Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Electoral Dysfunction and Political Realism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Smarter Ballots

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

  • 277 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter frames the problem of election reform in democratic theory by suggesting that the turmoil of established democracies in the post-2008 era is part of a larger and longer story about democratic deficits within basic institutions, including elections. Some of the fundamental concepts that are employed throughout the book are introduced as tools for understanding and evaluating reform responses to democratic deficits. These include electoral realism, electoral structure, naturalism vs. constructivism, and the triad of voter empowerment. Above all, the distinction between ballot structure and contest structure will prove crucial to grasping why conventional approaches to studying the design and reform of electoral systems are inadequate.

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.

    For the view that “democracies become dictatorships when one set of actors attempts to disassemble democratic institutions and another set of actors fails to marshal an appropriate defense”: Bermeo (2019, 229); see also Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018).

  2. 2.

    Majone (1998, 12–15).

  3. 3.

    Mounk (2018, 101–5, quotation at 105).

  4. 4.

    Beramendi et al. (2008, 12, 43–44).

  5. 5.

    For indicators of global distrust: Edelman (2017). On Canada: Carty (2010, 227–29). On Europe: Mair (2013, 26–28, 31–33); see also Chwalisz (2015, 15). On deficits in the USA: Levinson (2007). On partisan decomposition (i.e., weakening ties to voters) in the USA: Wattenberg (1998, ix–x, 58–63).

  6. 6.

    For realism in political theory: Shapiro (2005), Geuss (2008), Maloy (2013), and Sleat (2013). For realism in empirical political research: Mead (2010), Sil and Katzenstein (2010), Schrodt (2014), and Achen and Bartels (2016).

  7. 7.

    The relevant texts are Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651) and Rousseau’s “Origins of Inequality” (1754): Hobbes (1996, 70, 88, 89) and Rousseau (1987, 33–34, 38, 53).

  8. 8.

    Quotation at Sumner (1934, 2:205).

  9. 9.

    Quotation at Key (1966, 7).

  10. 10.

    For the classic distinction between two families of electoral systems: Powell (2000). For the observation that a party in a “majoritarian” (single-seat) system can theoretically control the legislature with 25% of all votes, whereas the most proportional systems cannot construct a legislative majority with fewer than 50% of all votes: Przeworski (2018, 25).

  11. 11.

    On electoral volatility and partisan decomposition: Mair (2013, 70–71, 78, 83).

  12. 12.

    For a recent attempt to redefine “popular control” in terms of “multiple majorities,” using the “social choice” approach of much of voting theory in the last 50 years: Ingham (2019).

  13. 13.

    On post-2016 “undemocratic liberalism” and its attraction to decision-making by unaccountable experts: Berman (2017). For explicit voting restrictions: Brennan (2016). For taking candidate-entry decisions out of voters’ hands and restoring them to major-party elites: Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018).

  14. 14.

    Piketty (2016), Starmer (2017), and Galston (2018, 7–8).

  15. 15.

    Quotation at Mounk (2018, 107). For the futility of debates about voter rationality: Lenz (2018).

  16. 16.

    Quotation at Mair (2013, 11); “NGO” stands for “non-governmental organization,” a designation covering lobbyists and activists.

  17. 17.

    On the role of PR as one aspect of “institutionalized popular inclusion” in reducing military conflict and protecting human rights: Joshi et al. (2015 [for conflict]; 2019 [for rights]).

References

  • Achen, C., & L.M. Bartels. 2016. Democracy for Realists. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beramendi, V., A. Ellis, B. Kaufman, M. Kornblith, L. LeDuc, P. McGuire, T. Schiller, & P. Svensson. 2008. Direct Democracy: The International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm: Institute for Democracy and Election Assistance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. 2017. “The Pipe Dream of Undemocratic Liberalism.” Journal of Democracy 28: 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bermeo, N. 2019. “Can American Democracy Still Be Saved?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681: 228–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, J. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carty, R.K. 2010. “Canadian Democracy: An Assessment and an Agenda.” Auditing Canadian Democracy, ed. W. Cross. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chwalisz, C. 2015. The Populist Signal: Why Politics and Democracy Need to Change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman. 2017. “Global Implosion of Trust.” January 15 (Accessed on January 16, 2017 at www.edelman.com/news/2017-edelman-trust-barometer-reveals-global-implosion).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuss, R. 2008. Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. 1996 (1651). Leviathan, ed. R. Tuck. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingham, S. 2019. Rule by Multiple Majorities: A New Theory of Popular Control. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenz, G.S. 2018. “Time for a Change.” Critical Review 30: 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. 2007. “How the United States Constitution Contributes to the Democratic Deficit in America.” Drake Law Review 55: 859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, S., & D. Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. 1998. “Europe’s ‘Democratic Deficit’: The Question of Standards.” European Law Journal 4: 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloy, J.S. 2013. Democratic Statecraft: Political Realism and Popular Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, L.M. 2010. “Scholasticism in Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 8: 453–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mounk, Y. 2018. “The Undemocratic Dilemma.” Journal of Democracy 29: 98–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, T. 2016. “We Must Rethink Globalization, or Trumpism Will Prevail.” Guardian (London), November 16 (Accessed on January 15, 2017 at www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/globalization-trump-inequality-thomas-piketty).

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A. 2018. Why Bother with Elections? Cambridge, UK: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, J.-J. 1987. The Basic Political Writings, trans. D.A. Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrodt, P.A. 2014. “Seven Deadly Sins of Contemporary Quantitative Political Analysis.” Journal of Peace Research 51: 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, I. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sil, R., & P.J. Katzenstein. 2010. Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleat, M. 2013. Liberal Realism: A Realist Theory of Liberal Politics. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, K. 2017. “Labour Can Tackle the Challenges of Brexit in a Way Theresa May Simply Cannot.” Guardian (London), January 3 (Accessed on January 9, 2017 at www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/03/labour-challenges-brexit-theresa-may-ivan-rogers-values).

  • Sumner, W.G. 1934. Essays of William Graham Sumner, ed. A.G. Keller. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wattenberg, M.P. 1998. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952–96. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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). Introduction: Electoral Dysfunction and Political Realism. In: Smarter Ballots. Elections, Voting, Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13031-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation