Advertisement

Party Competition and the Electoral Rules

  • Kuniaki Nemoto
Chapter

Abstract

Focusing on the contamination effects that may arise across the single-seat district (SSD) and proportional representation (PR) tiers of mixed-member electoral systems like Japan’s, this chapter mainly asks what explains the surge in the effective number of candidates and the declining level of two-party competition at the district level. Parties might oversupply candidates as long as they believe the benefits from the contamination effects overweigh the costs. Such contamination effects include: the “list contamination effect,” or the effect of a party running a local candidate in a district to raise voter awareness and mobilize more list votes; and the “incumbency contamination effect,” or the effect of stationing dually nominated list winners (DNLWs) in districts. Anecdotal evidence and analyses of a comprehensive data set on SSDs in the 2017 election provide general confirmation of the hypotheses.

Keywords

Mixed-member system Contamination effect Duverger Gender Two-party competition 

References

  1. Barker, Fiona, and Stephen Levine. 1999. The Individual Parliamentary Member and Institutional Change: The Changing Role of the New Zealand Member of Parliament. Journal of Legislative Studies 5 (3/4): 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cox, Karen E., and Leonard J. Schoppa. 2002. Interaction Effects in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Theory and Evidence from Germany, Japan, and Italy. Comparative Political Studies 35 (9): 1027–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gaines, Brian J., and Rein Taagepera. 2013. How to Operationalize Two-Partyness. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 23 (4): 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hainmueller, Jens, and Holger Lutz Kern. 2008. Incumbency as a Source of Spillover Effects in Mixed Electoral Systems: Evidence from a Regression-Discontinuity Design. Electoral Studies 27 (2): 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Herron, Erik S., and Misa Nishikawa. 2001. Contamination Effects and the Number of Parties in Mixed-Superposition Electoral Systems. Electoral Studies 20 (1): 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Herron, Erik S., Kuniaki Nemoto, and Misa Nishikawa. 2018. Reconciling Approaches in the Study of Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, ed. Erik S. Herron, Robert J. Pekkanen, and Matthew S. Shugart, 445–471. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Karp, Jeffrey A. 2009. Candidate Effects and Spill-over in Mixed Systems: Evidence from New Zealand. Electoral Studies 28 (1): 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Laakso, Markku, and Rein Taagepera. 1979. ‘Effective’ Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lundberg, Thomas Carl. 2006. Second-Class Representatives? Mixed-Member Proportional Representation in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs 59 (1): 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Maeda, Ko. 2008. Re-examining the Contamination Effect of Japan’s Mixed Electoral System Using the Treatment-Effects Model. Electoral Studies 27 (4): 723–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2018. The JCP: A Perpetual Spoiler? In Japan Decides 2017: The Japanese General Election, ed. Robert J. Pekkanen, Steven R. Reed, Ethan Scheiner, and Daniel M. Smith, 93–106. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Nemoto, Kuniaki. 2018. Electoral Systems in Context: Japan. In The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, ed. Erik S. Herron, Robert J. Pekkanen, and Matthew S. Shugart, 825–850. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Nemoto, Kuniaki, and Chia-Hung Tsai. 2016. Post Allocation, List Nominations, and Preelectoral Coalitions Under MMM. In Mixed-member Electoral Systems in Constitutional Context: Taiwan, Japan, and Beyond, ed. Nathan F. Batto, Chi Huang, Alexander C. Tan, and Gary W. Cox, 165–193. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pekkanen, Robert J., and Steven R. Reed. 2016. From Third Force to Third Party: Duverger’s Revenge? In Japan Decides 2014: The Japanese General Election, ed. Robert J. Pekkanen, Steven R. Reed, and Ethan Scheiner, 62–71. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Pekkanen, Robert, Benjamin Nyblade, and Ellis S. Krauss. 2006. Electoral Incentives in Mixed-Member Systems: Party, Posts, and Zombie Politicians in Japan. American Political Science Review 100 (2): 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reed, Steven R. 2013. Challenging the Two-Party System: Third Force Parties in the 2012 Election. In Japan Decides 2012: The Japanese General Election, ed. Robert Pekkanen, Steven R. Reed, and Ethan Scheiner, 72–83. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Scheiner, Ethan, Daniel M. Smith, and Michael F. Thies. 2018. The 2017 Election Results: An Earthquake, a Typhoon, and Another Landslide. In Japan Decides 2017: The Japanese General Election, ed. Robert J. Pekkanen, Steven R. Reed, Ethan Scheiner, and Daniel M. Smith, 29–50. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kuniaki Nemoto
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EconomicsMusashi UniversityNerima-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations