Data for: Active and Passive: Two Ways Party Systems Influence Electoral Outcomes

Parties can not only actively adjust the electoral rules to reach more favourable outcomes, as is recognized in political science, but they also passively create an environment that systematically influences electoral competition. This so far neglected link is theorized and successfully tested on two out of three contextual factors related to party systems: (a) choice set size (i.e. number of options provided to voters), (b) degree of ideological polarization, and (c) the presence of a populist subject. The research utilizes established datasets (i.e. Constituency-Level Elections Archive, Party System Polarization Index, Chapel Hill Expert Survey, The Manifestos Project Database, and registries of populist parties from other studies) and via OLS regression analysis concludes that the choice set size and presence of a populist subject are attributes with passive influence over electoral systems. Thus, they must be reflected when outcomes of electoral systems are estimated or compared across various contexts.

正如政治学研究业已证实的那样，政党既可以主动调整选举规则以获取更有利的选举结果，也能够被动构建起能够系统性影响选举竞争的环境。这一迄今尚未受到学界关注的关联，在三类与政党制度相关的情境因素中的两类上完成了理论建构与实证检验：(a) 选择集规模（即提供给选民的选项数量），(b) 意识形态极化程度，以及(c) 民粹主义主体的存在。本研究采用了多套学界公认的标准数据集，包括选区层级选举档案库（Constituency-Level Elections Archive）、政党制度极化指数（Party System Polarization Index）、查珀尔希尔专家调查（Chapel Hill Expert Survey）、政党纲领项目数据库（The Manifestos Project Database），以及其他研究中的民粹主义政党登记库；通过普通最小二乘（OLS）回归分析，本研究得出结论：选择集规模与民粹主义主体的存在，是对选举制度具有被动影响的属性。因此，在对不同情境下的选举制度结果进行估算或跨情境比较时，必须将这两项因素纳入考量。