DDRO 25A62 - Politics of electoral systems

This course will provide an overview of the goals institutional actors are pursuing when they design and reform an electoral system. Conceptual dimensions and criteria for categorizing and comparing electoral systems will be discussed. Specific national cases will be studied to assess the impact of electoral laws on party systems, legislator behavior, and interbranch relations. After completing a long series of case studies, a comparative perspective will be adopted to discuss recent scholarly research in this field. Electoral systems are made up of rules that govern a variety of issues related to how elections work, including rules about how candidates get access to the ballot; the extent to which voters can disturb the ballot presented to them; to what level votes will be pooled before seats are awarded; whether voters can select individual candidates or just party banners; how seats are allocated within a district; whether certain thresholds must be met etc. Therefore, electoral rules incentivize certain behaviors and are strategy oriented. Finally, both aspects of intraparty and interparty politics we be explored.
Nefeli LEFKOPOULOU
Séminaire
English
All course materials will be uploaded on the Sciences Po Moodle.
Spring 2024-2025
The module is run as a seminar. That means that everyone is expected to attend every class having completed the readings, ready to participate. Class Participation Class participation requires active contribution to class discussion. This includes listening to others, having questions for discussion, and demonstrating that oral contributions are based on a detailed reading of the assigned literature for the week. Active participation will be rewarded with two extra points (+2) and insufficient participation will be sanctioned by the loss of one point (-1). 1 Individual or Group Oral Presentation: (worth 40 percent of the final grade) Oral presentations topics will be assigned to students during Session 1 and will take place in Sessions 2-11. The aim of an oral presentation is to convey a reasoned argumentation, delivering a clear point of view, substantiated by comparative examples, within the limits of a given topic, while respecting formal constraints. 1 Take-Home Exam (worth 60 percent of the final grade) The final take-home examination must be submitted within a strict time limit while working off-campus. 2 or 3 essay questions. Students are allowed to consult their own notes, course texts and other materials as with open book exams. The length of papers is limited to a set number of words to ensure fairness among students.
Blais, A. and Massicotte, L. (2002). Electoral Systems', in L. LeDuc, R. G. Niemi, and P. Norris (eds.), Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting. London: Sage, 40–69.
Carey, J. M. and Shugart, M. S. (1995). Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas', Electoral Studies, 14/4: 417–39.
Cox, G. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reynolds, Andrew, Ben Reilly, and Andrew Ellis. 2005. Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Gallagher, Michael, and Paul Mitchell, eds. 2008. The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eckstein, H. (1963). The Impact of Electoral Systems on Representative Government', in H. Eckstein and D. E. Apter (eds.), Comparative Politics: A Reader. London: CollierMacmillan, 247–54.
Farrell, D. M. (2001). Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Grofman, B. and Lijphart, A. (eds.) (2002). The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries. New York: Agathon Press.
Hazan, R. Y. (2002). Candidate Selection', in L. LeDuc, R. G. Niemi, and P. Norris (eds.), Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting. London: Sage, 108–26.
Katz, R. S. (1998). Malapportionment and Gerrymandering in Other Countries and Alternative Electoral Systems', in M. E. Rush (ed.), Voting Rights and Redistricting in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 245–59.
Lijphart, A. (1990). The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945–85', American Political Science Review, 84/2: 481–96.
Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marsh, M. (2000). Candidates: Selection', in R. Rose (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 32–5.
Monroe, B. L. and Rose, A. G. (2002). Electoral Systems and Unimagined Consequences: Partisan Effects of Districted Proportional Representation', American Journal of Political Science, 46/1: 67–89.
Powell, G. B. (2000). Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Sartori, G. (1997). Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes, 2nd edn. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Shugart, M. S. (2003). Extreme'' Electoral Systems and the Appeal of the Mixed-Member Alternative', in M. S. Shugart and M. P. Wattenberg (eds.), Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–51.