Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:22:18.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demography and Democracy: A Global, District-level Analysis of Electoral Contestation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2015

JOHN GERRING ,
MAXWELL PALMER ,
JAN TEORELL  and
DOMINIC ZARECKI
JOHN GERRING*
Affiliation:
Boston University
MAXWELL PALMER*
Affiliation:
Boston University
JAN TEORELL*
Affiliation:
Lund University
DOMINIC ZARECKI*
Affiliation:
Boston University
*
John Gerring is Professor, Boston University (jgerring@bu.edu)
Maxwell Palmer is Assistant Professor, Boston University
Jan Teorell is Professor, Lund University
Dominic Zarecki is PhD Candidate, Boston University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the classical perspective, polity size and democracy are inversely related. In this article, we argue that there is an important exception that manifests itself at the district level in settings where multiparty competition is allowed. Specifically, we find that larger districts encourage greater contestation. This results from a little-noticed mechanical effect as well as from several features of constituencies that are affected by size and have direct repercussions for contestation. To demonstrate this thesis we assembled a unique dataset, the Multi-level Election Archive (MLEA), which unites electoral contests across a variety of districts (national, regional, and local) and elective offices from the eighteenth century to the present, including a total of 88 countries, 2,344 elections, 79,658 districts, and more than 400,000 contests. With this evidence we were able to conduct a broad array of statistical tests, some global and others focused on particular countries or election types, all of which support our general argument.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 109 , Issue 3 , August 2015 , pp. 574 - 591
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramowitz, Alan I. 1980. “A Comparison of Voting for U.S. Senator and Representative in 1978.” American Political Science Review 84: 633–40.Google Scholar
Abramowitz, Alan I., Alexander, Brad, and Gunning, Matthew. 2006. “Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 75–88.Google Scholar
Aistrup, Joseph A. 2004. “Constituency Diversity and Party Competition: A County and State Level Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (June): 267–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Alan. 1982. Local Government in Britain since Reorganisation. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Michael, Cheibub, Jose A., Limongi, Fernando, and Przeworski, Adam. 1996. “Classifying Political Regimes.” Studies in Comparative International Development 31 (2): 3–36.Google Scholar
Ames, Barry. 1995. “Electoral Strategy under Open-List Proportional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (May): 406–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 136–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arce, Moisés, and Mangonnet, Jorge. 2013. “Competitiveness, Partisanship, and Subnational Protest in Argentina.” Comparative Political Studies 46: 895–919.Google Scholar
Bardhan, Pranab, and Mookherjee, Dilip. 2000. “Capture and Governance at Local and National Levels.” American Economic Review 90 (May): 135–39.Google Scholar
Bardhan, Pranab, and Yang, Tsung-Tao. 2004. Political Competition in Economic Perspective. BREAD Working Paper No. 078. Bureau for Research in Economic Analysis of Development, Durham, NC: Duke University.Google Scholar
Barro, Robert J. 1973. “The Control of Politicians: An Economic Model.” Public Choice 14: 19–42.Google Scholar
Bartolini, Stefano. 1999. “Collusion, Competition and Democracy, Part I.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 11 (4): 435–70.Google Scholar
Bartolini, Stefano. 2000. “Collusion, Competition and Democracy: Part II.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 12 (1): 33–65.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan. 1996. “Nuisance versus Substance: Specifying and Estimating Time-series-cross-section Models.” Political Analysis 6: 1–36.Google Scholar
Becker, Gary S. 1958. “Competition and Democracy.” Journal of Law and Economics 1: 105–9.Google Scholar
Beer, Caroline, and Mitchell, Neil J.. 2004. “Democracy and Human Rights in the Mexican States: Elections or Social Capital?” International Studies Quarterly 4 (8): 293–312.Google Scholar
Beer, Caroline, and Mitchell, Neil J.. 2006. “Comparing Nations and States: Human Rights and Democracy in India.” Comparative Political Studies 39 (8): 996–1018.Google Scholar
Behrend, Jacqueline. 2011. “The Unevenness of Democracy at the Subnational Level: Provincial Closed Games in Argentina.” Latin American Research Review 46 (1): 150–76.Google Scholar
Benton, Allyson Lucinda. 2012. “Bottom-up Challenges to National Democracy: Latin America's (Legal) Subnational Authoritarian Enclaves.” Comparative Politics 44 (3): 253–271.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, Daniel, and Clay, Karen B.. 2012. The Evolution of a Nation: How Geography and Law Shaped the American States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy, Persson, Torsten, and Sturm, Daniel M.. 2010. “Political Competition and Economic Performance: Evidence from the United States.” Review of Economic Studies 77 (3): 1329–52.Google Scholar
