Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Research Overlooks: Voters’ Dilemma of Disempowerment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Smarter Ballots

Part of the book series: Elections, Voting, Technology ((EVT))

  • 257 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter delves into topics that have been less well covered by academic research, especially the symbiotic pathology of vote-splitting and “lesser evil” choices. These two features of elections sustain a host of electoral misincentives, associated with “wasted” votes and “spoiler” candidates, which combine to impose a dilemma of disempowerment on voters. A ballot with too few options risks the lesser-evil problem, in which voters are coerced into a false choice, but a ballot with too many options risks the vote-splitting problem, in which an unpopular winner prevails when voters divide their support for several alternatives. This dilemma breathes life into electoral dysfunction and spoils efforts to reform contest structure by addressing issues of ballot access, number of seats, and stages of voting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bailey (1937).

  2. 2.

    Quotation at Reynolds et al. (2005, 53).

  3. 3.

    Jenkins (2017).

  4. 4.

    Monbiot (2016).

  5. 5.

    Quotation at Machiavelli (1994, 70).

  6. 6.

    On negative partisanship in 2016: Abramowitz and McCoy (2019, 146–47; quotation at 146).

  7. 7.

    Barkin (2016) and Willsher (2017a, b).

  8. 8.

    On the necessity of ample alternatives for accountability: Mitchell (2000, 346) and McGann (2006, 148–49; 2013, 100–3). For “forced choice”: Thompson (2002, 70).

  9. 9.

    On negative partisanship: Abramowitz and Webster (2016).

  10. 10.

    Quotation at Key (1966, 3).

  11. 11.

    Kelley (1983, 37–38, 172n); see also Wattenberg (1991, 66, 72).

  12. 12.

    Kelley (1983, 172–90). On anti-candidate voting in the 1980s: Gant and Sigelman (1985, 329, 332–33) and Sigelman and Gant (1989, 84).

  13. 13.

    On partisan decomposition: Mair (2013, 31–33, 70–71, 78, 83). For a perceptive and promising approach to measuring “non-optimal” voting, which may be quite close to lesser-evil voting, in a global context: Singh (2014).

  14. 14.

    Farrell (2011, 160).

  15. 15.

    On Duverger’s theses: Riker (1982) and Singer (2013).

  16. 16.

    On “top two” primaries in California: McGhee and Krimm (2012) and McGhee et al. (2014). In the tangled terminology of primary elections in the USA, “blanket” primaries provide plentiful ballot options for the first contest but then count candidates’ vote totals only against their co-partisans, sending exactly one nominee from each party (potentially more than two) to the final round of voting. The main difference between “top two” and “jungle” is that the former always runs a second round even if one candidate gets majority support in the first, whereas the latter awards the seat to a first-round majority winner.

  17. 17.

    For historical US presidential results: Berg-Andersson (2017). On vote-splitting in the UK in 2017: Lewis and Lucas (2017). On the relation between vote-splitting, fear of “wasted votes,” and lesser-evil voting: Amy (2000, 17–18, 43).

  18. 18.

    For vote totals from the Republican Party nominating process: Berg-Andersson (2017).

  19. 19.

    Berg-Andersson (2017).

  20. 20.

    Farrell (2011, 50) and Miguet (2002).

  21. 21.

    On Duke vs. Edwards: Poundstone (2008, 20).

  22. 22.

    On insincere and strategic voting in France: Blais et al. (2015, 433) and Hoyo (2018, 680–81).

  23. 23.

    On PR as a component of “popular” more than “elite” democracies: Joshi et al. (2015, 2019).

  24. 24.

    Quotations at Galston (2018, 8) and Blais and Degan (2018, 305); see also Schmitter 2012, 44–5. For the comparison of USA, Mexico, Israel, and Netherlands: Abramson et al. (2010). On Netherlands in 2002: Irwin and Van Holsteyn (2012, 185).

  25. 25.

