e at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Electoral Studies 32 (2013) 360–369

Contents lists availabl

Electoral Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/e lectstud

Democratic Electoral Systems around the world, 1946–2011

Nils-Christian Bormann a, Matt Golder b,*aCenter for Comparative and International Studies, ETH Zurich, Haldeneggsteig 4, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerlandb Pennsylvania State University, Department of Political Science, 306 Pond Laboratory, University Park, PA 16801, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 September 2012Received in revised form 24 January 2013Accepted 25 January 2013

Keywords:Electoral systemsParty systemsData

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: bormann@icr.gess.ethz.ch

mgolder@psu.edu (M. Golder).

0261-3794/$ – see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltdhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.01.005

a b s t r a c t

This research note describes an update to Golder’s (2005) Democratic Electoral Systems(DES) dataset. We extend the temporal scope of the original dataset by including all leg-islative and presidential elections that took place in democratic states from 2001 to 2011.In addition to significantly expanding the size of the DES dataset, we offer a simplifiedclassification scheme for electoral systems. We also provide more detailed informationabout all democratic elections since 1946, including the dates for each round of elections aswell as the rules used in different electoral tiers. A brief temporal and geographic overviewof the data is presented.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Elections are central to the very nature of contemporarydemocratic rule. They provide the primary means forensuring that governments remain responsive and account-able to their citizens. Much though depends on the rulesused in these elections (Powell, 2000). In this note, wedescribe an update to Golder’s (2005) Democratic ElectoralSystems (DES) dataset on electoral rules that covers demo-cratic elections from 1946 (or independence) through 2011.The new dataset contains information on 1197 legislativeand 433 presidential elections. In addition to significantlyexpanding the temporal scopeof theoriginalDESdataset,wehave added more detailed information about the electionsand electoral systems, including the dates for each round ofelections as well as the rules used in different electoral tiers.

2. Democratic elections

Our update focuses on legislative and presidentialelections in democratic regimes. A regime is classified asa democracy if (i) the chief executive is elected, (ii) thelegislature is elected, (iii) there is more than one party

(N.-C. Bormann),

. All rights reserved.

competing in elections, and (iv) an alternation underidentical electoral rules has taken place. A regime is clas-sified as a dictatorship if any of these four conditions do nothold (Przeworski et al., 2000). Countries are coded based onthe regime that existed at the end of a given year. Thespecific classification of regimes is based on data fromCheibub et al. (2010), which we updated through 2011.

Note that the ‘alternation rule’ described above can leadsome elections to be retroactively recoded as democratic.This was the case, for example, with some elections inParaguay. The 2008 Paraguayan elections saw the ColoradoParty lose power for the first time since the end of AlfredoStroessner’s dictatorship in 1989. None of the elections inParaguay since 1989 were considered democratic until2008, at which point they all became democratic. A con-sequence of this retroactive recoding is that our set ofdemocratic elections in the period from 1946 to 2000 isslightly different from that in the original DES dataset.1

Not all elections that occur when a regime is classified asa dictatorship are dictatorial. This apparent anomaly has todo with the fact that a country’s regime type is coded basedon its status at the end of a given year. Elections like thosein Argentina 1962, Nigeria 1983, Philippines 1965, and

1 Another reason for the slight difference in our sample size for thisperiod can be traced to a few instances in which Golder (2005) andCheibub et al. (2010) differ in their coding of regime type.

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

LegislativePresidential

Num

ber o

f Ele

ctio

ns

050

100

150

200

250

300

Fig. 1. Legislative and presidential elections by decade: 1951–2010.

N.-C. Bormann, M. Golder / Electoral Studies 32 (2013) 360–369 361

Thailand 1976 all preceded a democratic collapse in thesame year. Although these countries are considered dicta-torial at the end of these years, we code these particularelections as democratic. Finally, we should note that wecode the 1997 elections in Kenya, the 1999 elections inGuinea Bissau, the 2005 elections in Liberia, the 2006elections in Mauritania, and the 2008 elections in Bangla-desh as democratic even though Cheibub, Gandhi, andVreeland (CGV) do not code these countries as democraticuntil the following year. The reason for this is that theseelections are the primary reason cited by CGV for theireventual recoding of these countries as democratic.2