Blais, Andre, and Lago, Ignacio. 2009. “A General Measure of District Competitiveness.” Electoral Studies 28 (1): 94–100.Google Scholar
Borges, André. 2008. “State Government, Political Competition and Education Reform: Comparative Lessons from Brazil.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 27 (2): 235–54.Google Scholar
Bowen, Daniel Christopher. 2010. District Characteristics and the Representational Relationship. Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, and Ceneviva, Ricardo. 2012. “Reeleição e Continuísmo nos Municípios Brasileiros.” Novos Estudos—CEBRAP 93: 9–21.Google Scholar
Brancati, Dawn. Global Elections Database [computer file]. www.globalelectionsdatabase.com (Accessed June 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Brantgärde, Lennart. 1974. Kommunerna och kommunblocksbildningen. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Brunell, Thomas. 2008. Redistricting and Representation: Why Competitive Elections Are Bad for America. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buchler, Justin. 2007. “The Social Sub-optimality of Competitive Elections.” Public Choice 133: 439–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Jeffrey R., and Hopenhayn, Hugo A.. 2005. “Market Size Matters.” Journal of Industrial Economics 53 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleary, Matthew R. 2007. “Electoral Competition, Participation, and Government Responsiveness in Mexico.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 283–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomer, Josep M., ed. 2004. Handbook of Electoral System Choice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael, Alvarez, Angel, and Maldonado, Claudia. 2008. “Two Persistent Dimensions of Democracy: Contestation and Inclusiveness.” Journal of Politics 70 (3): 335–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., and Tufte, Edward. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dinkin, Robert J. 1977. Voting in Provincial America: A Study of Elections in the Thirteen Colonies, 1689–1776. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Dometrius, Nelson C., and Ozymy, Joshua. 2006. “Legislative Professionalism and Democratic Success: The Conditioning Effect of District Size.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 6 (Spring): 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1959. Political Parties. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ensley, Michael J., Tofias, Michael W., and Scott De Marchi, S. 2009. “District Complexity as an Advantage in Congressional Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 53: 990–1005.Google Scholar
Faguet, Jean-Paul. 2014. “Decentralization and Governance.” World Development 53 (January): 2–14.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members and Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1973. “Electoral Margins, Constituency Influence, and Policy Moderation: A Critical Assessment.” American Politics Quarterly 1 (4): 479–98.Google Scholar
Franklin, Billy J. 1971. “Urbanization and Party Competition: A Note on Shifting Conceptualization and a Report of Further Data.” Social Forces 49 (June): 544–49.Google Scholar
Game, Chris, and Wilson, David. 2011. Local Government in the United Kingdom. 5th ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 1994. Politician's Dilemma: Building State Capacity in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gel’man, Vladimir, and Ross, Cameron, eds. 2010. The Politics of Subnational Authoritarianism in Russia. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Gervasoni, Carlos. 2010. “A Rentier Theory of Subnational Regimes: Fiscal Federalism, Democracy, and Authoritarianism in the Argentine Provinces.” World Politics 62 (2): 302–40.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward L. 2005. “Boundary Control: Subnational Authoritarianism in Democratic Countries.” World Politics 58 (1): 101–32.Google Scholar
Giraudy, Agustina. 2010. “The Politics of Subnational Undemocratic Regime Reproduction in Argentina and Mexico.” Journal of Politics in Latin America 2: 53–84.Google Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2007. “The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2: 107–38.Google Scholar
Griffin, John D. 2006. “Electoral Competition and Democratic Responsiveness: A Defense of the Marginality Hypothesis.” Journal of Politics 68 (November): 911–21.Google Scholar
Gronke, Paul. 2000. The Electorate, the Campaign, and the Office: A Unified Approach to Senate and House Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, Guy, and Lewis, Janet I.. 2014. “Administrative Unit Proliferation.” American Political Science Review 108 (1): 196–217.Google Scholar
Grzymala-Busse, Anna. 2007. Rebuilding Leviathan: Party Competition and State Exploitation in Post-Communist Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan L., Lewis, Paul G., and Louch, Hugh. 2002. Municipal Elections in California: Turnout, Timing, and Competition. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
Harvey, Anna L. 1998. Votes without Leverage: Women in American Electoral Politics, 1920–1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heller, William B., Kyriacou, Andreas P., and Roca-Sagalés, Oriol. 2011. “Party Competition and Government Quality: The Politics of Turning a Blind Eye to Poor Governance.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Brandes, Sara L.. 1983. “State Population and the Electoral Success of US Senators.” American Journal of Political Science 27: 808–19.Google Scholar
