J.A., and Bowler, S., 2005. 'O other, where art thou? Support for multiparty politics in the United States. Social Science Quarterly 86 (1), 147-159.
    • Dunleavy, P., and Margetts, H., 1999. Mixed electoral systems in Britain and the Jenkins Commission on electoral reform. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 1 (4), 12-39.
    • Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., and Weir, S., 1998. Open or closed list voting for the European Parliament elections 1999: the state of the nation report. Paper to Constitution Unit/Nuffield College seminar on ‘Regional Lists’, Oxford, 20th February.
    • Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., O’Duffy, B., and Weir, S., 1997. Making votes count: replaying the 1990s general elections Under alternative electoral systems. Democratic Audit, London.
    • Farrell, D.M., 2001. Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. Palgrave, Basingstoke.
    • Farrell, D.M., and Gallagher, M., 1999. British voters and their criteria for evaluating electoral systems. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 1 (3), 293-316.
    • Farrell, D.M. and McAllister, I., 2006. Voter satisfaction and electoral systems: does preferential voting in candidate-centred systems make a difference?. European Journal of Political Research 45 (5), 723-749.
    • Franklin, M.N., 2004. Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies Since 1945. Cambridge University Press, New York.
    • Fisher, S., Hobolt, S., Lessard-Phillips, L., and Curtice, J., 2008. Disengaging voters: do plurality systems discourage the less knowledgeable from voting?. Electoral Studies 27 (1), 89-104.
    • Grofman, B.N. and Reynolds, A., 2001. Electoral systems and the art of constitutional engineering: an inventory of the main findings. In: Mudambi, R., Navarra, P. and Sibrio, G. (Eds.), Rules and Reason: Perspectives on Constitutional Political Economy. Cambridge University Press, New York.
    • Independent Commission on Proportional Representation, 2003. Changed Voting Changed Politics: Lessons of Britain’s Experience of PR since 1997. Constitution Unit, University College London.
    • Jenkins, Lord, 1998. Report of the Independent Committee on the Voting System. Cm 4090-I. The Stationery Office, London.
    • Karp, J.A., and Bowler, S., 2001. Coalition government and satisfaction with democracy: an analysis of New Zealand’s reaction to proportional representation. European Journal of Political Research 40 (1), 57-79.
    • Katz, R.S., 1997. Democracy and Elections. Oxford University Press, New York.
    • Lakeman, E., 1984. The case for proportional representation. In: Lijphart, A. and Grofman, B., (Eds.), Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives. Praeger, New York.
    • Lamare, J.W. and Vowles, J., 1996. Party interests, public opinion and institutional preferences: electoral system change in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Political Science 31 (3), 321-345.
    • Laver, M., and Schofield, N., 1998. Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
    • Lijphart, A., 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty Seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • Lijphart, A., 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty Six Countries. Yale University Press, New Haven.
    • Mattes, R., and Southall, R., 2004. Popular attitudes towards the South African electoral system. Democratization 11 (1), 51-76.
    • McLean, I., 1991. Forms of representation and systems of voting. In: Held, D., (Ed.), Political Theory Today. Polity Press, Oxford.
    • Miller, A., and Listhaug, O., 1990. Political parties and confidence in government: a comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States., British Journal of Political Science 20 (3), 357-86.
    • Norris, P., 1999. Institutional explanations of political support. In: Norris, P., (Ed.), Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government. Oxford University Press, New York.
    • Norris, P., 2001. The twilight of Westminster? Electoral reform and its consequences. Political Studies 49 (5), 877-900.
    • Norris, P., 2004. Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge University Press, New York.
    • Norton, P., 1982. The Constitution in Flux. Martin Robertson, Oxford.
    • Norton, P., 1997. The case for first-past-the-post. Representation 34 (2), 84-88.
    • Paterson, L., Brown, A., Curtice, J., Hinds, K., McCrone, D., Park, A., and Sproston, k., 2001. New Scotland, New Politics? Polygon, Edinburgh.
    • Pinto-Duchinsky, M., 1999. Send the rascals packing: defects of proportional representation and the virtues of the westminster model. Representation, 36 (2), 117- 127.
    • Powell, G.B., 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. Yale University Press, New Haven.
    • Powell, G.B., and Whitten, G., 1993. A cross-national analysis of economic voting: taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science 37 (2), 391-414.
    • Schuman, H., and Presser, S., 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments in Question Form, Wording and Context. Academic Press, New York.
    • Schumpeter, J.A., 1987. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Unwin, Hemel Hempstead.
    • Shugart, M.S., 1999. The Jenkins paradox: a complex system, yet only a timid step towards PR. Representation 36 (2), 143-147.
    • Shugart, M.S., 2005. Comparative electoral systems research: the maturation of a field and new challenges ahead. In: Gallagher, M., and Mitchell, P., (Eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • Shugart, M.S., and Wattenberg, M.P., 2001. Conclusion: are mixed-member systems the best of both worlds?. In: Shugart, M.S. and Wattenberg, M.P., (Eds.) Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • Shugart, M.S. and Wattenberg, M.P., (Eds.), 2001a. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • Taagepera, R., and Shugart, M., 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. Yale University Press, New Haven.
    • Taylor, P.J., 1984. The case for proportional tenure: a defense of the British electoral system. In: Lijphart, A., and Grofman, B. (Eds.), 1984. Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives. Praeger, New York.
    • Vowles, J., Karp, J.A., and Banducci, S.A., 2000. Proportional representation on trial: elite vs mass opinion on electoral system change in New Zealand. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC, August 30th-September 3rd.
    • Vowles, J., Aimer, A., Karp, J., Banducci, S., Miller, R., and Sullivan, A., 2002. Proportional Representation on Trial: The 1999 New Zealand General Election and the Fate of MMP. Auckland University Press, Auckland.
    • Wenzel, J.P., Bowler, S., and Lanoue, D.J., 2000. Citizen opinion and constitutional choices: the case of the UK. Political Behaviour 22 (3), 241-265.
    • Whitten, G.D., and Palmer, H.D., 1999. Cross-national analyses of economic voting. Electoral Studies 18 (1), 49-67.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article