Presidentialism and Voter Turnout in Legislative Elections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the influence of presidentialism on legislative turnout? Does it matter for electoral participation if the presidential and legislative elections are held on the same day or not? If any, what is the confounding impact of the electoral system type? This article uses a sample of more than 450 democratic legislative elections between 1990 and 2010 to evaluate these three research questions. Distinguishing three types of regimes: (1) parliamentary systems, (2) presidential systems with concurrent presidential and legislative elections and (3) presidential systems with non-concurrent presidential and legislative elections, we first evaluate the impact of each of these three system types on legislative turnout in a multivariate framework. We find that the first two regime types have higher turnout figures than the third regime type. In a second step, we examine whether citizens' participation in any of the three system types interacts with the electoral formula in their country. Our results indicate that proportional representation has a moderate positive impact on turnout in presidential systems with non-concurrent presidential and legislative elections, a negative impact in presidential systems with concurrent legislative elections to the state's two highest offices and no impact in parliamentary systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".