Electoral inequity
dc.contributor.author
dc.date.accessioned
2024-05-22T07:19:20Z
dc.date.available
2024-05-22T07:19:20Z
dc.date.issued
2023-04
dc.identifier.issn
0951-6298
dc.identifier.uri
dc.description.abstract
Ideally, a representative democracy awards a genuine vote to each adult. We study this issue in competitive democracies with an election model combining district apportionment and propor- tional representation. Four classic seat allocation rules, including d'Hondt, are reframed as Dutch auctions, allowing important properties to be easily derived. The pros and cons of these methods are stated in terms of economic inequality; Sainte Laguë's is shown to best carry the genu- ine vote ideal, both for elections and for apportionment. We next expound the interplay between these two components in generating an inequitable treatment of voters and develop the scale-free index of inequity best fitted to their concern. We apply it to 40 countries for the apportionment of electoral districts. Lastly, we compute the same inequity index for recent parliamentary elec- tions in 80 countries, finding that the majority system mistreats electors, thus putting a 'price' on government stability
dc.format.extent
26 p.
dc.format.mimetype
application/pdf
dc.language.iso
eng
dc.publisher
SAGE Publications
dc.relation.isformatof
Versió postprint del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1177/09516298231162047
dc.relation.ispartof
© Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2023, vol. 35, núm. 2, p. 100-125
dc.relation.ispartofseries
Articles publicats (D-EC)
dc.rights
Tots els drets reservats
dc.source
Boccard, Nicolas 2023 Electoral inequity Journal of Theoretical Politics 35 2 100 125
dc.subject
dc.title
Electoral inequity
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.rights.accessRights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.type.version
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.doi
dc.identifier.idgrec
038585
dc.type.peerreviewed
peer-reviewed
dc.identifier.eissn
1460-3667