Alternative voting, alternative outcomes: 2018 Presidential election in the Czech Republic

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F44555601%3A13510%2F20%3A43895684" target="_blank" >RIV/44555601:13510/20:43895684 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://www.ccr-munich.de/publications/MSSR/2020_3/6.Oresky+Cech%20-Alternative%20Voting-FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" >http://www.ccr-munich.de/publications/MSSR/2020_3/6.Oresky+Cech%20-Alternative%20Voting-FINAL.pdf</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Alternative voting, alternative outcomes: 2018 Presidential election in the Czech Republic

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

In this paper, the official two-round system is compared to the D21- Janeček method, using representative data collected during the 2018 presidential election in the Czech Republic. Under the D21-Janeček method, voters were allowed to cast up to three plus votes, with the option of casting one minus vote for the nine presidential candidates. Because of the systematically capped multiple votes, the outcome of the Janeček method differed significantly from the actual election. Additional votes provided more information about voters&apos; preferences and candidates&apos; profiles. Here it showed that the Janeček method favours inclusive candidates who are able to attract the support from voters of other candidates, and disadvantages polarising candidates. Furthermore, the overlap of plus and minus votes reveals which candidates are most hurt by the splitting of votes under plurality voting. A relatively large overlap of plus votes between the main two contenders also suggests that the differences between them were not as big as was presented by the media.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Alternative voting, alternative outcomes: 2018 Presidential election in the Czech Republic

Popis výsledku anglicky

In this paper, the official two-round system is compared to the D21- Janeček method, using representative data collected during the 2018 presidential election in the Czech Republic. Under the D21-Janeček method, voters were allowed to cast up to three plus votes, with the option of casting one minus vote for the nine presidential candidates. Because of the systematically capped multiple votes, the outcome of the Janeček method differed significantly from the actual election. Additional votes provided more information about voters&apos; preferences and candidates&apos; profiles. Here it showed that the Janeček method favours inclusive candidates who are able to attract the support from voters of other candidates, and disadvantages polarising candidates. Furthermore, the overlap of plus and minus votes reveals which candidates are most hurt by the splitting of votes under plurality voting. A relatively large overlap of plus votes between the main two contenders also suggests that the differences between them were not as big as was presented by the media.

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50601 - Political science

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

The Munich Social Science Review (MSSR)

ISSN

0170-2521

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

3

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2020

Stát vydavatele periodika

DE - Spolková republika Německo

Počet stran výsledku

27

Strana od-do

113-139

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—