In Fig. 1, we show the total number of legislative andpresidential elections in democratic regimes by decade. Thelast decade has witnessed the most elections in the postWorld War II era, with 299 legislative and 133 presidentialelections being held in 120 democracies from 2001 through2010. Seven countries held democratic elections for thefirst time: East Timor in 2002, Georgia in 2004, Kyrgyzstanand Liberia in 2005, Mauritania in 2006, and finally Bhutanand the Maldives in 2008. There are two additional thingsof note in Fig. 1. The first is the large increase in the numberof democratic elections since the end of the 1980s. This isobviously a consequence of democratization in much ofEastern Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa. The secondis the increase in the number of presidential elections rel-ative to legislative elections in the same time period.Whereas legislative elections typically outnumbered pres-idential elections by a factor of three or four to one prior to1990, presidential elections now comprise almost a third ofall elections. To a large extent, this has to do with theincreasing proportion of semi-presidential, and to someextent presidential, democracies in the world (Clark et al.,2012, 462–463).

3. Legislative elections

As Fig. 2 indicates, we classify legislative electoral sys-tems into three main categories – majoritarian, propor-tional, and mixed – based on their electoral formula.3

3.1. Majoritarian systems

A majoritarian electoral system is one in which thecandidates or parties that receive the most votes win.Although some majoritarian systems require the winningcandidate or party to obtain an absolute majority of thevotes (absolute majority systems), others require only thatthe candidate or party win more votes than anyone else

2 As an example, CGV do not code Liberia as democratic until 2006despite the fact that presidential elections took place in October 2005because the winner of these elections, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, did notofficially take office until January 2006.

3 This is a simplification of the classification scheme employed byGolder(2005), who classifies electoral systems into four main categories –

majoritarian, proportional, mixed, and multi-tier. One problem with theoriginal Golder classification scheme is that it confuses two differentthings, the electoral formula and the number of electoral tiers. For moredetailed information on electoral systems and our classification scheme,see Clark et al. (2012, 535–602).

(plurality or relative majority systems). Most pluralitysystems can be distinguished in terms of the number ofvotes per voter and seats per district. For example, ina single-member district plurality (SMDP) system, voterscast a single candidate-centered vote in a single-memberdistrict. Under the single nontransferable vote (SNTV),voters cast a single candidate-centered vote in a multi-member district. The block vote (BV) is a candidate-centered system used in multi-member districts inwhich voters have as many votes as there are districtseats. The limited vote (LV) is a candidate-centered systemused in multi-member districts in which voters havemultiple votes, but fewer votes than there are districtseats. In each of these systems, the candidates with themost votes win. The party block vote (PBV) is used inmulti-member districts in which voters cast a singleparty-centered vote; the party with the most votes winsall of the district seats. Not all plurality systems can bedistinguished in this way, though. For example, the Bordacount (BC) and modified Borda count (mBC) are candidate-centered, preferential voting systems used in either sin-gle- or multi-member districts in which voters rank-orderthe candidates. Values are assigned to each rank ofa voter’s preference ordering, and the candidates with themost ‘valuable’ votes across all voters are elected.4

In terms of absolute majority systems, the alternativevote (AV) is a candidate-centered, preferential votingsystem used in single-member districts where voters rank

4 Under the BC, each rank in a voter’s preference ordering is assigneda value using equal steps. For example, if there were ten candidates,a voter’s first preference might be worth 1, his second preference 0.9, histhird preference 0.8, and so on. Under the mBC, each rank in a voter’spreference ordering is assigned a value using a series of divisors – 1, 2, 3,4, and so on. For example, if there were ten candidates, then a voter’s firstpreference would be worth 1, his second preference 0.5, his third pref-erence 0.33, and so on.

Fig. 2. Classification of legislative electoral systems.

N.-C. Bormann, M. Golder / Electoral Studies 32 (2013) 360–369362

order the candidates. AV systems in which voters have torank all of the candidates are called ‘full preferential’systems, whereas AV systems in which voters have torank only some of the candidates are called ‘optionalpreferential’ systems. If a candidate wins an absolutemajority of first-preference votes, he is immediatelyelected. If no candidate wins an absolute majority, thenthe candidate with the fewest first-preference votes iseliminated, and her votes are reallocated among theremaining candidates based on the designated second-preferences. This process continues until one candidatehas an absolute majority of the votes cast (full preferen-tial) or an absolute majority of the votes remaining(optional preferential).

A two-round system (TRS) is a majoritarian electoralsystem that has the potential for two rounds of elections.In a TRS, candidates or parties are elected in the firstround if they obtain a specified level of votes, nearly al-ways an absolute majority. If no one obtains this level ofvotes, then a second round of elections takes place. Ina majority-runoff TRS, the top two vote winners gothrough to the second round, where whoever wins themost votes – necessarily an absolute majority – is elec-ted.5 In a majority-plurality TRS, all candidates who over-come some preordained threshold go through to thesecond round, where whoever wins the most votes,whether it is an absolute majority or not, is elected.6

5 Although most majority-runoff systems are candidate-centered insingle-member districts, it is possible to have a party-centered majority-runoff system in multi-member districts. Mali, for example, uses theparty block vote with an absolute majority requirement in its multi-member districts.

6 Although most majority-plurality systems are employed in single-member districts, it is also possible for them to be used in multi-member districts. Kiribati, for example, employs the block vote with anabsolute majority requirement for election in the first round in its multi-member districts.

Although highly unusual, there are some two-round sys-tems in which a candidate can be elected in the first roundwith less than an absolute majority. For example, the first-placed candidate in Mongolian elections between 1996and 2004 only had to win more than 25% of the vote toavoid a second round. These systems might be referred toas qualified-majority TRSs.

3.2. Proportional systems

Proportional electoral systems are quota- or divisor-based systems employed in multi-member districts.7 Allproportional systems except the single transferable vote(STV) employ party lists. Party list systems employ eitherquotas (with allocation of remainders) or divisors to allo-cate seats. A quota is the number of votes that guaranteesa party a seat in a particular district. Five different quotasare commonly used: Hare, Hagenbach-Bischoff, Imperiali,Reinforced Imperiali, and Droop. A quota, Q(n), is defined as,

QðnÞ ¼ Vd

Md þ n; (1)

where Vd is the total number of valid votes in district d, Md

is the district magnitude, and n is the modifier of the quota.When n ¼ 0, the system employs the Hare quota; whenn ¼ 1, the system employs the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota;when n ¼ 2, the system employs the Imperiali quota; andwhen n ¼ 3, the system employs the Reinforced Imperialiquota. The Droop quota is equal to the Hagenbach-Bischoff

7 Some majoritarian systems – those with absolute majority re-quirements – are also quota-based systems. However, these systems arealmost always applied in single-member districts. Mali is unusual inemploying a majority-runoff TRS in its multi-member districts. To avoidany ambiguity in our classification rules, we limit PR systems to thosethat apply quotas of less than 50% in multi-member districts.

MajoritarianProportionalMixed

of E

lect

ions

100

150

N.-C. Bormann, M. Golder / Electoral Studies 32 (2013) 360–369 363

quota plus one (with any ‘decimal part’ removed).Remainder seats in quota-based systems are typicallyallocated using the largest remainder (LR), the highestaverage (HA), or the modified highest average (mHA)method.8 Divisor-based systems divide the total number ofvotes won by each party by a series of numbers (divisors) toobtain quotients. Seats are then allocated according towhich parties have the highest quotients. Three differentdivisor systems are commonly used: D’Hondt, Sainte-Laguë,and Modified Sainte-Laguë. The D’Hondt system uses thedivisors 1, 2, 3, 4, .; the Sainte-Laguë 1, 3, 5, 7, .; and theModified Sainte-Laguë 1.4, 3, 5, 7, .

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a proportionalsystem that does not employ a party list. It is a candidate-centered, preferential voting system used in multi-member districts where voters rank order the candi-dates. Candidates must obtain a particular quota, often theDroop quota, in order to win a seat.9 Votes go initially toeach voter’s most preferred candidate. If an insufficientnumber of candidates obtain the quota, then the candi-date with the lowest number of first-choice votes iseliminated. The votes from the eliminated candidate, aswell as any surplus votes from candidates that are alreadyelected, are then reallocated to the remaining candidatesaccording to the designated second-preferences. Thisprocess continues until all of the seats are filled. The exactprocess by which votes are transferred varies fromcountry to country.

3.3. Mixed systems

A mixed electoral system is one in which voters electrepresentatives through two different systems, onemajoritarian and one proportional.10 Althoughmany mixedsystems havemore than one electoral tier – a level at whichvotes are translated into seats – with a majoritarian for-mula employed in one and a proportional formulaemployed in another, multiple electoral tiers are nota necessary characteristic of mixed systems. Mixed systemsdiffer in terms of whether they are independent ordependent. An independent mixed system, often referredto as a mixed parallel system, is one in which the major-itarian and proportional components of the electoral sys-tem are implemented independently of one another.Independent mixed systems come in three types: coex-istence, superposition, and fusion (Massicotte and Blais,1999). A coexistence system is one in which some districtsin an electoral tier employ a majoritarian formula, whileothers employ a proportional formula. A superposition

8 The LR method gives unallocated seats to those parties with the largestremaining fraction of a quota after the initial allocation of seats. The HAmethod involves dividing the number of votes won by each party by thenumberof seats theyobtain in the initial allocation.Remainderseats are thenallocated to those partieswho ‘paid’ the highest average number of votes fortheir seats. The mHA method is similar except that it divides the votesobtained by each party by the number of already-allocated seats plus one.

