IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v55y2011i1p27-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives under Different Electoral Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Ernesto Calvo
  • Timothy Hellwig

Abstract

In a seminal article, Cox (1990) suggested that electoral systems with larger district magnitudes provide incentives for parties to advocate more extreme policy positions. In this article, we put this proposition to the test. Informed by recent advances in spatial models of party competition, we introduce a design that embeds the effect of electoral rules in the utility function of voters. We then estimate the equilibrium location of parties as the weight voters attach to the expected distribution of seats and votes changes. Our model predicts that electoral rules affect large and small parties in different ways. We find centripetal effects only for parties that are favorably biased by electoral rules. By contrast, smaller parties see their vote share decline and are pushed toward more extreme equilibrium positions. Evidence from 13 parliamentary democracies supports model predictions. Along with testing the incentives provided by electoral rules, results carry implications for the strategies of vote‐maximizing parties and for the role of small parties in multiparty competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Ernesto Calvo & Timothy Hellwig, 2011. "Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives under Different Electoral Systems," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 27-41, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:55:y:2011:i:1:p:27-41
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00482.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00482.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00482.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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kelly Rowe & Ignacio Lago & Santiago Lago Peñas, 2012. "The Partisan Consequences of Turnout Revisited," Working Papers 1201, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    2. Shane Singh, 2014. "Linear and quadratic utility loss functions in voting behavior research," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 26(1), pages 35-58, January.
    3. Nikitas Konstantinidis & Konstantinos Matakos & Hande Mutlu-Eren, 2019. "“Take back control”? The effects of supranational integration on party-system polarization," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 297-333, June.
    4. Konstantinos Matakos & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2015. "Strategic electoral rule choice under uncertainty," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 329-350, March.
    5. Florence So, 2018. "Attract voters or appease activists? Opposition parties’ dilemma and party policy change," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(2), pages 246-266, April.
    6. Anna-Sophie Kurella & Thomas Bräuninger & Franz Urban Pappi, 2018. "Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in mixed-member proportional systems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(3), pages 306-334, July.
    7. Gilles Serra, 2018. "The electoral strategies of a populist candidate: Does charisma discourage experience and encourage extremism?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(1), pages 45-73, January.
    8. Christine Benesch & Rino L. Heim & Mark Schelker & Lukas D. Schmid, 2021. "Do Voting Advice Applications Change Political Behavior?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8868, CESifo.
    9. James Adams & Simon Weschle & Christopher Wlezien, 2021. "Elite Interactions and Voters’ Perceptions of Parties’ Policy Positions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 101-114, January.
    10. Luigi Curini, 2015. "Explaining party ideological stances," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 79-96, January.
    11. Bol, Damien & Matakos, Konstantinos & Troumpounis, Orestis & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2019. "Electoral rules, strategic entry and polarization," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    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:55:y:2011:i:1:p:27-41. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.