How electoral designers fail: The contextual straightjackets of reform

21 May 2020, Version 1
This content is an early or alternative research output and has not been peer-reviewed at the time of posting.


When electoral designers conduct reform, they work within given frameworks to meet certain objectives. One of the most common goals is to produce a system which outputs results in favor of the commissioners. While designers are normally able to a generate system-level impacts, they sometimes fail to secure electoral spoils for their parties. How does this happen? This article proposes the cube root law and the seat product model to identify designers’ underlying objectives and explore the contexts under which they fail to meet them. It uses data from eight legislative elections in Chile (1989-2017) to show how two different designers impacted patterns of representation and proportionality. It finds that while they both were successful in achieving system-level shifts in their desired directions, only one of them was able to benefit their commissioner. It suggests that designer that failed to produce spoils for his party was constrained by contextual straitjackets.


Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.