Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review 2011, 47(2): 243-272 | DOI: 10.13060/00380288.2011.47.2.02

The Impact of the Majority Runoff System on Party Representation in the Czech Senate

Tomáš Lebeda
Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Palackého, Olomouc

The objective of this article is to describe the impact of the majority runoff system on the electoral process and especially on party representation in elections to the Czech Senate. The article addresses the following questions: How are individual political parties represented? How much are electoral decisions influenced by the political party and how much by who the individual candidate is? What is the difference in the success rate of individual parties in the first and runoff election rounds? Which parties benefited from this electoral system and which are disadvantaged by it? Does the majority runoff system have a curbing effect on the representation of extremist parties? How does the personality of the candidate contribute to an election outcome? The article analyses the results of seven Senate elections between 1996 and 2008. The data file for the analysis includes all the candidates who ran for the Senate during this period (a total of 1685 candidates). The results of the analysis are contrasted with existing theoretical assumptions about the impact of the majority runoff system and in particular Duverger's laws.

Keywords: electoral behaviour, party representation, majority runoff system.

Published: April 1, 2011  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Lebeda, T. (2011). The Impact of the Majority Runoff System on Party Representation in the Czech Senate. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 47(2), 243-272. doi: 10.13060/00380288.2011.47.2.02
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Blais, A. 2004. "Strategic Voting in the 2002 French Presidential Elections." Pp. 93-109 in Michael S. Lewis-Beck (ed.). The French Voter. Before and After the 2002 Elections. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Go to original source...
    2. Blais, A., R. K. Carty. 1991. "The Psychological Impact of Electoral Laws: Measuring Duverger's Elusive Factor." British Journal of Political Science 21 (1): 79-93. Go to original source...
    3. Blais, A., L. Massicotte, A. Dobrzynska. 1997. "Direct Presidential Elections: a World Summary." Electoral Studies 16 (4): 441-455. Go to original source...
    4. Cox, G. W. 1997. Making Votes Count. Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...
    5. Duverger, M. (1951) 1978. Political Parties. Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Cambridge University Press.
    6. Farrell, D. M. 2001. Electoral Systems. A Comparative Introduction. London, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Fiala, P. 2004. "Kritická interpretace 'zákonů' o vlivu volebních systémů na stranické systémy." Pp. 51-65 in M. Novák, T. Lebeda (et al.). Volební a stranické systémy ČR v mezinárodním srovnání. Dobrá Voda: Aleš Čeněk.
    8. Gallagher, M. 1991. "Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems." Electoral Studies 10 (1): 33-51. Go to original source...
    9. Chytilek, R. 2005a. "České senátní volby. Podněty, výsledky, alternativy." Pp. 105-115 in B. Dančák, P. Fiala, V. Hloušek (eds.). Evropeizace. Nové téma politologického výzkumu. Brno: MPÚ MU.
    10. Chytilek, R. 2005b. "Volby 2004 a strategické účinky volebních systémů." Středoevropské politické studie 6 (1): 13-25.
    11. Chytilek, R., J. Šedo, T. Lebeda. 2009. Volební systémy. Praha: Portál.
    12. Jones, M., M. Lauga, M. Léon-Roesch. 2005. "Argentina." Pp. 59-122 in D. Nohlen et al. Elections in the Americas. A Data Handbook. Volume II. New York: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    13. Krennerich, M. 2005. "Nicaragua." Pp. 453-76 in D. Nohlen et al. Elections in the Americas. A Data Handbook. Volume I. New York: Oxford University Press.
    14. Laakso, M., R. Taagepera. 1979. "Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe." Comparative Political Studies 12 (1): 3-27. Go to original source...
    15. Lebeda, T. 2006. "Teorie reálné kvóty, alternativní přístup k měření volební proporcionality." Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review 42 (4): 657-681. Go to original source...
    16. Lebeda, T. 2007. "Volební pravidla pro prezidentské volby." Pp. 27-61 in M. Novák, M. Brunclík (eds.). Postavení hlavy státu v parlamentních a poloprezidentských režimech: Česká republika v komparativní perspektivě. Praha: Dokořán.
    17. Lijphart, A. 1994. Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-seven Democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    18. Loosemore, J., V. J. Hanby. 1971. "The Theoretical Limits of Maximum Distortion: Some Analytic Expressions for Electoral Systems." British Journal of Political Science 1 (4): 467-477. Go to original source...
    19. Monroe, B. L. 1994. "Disproportionality and Malapportionment: Measuring Electoral Inequity." Electoral Studies 13 (2): 132-149. Go to original source...
    20. Nohlen, D. 1990. Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem. Opladen: Leske Verlag + Budrich GmbH. Go to original source...
    21. Rae, D. 1967. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    22. Reynolds, A., B. Reilly, A. Ellis (eds.). 2005. Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm: IDEA.
    23. Reynolds, A. 1999. "Sierra Leone." Pp. 789-802 in D. Nohlen, M. Krennerich, B. Thibaut et al. Elections in Africa. A Data Handbook. New York: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    24. Sartori, G. 1976. Parties and Party Systems. London: Cambridge University Press.
    25. Sartori, G. 2001. Srovnávací ústavní inženýrství. Zkoumání struktur, podnětů a výsledků. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství.
    26. Šaradín, P. 2008. Teorie voleb druhého řádu a možnosti jejich aplikace v České republice. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého.
    27. Taagepera, R., M. S. Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press. Go to original source...
    28. Zovatto, D. 2005. "Costa Rica." Pp. 147-194 in D. Nohlen et al. Elections in the Americas. A Data Handbook. Volume I. New York: Oxford University Press.
    29. Senátní volby 1996 až 2008 - datový soubor. Sociologický ústav AV ČR, v.v.i.
    30. Ústava České republiky ze dne 16. prosince 1992, ústavní zákon č. 1/1993 Sb. ve znění ústavního zákona č. 347/1997 Sb., 300/2000 Sb., 448/2001 Sb., 395/2001 Sb. a 515/2002 Sb.
    31. Zákon č. 247/1995 Sb. ze dne 27. září 1995, o volbách do Parlamentu České republiky a o změně a doplnění některých dalších zákonů.
    32. Český statistický úřad. Volební server. Dostupné z: <http://www.volby.cz>.
    33. Český statistický úřad. Dostupné z: <http://www.czso.cz>.
    34. Poslanecká sněmovna, Parlament ČR. Dostupné z: <http://www.psp.cz>.
    35. Senát Parlamentu ČR. Dostupné z: <http://www.senat.cz>.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content