9 It iseasy to see that themajoritarianAVsystemis just the single-memberdistrict equivalent of the STVwhere theDroop quota is an absolutemajority.10 As with the original Golder (2005) dataset, we only classify an elec-toral system as mixed if more than 5% of the total legislature is elected bya different electoral formula to that used to elect the other deputies.

system is one in which the majoritarian and proportionalformulas are applied in different electoral tiers. And a fusionsystem is one in which majoritarian and proportional for-mulas are used within a single district.

A dependent mixed system, often referred to asa mixed member proportional system, is one in which theapplication of the proportional formula is dependent onthe distribution of seats or votes produced by themajoritarian formula. Dependent mixed systems come intwo types: correction and conditional (Massicotte andBlais, 1999). A correction mixed system is one in whichthe seats distributed by the proportional formula in oneset of districts are used to correct the vote-seat distor-tions created by the majoritarian formula in another. Aconditional mixed system is one in which the use of oneelectoral formula is triggered by a certain outcome of theother.

3.4. An overview

In Fig. 3, we show the number of elections employingmajoritarian, proportional, and mixed electoral systems bydecade. In addition to indicating how the number ofdemocratic elections has increased over time, Fig. 3 illus-trates that the use of majoritarian electoral systems hassignificantly declined while that of mixed systems hasincreased. In the 1950s, majoritarian, proportional, andmixed electoral systems were employed in about 42%, 50%,and 8% of democratic elections, respectively. By the 2000s,though, majoritarian systemswere employed in only 33% ofelections, while mixed systems were used in 18% of them.

The geographic distribution of electoral systems aroundthe world across decades is shown in Fig. 4. Among otherthings, the figure illustrates the progress of the third waveof democracy, starting with the democratic transitions inSpain, Portugal, and Greece in the 1970s. It also indicates

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Num

ber

050

Fig. 3. Legislative electoral systems by decade.

?

Fig. 4. Electoral systems around the world.

N.-C. Bormann, M. Golder / Electoral Studies 32 (2013) 360–369364

?

Fig. 4. (continued)

N.-C. Bormann, M. Golder / Electoral Studies 32 (2013) 360–369 365

how the frequency of the three main electoral system typesvaries across geographic regions.11 The impact of colonialrule is obviously still felt today, with former British andFrench colonies typically employing majoritarian electoralsystems like their past colonial rulers. This helps to explainthe dominance of majoritarian systems in places like NorthAmerica, the Caribbean islands, India, Pakistan, and muchof sub-Saharan Africa and Australasia. Proportional systemshave historically predominated in South America andEurope. Although this predominance remains, both re-gions, and in particular Europe, has seen an increase in theuse of mixed electoral systems in recent decades. In Europe,this change can largely be traced to the adoption of mixedsystems by the newly democratic states in the east after1989. In addition to Eastern Europe,mixed systems are nowalso prevalent in Asia, driven by states like Japan, thePhilippines, and Sri Lanka.

In Fig. 5, we provide descriptive statistics as of 2011 onthe number of democracies using the various sub-categories of majoritarian, proportional, and mixed sys-tems.12 Amongst majoritarian systems, the SMDP formulais by far the most common, with relatively few countries

11 We show the different geographic regions separately and in moredetail in the Online Appendix A.12 For multi-tier majoritarian and proportional systems, the data refer tothe electoral formula in the lowest electoral tier.

employing each of the other formulas.13 Overall, list PRsystems are the most common type of electoral systememployed in democracies. About 63% of list PR systemsemploy a divisor-based method for allocating seats, withD’Hondt the most prevalent by far. Of the quota-basedmethods, the Hare quota, typically with largest re-mainders, is the most common. Only two countries employthe single transferable vote, Ireland and Malta. Amongmixed electoral systems, 55% are independent and 45% aredependent. This represents a significant increase in theproportion of dependent systems, which only accountedfor about 35% of mixed electoral systems in the 1990s.Supposition and correction systems are easily the mostcommon type of independent and dependent mixed sys-tems, respectively. Interestingly, the distribution of elec-toral formulas used in the proportional component ofmixed systems differs significantly from that used inpure proportional systems. Specifically, 60% of electionsemployingmixed electoral rules in the 2000s used the Harequota with largest remainders for their proportional com-ponent, while only 20% used D’Hondt.

13 The limited vote was not in use in any democracy in 2011. Althoughno democracy currently employs a straight party block vote, Mali em-ploys it as part of its majority-runoff two-round system. And although theBorda count is not used by any country in its lowest electoral tier, andhence fails to register in Fig. 5, it is currently employed to elect twominority (Italian and Hungarian) members to the Slovenian legislature.

SMDP BV TRS Maj.−Plu.

mBC SNTV TRS Maj.−Maj.

AV

Majoritarian Systems

Num

ber o

f Sta

tes

05

1015

2025

30

Hare Hag.− Bisch.

Droop D'Hondt Mod. S.−L.

Sainte− Lague

STV

Proportional Systems

Num

ber o

f Sta

tes

010

2030

40

Supposition Coexistence Correction Conditional

Mixed Systems

Num

ber o

f Sta

tes

02

46

810

12

Fig. 5. Electoral rules 2005–2011.

3.5. Party system size

As with the Golder (2005) dataset, we provide infor-mation on party system size. Specifically, we provide in-formation on the effective number of electoral andparliamentary parties.14 In Fig. 6, we show descriptivestatistics on party system size by decade across major-itarian and proportional electoral systems, and acrossestablished and non-established democracies.15 Althoughthese plots ignore the important influence of social het-erogeneity on party system size, they only apply to thenational level, and they aggregate over many countries andelections, the data from established democracies are con-sistent with Duverger’s (1963) theory (Clark and Golder,2006). This is indicated by the fact that party systems in

14 The effective number of parties is calculated as 1=PP

i¼1 p2i , where pi is

either the vote or seat share of party i for electoral and parliamentaryparties, respectively. When calculating the effective number of parties,independents or ‘others’ in official election statistics are treated as a sin-gle party. As this can produce misleading results when these categoriesare large, we also provide a ‘corrected’ effective number of parties basedon the methods of bounds suggested by Taagepera (1997).15 Established democracies are identified here as those countries thathave remained democratic since 1946.

proportional states are consistently larger than those inmajoritarian ones, and that the effective number of par-liamentary parties has historically been less than three inmajoritarian states (left panel). Duverger’s mechanical ef-fect of electoral systems is also clearly visible – the diver-gence between the effective number of electoral andparliamentary parties is consistently smaller in propor-tional systems, indicating that votes are more accuratelytranslated into seats in these systems.

The plots for established democracies also indicate thatparty system size in proportional states has increased sig-nificantly in recent decades. While the effective number ofelectoral parties was 3.8 on average in the 1950s, it was 5.13in the 2000s. This increase in party system size, which isnoticeable from the 1970s, is consistent with claims thatthe emergence of a post-materialist cleavage in the 1960s,centered around environmental, gender, immigration, andother social issues, led to the emergence of new parties(Inglehart, 1977; Kitschelt, 1988). There is also some evi-dence that party systems in majoritarian countries haveexpanded slightly since the 1990s. The much smallerexpansion in these party systems is consistent withDuverger’s theory that majoritarian electoral rules restrictthe extent to which increased social pressures are trans-lated into larger party systems (Clark and Golder, 2006).

Fig. 6. Party system size.

N.-C. Bormann, M. Golder / Electoral Studies 32 (2013) 360–369 367

As Duverger (1963, 228) himself predicted, his theoryreceives slightly less support among non-established de-mocracies, where voters and elites are less likely to havecoordinated their expectations about party viability. Thatsaid, party systems in proportional states are still con-sistently larger and more variable than those in major-itarian ones.

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Prop

ortio

n of

Ele

ctio

ns

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PluralityAbsolute MajorityQualified MajorityElectoral CollegeAlternative Vote

Fig. 7. Presidential electoral systems by decade.

4. Presidential elections

We classify presidential electoral systems into fivemain categories: plurality, absolute majority, qualifiedmajority, alternative vote, and electoral college. The candi-date with the most votes is elected president in a pluralitysystem. In an absolute majority system, a candidate mustwin over 50% of the vote to be elected. If no candidateovercomes this threshold in the first round, then a runoffensues between the top two candidates. Qualified ma-jority systems are similar in that they typically specifysome percentage of the vote that a candidate must win inorder to be elected in the first round. If two or morecandidates overcome this threshold, then the highest votewinner is elected. Qualified majority systems differ interms of the electoral procedure that is employed whenno candidate surpasses the specified threshold in the firstround. For example, some countries employ a runoff be-tween the top two candidates from the first round, whileothers indirectly elect the president through variousprocedures. As indicated earlier, the alternative vote isa preferential voting system where voters rank order thepresidential candidates. Votes are then repeatedly coun-ted and transferred until one candidate obtains an

absolute majority. In an electoral college system, a set ofelectors is appointed through various mechanisms tochoose the president.

In Fig. 7, we show how the proportion of presidentialelections employing these different electoral systemsvaries over time. The most notable change over time is

Fig. 8. The effective number of presidential candidates.

N.-C. Bormann, M. Golder / Electoral Studies 32 (2013) 360–369368

the shift towards absolute majority systems for electingpresidents. While absolute majority systems wereemployed in just 6% of presidential elections in the 1950s,they were used in 65% of elections in the 2000s. Both theuse of plurality and qualified majority systems havedeclined significantly over time. The electoral college iscurrently used only in the United States, after Argentinaand Finland abandoned it in the 1980s. And Ireland and SriLanka are the only countries to currently employ thealternative vote for electing their presidents.

A box plot summarizing the effective number of presi-dential candidates for the 1990s and 2000s across eachelectoral system is shown in Fig. 8. Duverger’s theory pre-dicts that the effective number of presidential candidateswill be both larger on average and more varied in absolutemajority systems than in plurality ones (Golder, 2006). Thishas to do with the fact that Duverger (1963) views (i) socialpressure as the primary driving force behind the number ofpresidential candidates, and (ii) plurality electoral systemsas more restrictive, or less permissive, than absolute ma-jority systems. Given these views, it follows that thenumber of presidential candidates should always be low innon-permissive plurality systems irrespective of whetherthe social pressure for presidential candidates is low orhigh. In contrast, the number of presidential candidatesmay be low or high in absolute majority systems dependingon the level of social demand for presidential candidates.The data in Fig. 8 is broadly consistent with these pre-dictions. Duverger’s theory does not provide specific pre-dictions about how the number of presidential candidatesvaries across the other electoral systems.

5. Conclusion

In this research note, we have described an update andextension of Golder’s (2005) Democratic Electoral Systems

dataset. We have also presented a brief temporal andgeographic overview of the data. We hope that our datasetwill be of use to scholars interested in the origins andconsequences of electoral institutions broadly defined.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge support for this project fromthe Research Center (SFB) 884 ‘Political Economy of Re-forms,’ funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG),and from the National Center of Competence in Research(NCCR) ‘Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century,’funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpfulcomments. The data described in this research note canbe found at https://files.nyu.edu/mrg217/public/elections.html, along with a codebook, online appendix, and com-puter code to replicate our results and figures.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be foundat http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.01.005.

References

Cheibub, J.A., Gandhi, J., Vreeland, J.R., 2010. Democracy and dictatorshiprevisited. Public Choice 143 (1), 67–101.

Clark, W.R., Golder, M., 2006. Rehabilitating Duverger’s theory: testing themechanical and strategic modifying effects of electoral laws. Com-parative Political Studies 39, 679–708.

Clark, W.R., Golder, M., Golder, S.N., 2012. Principles of ComparativePolitics, second ed. CQ Press, Washington, DC.

Duverger, M., 1963. Political Parties. Methuen, London.Golder, M., 2005. Democratic electoral systems around the world, 1946–

2000. Electoral Studies 24, 103–121.Golder, M., 2006. Presidential coattails and legislative fragmentation.

American Journal of Political Science 50, 34–48.

N.-C. Bormann, M. Golder / Electoral Studies 32 (2013) 360–369 369

Inglehart, R., 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and PoliticalStyles Among Western Publics. Princeton University Press, NewJersey.

Kitschelt, H.P., 1988. Left-libertarian parties: explaining innovation incompetitive party systems. World Politics 40, 194–234.

Massicotte, L., Blais, A., 1999. Mixed electoral systems: a conceptual andempirical survey. Electoral Studies 18, 341–366.

Powell, G.B., 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarianand Proportional Visions. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M.E., Cheibub, J.A., Limongi, F., 2000. Democracyand Development: Political Institutions and Well-being in the World,1950–1990. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Taagepera, R., 1997. Effective number of parties for incomplete data.Electoral Studies 16, 145–151.