    On traditional vote-splitting in Spain: Colomer (2005, 150). On tactical voting in the 2008 election: Field (2009, 156). On the background and results of Spain’s 2015–2016 elections: Castillo-Manzano et al. (2017). The interpretation of these elections in terms of vote-splitting and lesser-evil choices is my own.

  26. 26.

    On the malapportionment of Spanish legislative districts: Lancaster (2017, 926) and Riera and Montero (2017, 369).

  27. 27.

    For Spanish election returns: Castillo-Manzano et al. (2017, 159).

  28. 28.

    On “mixed” and “parallel” electoral systems: Reynolds et al. (2005, 90–91).

  29. 29.

    On German voters’ second preferences: Sartori (1997, 19). On voters’ choices in parallel systems worldwide: Plescia (2016, 68, 113).

References

  • Abramowitz, A.I., & J. McCoy. 2019. “United States: Racial Resentment, Negative Partisanship, and Polarization in Trump’s America.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681: 137–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramowitz, A.I., & S. Webster. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41: 12–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramson, P.R., J.H. Aldrich, A. Blais, M. Diamond, A. Diskin, I.H. Indridason, D.J. Lee, & R. Levine. 2010. “Comparing Strategic Voting under FPTP and PR.” Comparative Political Studies 43: 61–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amy, D.J. 2000. Behind the Ballot Box: A Citizen’s Guide to Electoral Systems. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, T.A. 1937. “Was the Presidential Election of 1900 a Mandate on Imperialism?” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 24: 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkin, N. 2016. “Who Do You Hate the Least? The Dilemma for French Voters.” Reuters, August 17 (Accessed on December 29, 2016 at www.reuters.com/article/us-france-politics-column-idUSKCN10P0FY).

  • Berg-Andersson, R.E. 2017. “The Green Papers” (Accessed on August 13, 2017 at www.thegreenpapers.com).

  • Blais, A., & A. Degan. 2018. “The Study of Strategic Voting.” The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, eds. R.D. Congleton, B. Grofman, & S. Voigt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A., J.-F. Laslier, F. Poinas, & K. Van der Straeten. 2015. “Citizens’ Preferences about Voting Rules: Self-Interest, Ideology, and Sincerity.” Public Choice 164: 423–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castillo-Manzano, J.I., L. Lopez-Valpuesta, & R. Pozo-Barajas. 2017. “Six Months and Two Parliamentary Elections in Spain.” Electoral Studies 45: 157–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colomer, J.M. 2005. “The General Election in Spain, March 2004.” Electoral Studies 24: 149–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, D.M. 2011. Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. 2nd edn. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, B.N. 2009. “The Parliamentary Election in Spain, March 2008.” Electoral Studies 28: 155–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, M. 2018. “Election Indices Dataset” (Accessed on December 17, 2018 at www.tcd.ie/political_science/staff/michael_gallagher/elsystems/index.php).

  • Gallup. 2016. “Trump and Clinton Finish with Historically Poor Images” (Accessed on January 18, 2017 at www.gallup.com/poll/197231/trump-clinton-finish-historically-poor-images.aspx).

  • Galston, W.A. 2018. “The Populist Challenge to Liberal Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 29: 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gant, M.M., & L. Sigelman. 1985. “Anti-candidate Voting in Presidential Elections.” Polity 18: 329–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyo, V. 2018. “Electoral Systems in Context: France.” The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, eds. E.S. Herron, R.J. Pekkanen, & M.S. Shugart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, G.A., & J.J.M. Van Holsteyn. 2012. “Strategic Electoral Considerations under Proportional Representation.” Electoral Studies 31: 184–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, S. 2017. “Hardliners Won’t Like this Soft Brexit Plan.” Guardian (London), July 27 (Accessed on July 27, 2017 at www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/27/hardliners-soft-brexit-tough-negotiate-properly).

  • Joshi, D.K., J.S. Maloy, & T.M. Peterson. 2015. “Popular vs. Elite Democratic Structures and International Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 52: 463–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, D.K., J.S. Maloy, & T.M. Peterson. 2019. “Popular vs. Elite Democracies and Human Rights: Inclusion Makes a Difference.” International Studies Quarterly 63: 111–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, S. 1983. Interpreting Elections. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Key, V.O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936–60, ed. M.C. Cummings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, T.D. 2017. “The Spanish General Elections of 2015 and 2016: A New Stage of Democratic Politics?” West European Politics 40: 919–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C., & C. Lucas. 2017. “A True Progressive Alliance Would Have Made Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister.” Guardian (London), June 13 (Accessed on June 13, 2017 at www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/13/true-progressive-alliance-made-jeremy-corbyn-prime-minister).

  • Machiavelli, N. 1994. Selected Political Writings, trans. D. Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, P. 2013. Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGann, A. 2006. The Logic of Democracy: Reconciling Equality, Deliberation, and Minority Protection. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGann, A. 2013. “Fairness and Bias in Electoral Systems.” Representation: Elections and Beyond, eds. J.H. Nagel & R.M. Smith. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGhee, E., & D. Krimm. 2012. “California’s New Electoral Reforms: How Did They Work?” Public Policy Institute of California. June Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGhee, E., S.E. Masket, B. Shor, S. Rogers, & N. McCarty. 2014. “A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology.” American Journal of Political Science 58: 337–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miguet, A. 2002. “The French Elections of 2002: After the Earthquake, the Deluge.” West European Politics 25: 207–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, P. 2000. “Voters and Their Representatives: Electoral Institutions and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 37: 335–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monbiot, G. 2016. “The European Union Is the Worst Choice, Apart from the Alternative.” Guardian (London), June 15 (Accessed on January 5, 2017 at www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/15/european-union-eu-britain-sovereignty).

  • Pew Research Center. 2016b. “Clinton, Trump Supporters Have Starkly Different Views of a Changing Nation.” August Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plescia, C. 2016. Split-Ticket Voting in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: A Theoretical and Methodological Investigation. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poundstone, W. 2008. Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren’t Fair (and What We Can Do about It). New York: Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, A., B. Reilly, & C. Ellis. 2005. Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm: Institute for Democracy and Election Assistance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riera, P., & J.R. Montero. 2017. “Attempts to Reform the Electoral System in Spain: The Role of Experts.” Election Law Journal 16: 367–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W.H. 1982. “The Two-Party System and Duverger’s Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 76: 753–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. 1997. Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives, and Outcomes. 2nd edn. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter, P.C. 2012. “A Way Forward?” Journal of Democracy 23: 39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, L., & M.M. Gant. 1989. “Anti-candidate Voting in the 1984 Presidential Election.” Political Behavior 11: 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M.M. 2013. “Was Duverger Correct? Single-Member District Election Outcomes in Fifty-Three Countries.” British Journal of Political Science 43: 201–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S.P. 2014. “Not All Election Winners Are Equal: Satisfaction with Democracy and the Nature of the Vote.” European Journal of Political Research 53: 308–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D.F. 2002. Just Elections: Creating a Fair Electoral Process in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattenberg, M.P. 1991. The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics: Presidential Elections of the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willsher, K. 2017a. “Fear of Neofascism Keeps Emmanuel Macron ahead of Marine Le Pen.” Guardian (London), April 29 (Accessed on May 2, 2017 at www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/29/france-election-neofascism-le-pen-macron).

  • Willsher, K. 2017b. “Macron Is En Route to the Elysée, but May Find It Hard to Govern.” Guardian (London), May 6 (Accessed on May 6, 2017 at www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/06/macron-french-presidential-election-2017-future-govern-effective).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Louisiana, Lafayette, USA

    J. S. Maloy

Authors
  1. J. S. Maloy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. S. Maloy .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Maloy, J.S. (2019). What Research Overlooks: Voters’ Dilemma of Disempowerment. In: Smarter Ballots. Elections, Voting, Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13031-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation