Constructing Democracy: The Underlying Factors That Create a Healthy Democracy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v12i1.4071Keywords:
democracy, healthy democracy, health, factors, election, voter, turnout, electoral, system, management bodyAbstract
Objective: This paper seeks to analyze how three different factors affect the health of a democracy: voter turnout, electoral system, and election management body. Background: While extensive literature discusses voting’s impacts on policy, little literature specifically correlates it with democratic health. For years, scholars have debated the merits of various electoral systems, especially regarding the structure of new democracies in Africa and Asia. Most scholars agree that there is not one particular system that is universally advantageous over the rest; instead, the optimal system depends on the country in question and the specific goals and criteria. This paper will analyze 9 main electoral systems (Table 1) and their impacts on the health of democracy. Election Management Bodies (EMBS) manage the operations of an election. The 3 main types are Governmental, Independent, and Mixed. Methods: Various datasets from International IDEA, are used to achieve the objective of this paper. For each main question, boxplots are generated to visualize the distribution of democratic health across the categories. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is used to determine whether any statistically significant differences exist. Results: The first ANOVA model reveals that nations with a high health of democracy have a greater average voter turnout than those with medium health of democracy, and likewise for medium and low. Furthermore, a statistically significant difference exists between List PR and TRS regarding their impacts on a democracy’s health. Finally, Governmental EMBs are associated with high-performing democracies, while Independent EMBs are dominant in Authoritarian regimes. This is statistically significant.
Downloads
References or Bibliography
Ace Project. (n.d.). Electoral Systems. ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. https://aceproject.org/
Birch, S. (2003). TWO-ROUND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS AND DEMOCRACY. COMPARATIVE POLITICAL STUDIES, 36(3), 319-344. 10.1177/0010414002250678
Catt, H. (2014). Electoral Management Design. International IDEA, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Altman, D., Bernhard, M., Fish, S., Hicken, A., Kroenig, M., Lindberg, S. I., McMann, K., Paxton, P., Semetko, H. A., Skaaning, S.-E., Staton, J., & Teorell, J. (2011). Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach. Perspectives on Politics, 9(2), 247–267. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41479651
Fowler, A. (2013). Electoral and policy consequences of voter turnout: Evidence from compulsory voting in Australia. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00012055
Gandhi, J., & Heller, A. L. (2017). Electoral Systems in Authoritarian States. The Oxford Handbook of Authoritarian Systems, 387-402. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190258658.013.7
Norris, P. (1997). Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique, 18(3), 297–312. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601345
Solijonov, A. (2016). Voter Turnout Trends Around the World. IDEA.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2023 Sanjay Bharadwaj; Joshua Eaton
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright holder(s) granted JSR a perpetual, non-exclusive license to distriute & display this article.