Effective number of parties for incomplete data

Taagepera, Rein

doi:10.1016/s0261-3794(97)00003-6

Cited by 90 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, reducing a small component's share from one seat to zero might be considered more grave than a one-seat shift among large components. 10 For comparisons of D and Gh with respect to this 'lumping of residuals ' criterion, see Appendix of Taagepera (1997).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the Indices of Seats–Votes Disproportionality and Inter-Election Volatility

2003

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TMeasures of electoral system disproportionality and of party system volatility (as well as malapportionment and vote splitting) present similar statistical issues in terms of deciding what index is most appropriate, but it is not common to view indices of disproportionality and volatility as serving similar ends. Making use of 12 different criteria, we evaluate 19 indices that have been previously proposed as measures of either disproportionality of electoral seats-votes results or over-time volatility of party vote (or seat) shares. We suggest that, on balance, Gallagher's (1991) index, which has achieved increasing acceptance in the seats-votes literature on disproportionality (see esp. Lijphart, 1994) offers the most desirable combination of features, although the advantages it offers over the Loosemore-Hanby index are not large and are debatable. We also find that Dalton's principle of transfers presents an ambiguity when one party has a larger number of excess seats, while another has a larger proportion of them.KEY WORDS Ⅲ Dalton's principle of transfers Ⅲ malapportionment Ⅲ proportionality Ⅲ volatility of party shares Ⅲ vote splitting The Objective: Mapping the Measures of DiscordanceDeviation from proportional representation (PR) means the difference in party vote shares and party seat shares in some given election (v i versus s i ). Volatility of votes means the difference in party vote shares (v i ) from one election to another (v it versus v it' ); similarly, volatility of seats means the difference in party seat shares (s i ) from one election to another (s it versus s it' ). How do we best measure the proportionality/disproportionality of the translation of party vote shares into party seat shares in a given election?

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the Indices of Seats–Votes Disproportionality and Inter-Election Volatility

2003

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fragmentation characterizes the viable number of competitors. This is not just the number of parties, but also the so-called effective number of parties, an index proposed by Taagepera (1997). It accounts for the strength of the parties, thus providing a measure of the realistic intensity of competition and number of competitors.…”

Section: Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Effective number of parties, asymmetry, and volatility: variance analytic comparisons between regions a,b Effective number of electoral parties: according toTaagepera's (1997) measure no. 1. e Asymmetry: CDU/CSU share minus SPD share.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Germany on the Road to Normalcy

Reutter¹

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The number and size of the smallest components, on which the low-a indices (a ϭ 0 and a→1, in particular) depend, may not be known because data sources lump them into an 'Others' category. This problem of indeterminacy becomes manageable only when a ϭ 2 is reached, and even then it presents problems at times (Taagepera, 1997). Table 1 shows the values of N 0 and N ϱ , in addition to N.…”

Section: The Largest Component Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplementing the effective number of parties

Taagepera

1999

Electoral Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effective number of parties, N ϭ 1/⌺p 2 i (where p i is the fractional share of the ith party), usually suffices to describe adequately a constellation of parties of different strengths. Difficulties arise when disparity in party sizes is such that the largest share (p 1 ) surpasses 0.50 (meaning absolute dominance), while N still indicates a multi-party constellation. In such cases N ϱ ϭ 1/p 1 is proposed as a supplementary indicator: a value less than 2 indicates absolute dominance. An 'NP' index proposed earlier is a combination of N and N ϱ ; its values are close to those of N ϱ , but NP sometimes falls below 2 even when many parties are relevant for coalition formation. Appendix A offers an alternative approach based on indices of deviation from a norm, but it proves cumbersome.

show abstract

Effective number of parties for incomplete data

Cited by 90 publications

References 4 publications

Mapping the Indices of Seats–Votes Disproportionality and Inter-Election Volatility

Mapping the Indices of Seats–Votes Disproportionality and Inter-Election Volatility

Germany on the Road to Normalcy

Supplementing the effective number of parties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About