Hill, Kim Q. 1994. Democracy in the Fifty States. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hogan, Robert E. 2003. “Sources of Competition in State Legislative Primary Elections.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28 (February): 103–26.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Norris, Pippa. 2000. “The Developmental Theory of the Gender Gap: Women's and Men's Voting Behavior in Global Perspective.” International Political Science Review 21 (4): 441–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivarsson, Tore. 1992. Kommunernas släktträd: Sveriges kommuner 1863–1992. Älvsjö: Kommentus.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C., and Kernell, Samuel. 1983. Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Philip Edward. 2013. “The Effect of Political Competition on Democratic Accountability.” Political Behavior 35: 481–515.Google Scholar
Judd, Charles M., Kenny, David A., and McClelland, Gary H.. 2001. “Estimating and Testing Mediation and Moderation in Within-subject Designs.” Psychological Methods 6 (June): 115–34.Google Scholar
Key, Vladimer O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Koetzle, William. 1998. “The Impact of Constituency Diversity upon the Competitiveness of U.S. House Elections, 1962–96.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 2 (3): 561–73.Google Scholar
Kollman, Ken, Hicken, Allen, Caramani, Daniele, and Backer, David. 2011. Constituency-level Elections Archive [dataset]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies.Google Scholar
Konisky, David M., and Ueda, Michiko. 2011. “The Effects of Uncontested Elections on Legislator Performance.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (2): 199–229.Google Scholar
Konitzer, Andrew. 2006. Voting for Russia's Governors: Regional Elections and Accountability under Yeltsin and Putin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lachat, Romain. 2011. “Electoral Competitiveness and Issue Voting.” Political Behavior 33: 645–63.Google Scholar
Lankina, Tomila, and Getachew, Lullit. 2006. “A Geographic Incremental Theory of Democratization: Territory, Aid, and Democracy in Postcommunist Regions.” World Politics 58 (4): 536–82.Google Scholar
Lascher, Edward L. Jr. 2005. “Constituency Size and Incumbent Safety: A Reexamination.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (2): 269–78.Google Scholar
Lassen, David Dreyer, and Serritzlew, Soren. 2011. “Jurisdiction Size and Local Democracy: Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy from Large-scale Municipal Reform.” American Political Science Review 105 (May): 238–58.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review 53 (March): 69–105.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lublin, David. 2013. “Election Passport.” www.electionpassport.com (Accessed June 1, 2013).Mann, Thomas, and Raymond Wolfinger. 1980. “Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 74: 617–32.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas, and Wolfinger, Raymond. 1980. “Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 74: 617–32.Google Scholar
Marshall, Monty G., Gurr, Ted, and Jaggers, Keith. 2013. “Polity IV Project: Dataset Users’ Manual.” www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2012.pdf (Accessed December 16, 2013).Google Scholar
McMann, Kelly M. 2006. Economic Autonomy and Democracy: Hybrid Regimes in Russia and Kyrgyzstan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright. 1967. The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moraski, Bryon J., and Reisinger, William M.. 2003. “Explaining Electoral Competition across Russia's Regions.” Slavic Review 62 (Summer): 278–301.Google Scholar
Moraski, Bryon J., and Reisinger, William M.. 2007. “Eroding Democracy: Federal Intervention in Russia's Gubernatorial Elections.” Democratization 14 (4): 603–21.Google Scholar
Moraski, Bryon J., and Reisinger, William M.. 2010. “Spatial Contagion in Regional Machine Strength: Evidence from Voting in Russia's Federal Elections.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Murillo, Maria Victoria, and Martinez-Gallardo, Cecilia. 2007. “Political Competition and Policy Adoption: Market Reforms in Latin American Public Utilities.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (January): 120–39.Google Scholar
O’Leary, Cornelius. 1962. The Elimination of Corrupt Practices in British Elections, 1868–1911. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric. 2000. “City Size and Civic Involvement in Metropolitan America.” American Political Science Review 94 (June): 361–73.Google Scholar
Oliver, J. Eric, with Ha, Shang E. and Callen, Zachary. 2012. Local Elections and the Politics of Small-scale Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, Bruce I. 1996. “The Representational Experience: The Effect of State Population on Senator-Constituency Linkages.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 1280–99.Google Scholar
Padovano, Fabio, and Ricciuti, Roberto. 2009. “Political Competition and Economic Performance: Evidence from the Italian Regions.” Public Choice 138: 263–77.Google Scholar
Patterson, Samuel C., and Caldeira, Gregory A.. 1984. “The Etiology of Partisan Competition.” American Political Science Review 78 (September): 691–707.Google Scholar
Posada-Carbo, Eduardo, ed. 1996. Elections before Democracy: The History of Elections in Europe and Latin America. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, et al. 2013. Political Institutions and Political Events (PIPE) Data Set. New York: Department of Politics, New York University.Google Scholar
Rallings, Colin S., and Thrasher, Michael. 1997. Local Elections in Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rallings, Colin S., Thrasher, Michael, and Ware, L.. 2006. British Local Election Database, 1889–2003. Plymouth, UK: University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
Rao, Nirmala, and Young, Ken. 1997. Local Government since 1945. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rebolledo, Juan. 2011. “Black Sheep of the Family: A Model of Subnational Authoritarian Endurance in National Democracies.” Yale University. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Remmer, Karen L. 2010. “Political Scale and Electoral Turnout: Evidence From the Less Industrialized World.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (3): 275–303.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald. 1987. “Trade and the Variety of Democratic Institutions.” International Organization 41 (2): 202–23.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Aaron. 2003. “Decentralization: Conceptualization and Measurement.” Studies in Comparative International Development 38 (Fall): 32–56.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. [1942] 1950. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Seawright, Jason. 2010. “Regression-based Inference: A Case Study in Failed Causal Assessment.” In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 2nd ed., eds. Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 247–71.Google Scholar
Sharafutdinova, Gulnaz. 2006. “When Do Elites Compete? The Determinants of Political Competition in Russian Regions.” Comparative Politics 38 (April): 273–93.Google Scholar
Shea, Emiliano, Rios, Viridiana, and Fernandez, Andrea. 2012. La Base de Datos Electorales. Mexicto City: CIDAC (Centro de Investigacion para el Desarollo, A.C.).Google Scholar
Sinha, Aseema. 2012. “Scaling Down and Up: Can Subnational Analysis Contribute to a Better Understanding of Micro-level and National Level Phenomena?” Comparative Democratization 10 (January): 2, 19.Google Scholar
Snyder, Richard. 2001. “Scaling Down: The Subnational Comparative Method.” Studies in Comparative International Development 36 (Spring): 93–110.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, Wildenmann, Rudolf, Boll, Bernhard, and Rommele, Andrea. 1994. The Victorious Incumbent: A Threat to Democracy? Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1972. “Economic Competition and Political Competition.” Public Choice 13 (September): 91–106.Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 1989. “Inter-party Competition in Advanced Democracies.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 1:277.Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 1992. “Democracy as Competition.” American Behavioral Scientist 35 (4/5): 375–96.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L. 1973. “Political Correlates of Social, Economic and Religious Diversity in the American States.” Journal of Politics 35 (1): 70–84.Google Scholar
Ting, Michael M., Snyder, James M Jr., Hirano, Shigeo, and Folke, Olle. 2013. “Elections and Reform: The Adoption of Civil Service Systems in the U.S. States.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 25: 363–87.Google Scholar
Trounstine, Jessica. 2008. Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of Bosses and Reformers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Van Dunk, Emily. 1997. “Challenger Quality in State Legislative Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 50: 793–807.Google Scholar
Vanhanen, Tatu. 2000. “A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy, 1810–1998.” Journal of Peace Research 37: 251–65.Google Scholar
Wallin, Gunnar. 1973. “Småkommuner på avskrivning.” In Kommunerna i förvandling, eds. Wallin, G., Andersson, G. H., and Andrén, N.. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 9–35.Google Scholar
Wångmar, Erik. 2006. Samlingsstyre—blockstyre—mångstyre: Kommmunalpolitiska styrelseformer 1952–2002. Stockholm. Stads-och kommunhistoriska institutet.Google Scholar
Weitz-Shapiro, Rebecca. 2012. “What Wins Votes: Why Some Politicians Opt out of Clientelism.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (July): 568–83.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1989. “Why Democracies Produce Efficient Results.” Journal of Political Economy 97 (6): 1395–1424.Google Scholar
Wittman, Donald. 1995. The Myth of Democratic Failure: Why Political Institutions Are Efficient. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Simon N. 2006. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Ziblatt, Daniel. 2009. “Shaping Democratic Practice and the Causes of Electoral Fraud: Evidence from Nineteenth Century Germany.” American Political Science Review 103 (February): 1–21.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gerring supplementary material

Appendix

Download Gerring supplementary material(File)
File 300.3 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.