mobilize voters than single- member districts with plurality rule (SMDP)? The Literature Yes. Parties only have an incentive to mobilize in competitive SMDP districts.
mobilize voters than single- member districts with plurality rule (SMDP)? The Literature Yes. Parties only have an incentive to mobilize in competitive SMDP districts.
mobilize voters than single- member districts with plurality rule (SMDP)? The Literature Yes. Parties only have an incentive to mobilize in competitive SMDP districts. On the other hand, PR creates a nationally-competitive district that gives parties an incentive to mobilize everywhere.
mobilize voters than single- member districts with plurality rule (SMDP)? The Literature Yes. Parties only have an incentive to mobilize in competitive SMDP districts. On the other hand, PR creates a nationally-competitive district that gives parties an incentive to mobilize everywhere. My Argument No.
mobilize voters than single- member districts with plurality rule (SMDP)? The Literature Yes. Parties only have an incentive to mobilize in competitive SMDP districts. On the other hand, PR creates a nationally-competitive district that gives parties an incentive to mobilize everywhere. My Argument No.
mobilize voters than single- member districts with plurality rule (SMDP)? The Literature Yes. Parties only have an incentive to mobilize in competitive SMDP districts. On the other hand, PR creates a nationally-competitive district that gives parties an incentive to mobilize everywhere. My Argument No. In fact, PR actually reduces the incentives to mobilize voters.
to win seats. Compete over a seat or set of seats with value normalized to one Party i chooses an amount of effort, ɛ i to exert in the competition.
to win seats. Compete over a seat or set of seats with value normalized to one Party i chooses an amount of effort, ɛ i to exert in the competition.
from a hierarchical model of self-reported data. Disproportionality An indicator for SMDP districts. Competitiveness A measure developed by Grofman and Selb (2009).
from a hierarchical model of self-reported data. Disproportionality An indicator for SMDP districts. Competitiveness A measure developed by Grofman and Selb (2009).
from a hierarchical model of self-reported data. Disproportionality An indicator for SMDP districts. Competitiveness A measure developed by Grofman and Selb (2009).
from a hierarchical model of self-reported data. Disproportionality An indicator for SMDP districts. Competitiveness A measure developed by Grofman and Selb (2009).
and lose a seat. (2) The smallest percentage of votes a party could gain and win an additional seat. (3) Take the minimum of the two above. For each party in a district, compute the following: Take the weighted average across each parties in the district.
from political parties. ◦ Link each respondent to their electoral district. CSES (Module II) Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United States
from political parties. ◦ Link each respondent to their electoral district. • Institutional ◦ No second-tier adjustments. CSES (Module II) Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United States
from political parties. ◦ Link each respondent to their electoral district. • Institutional ◦ No second-tier adjustments. CSES (Module II) Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United States
from political parties. ◦ Link each respondent to their electoral district. • Institutional ◦ No second-tier adjustments. ◦ No concurrent national-level elections. CSES (Module II) Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United States
from political parties. • Link each respondent to their electoral district. • Institutional • No second-tier adjustments. • No concurrent national-level elections. CSES (Module II) Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United States
from political parties. • Link each respondent to their electoral district. • Institutional • No second-tier adjustments. • No concurrent national-level elections. CSES (Module II) Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United States
from political parties. • Link each respondent to their electoral district. • Institutional • No second-tier adjustments. • No concurrent national-level elections. CSES (Module II) Comparative Studies of Electoral Systems Albania, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United States
carlislerainey
trafficbrain
hirosaji
ae14watanabe
ontime11
eumesy
ayakohasegawa
kyoun
yuri00
noteinc
daimoriwaki
takuyaa
zerebom
andyhume
danielanewman
mojombo
eitanlees
3n
speakerdeck
bkeepers
zakiwarfel
tanoku
dougneiner
revolveconf
ddemaree
