6 Conclusion: Summary and Future
Directions
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
The study of electoral systems is one of the best developed in political science. It is a
literature that has allowed us to arrive at a clear understanding both of the general
properties of electoral systems and some speciWc features. In some ways, however,
and despite the very real progress in our understanding of electoral systems, much
remains to be done. After all, there seems to be far more stability, and far less scope
for relatively simple rational self-interested explanations of electoral system
change, than might beWrst thought. Given that our understanding of electoral
systems is driven by the insight that systems shape outcomes and will, therefore, be
subject to repeated attempts at manipulation for short-term gain, the appearance
of stability is a little surprising. There seems to be lot less manipulation than we
expect to see and would seem to require models of change that pay more attention
to questions of uncertainty and cost.
One implication of this surprising pattern of stability is that we may, perhaps, be
a little too conWdent of our understanding of elections. Scholars of electoral
systems tend to be quite close to debates over electoral system reform and are
often involved as expert witnesses (Jenkins Commission 1998 ). TheXourishing of
democracy over the past generation has been paralleled by attempts at electoral
engineering with academic experts often acting as engineer or assistant engineer.
Within the literature on electoral systems, scholars such as Taagepera ( 1998 ) are not
hesitant to make recommendations and believe there is a role for electoral engin-
eering. Farrell notes that scholars such as Taagepera are not alone and that the
‘‘bulk’’ of political scientists advocate for speciWc systems (Farrell 2001 , 181 ). But
some scholars are more circumspect. Katz inDemocracy and Electionsis among the
most cautious in thinking that the best system for a country depends ‘‘who you are,
where you are, and where you want to go’’ (Katz 1997 , 208 ). None of these questions
necessarily have straightforward answers. And outside the well-traveled path of
proportionality and the broader brush strokes of Duverger’s Law, the consequences
of electoral laws are not entirely clear. Like the politicians in post-cold war Eastern
Europe, the academic literature may have a general understanding of electoral
systems but, despite the richness of the literature, we still need to know more.
Future directions of electoral studies research will move beyond the question of
proportionality—which is by now pretty much settled—and into newer areas. One
area is in the eVects of the electoral system on governance. Electoral systems
typically involve trade-oVs among diVerent properties and Lijphart and Powell
have begun to move the literature forward in examining the trade-oVs that are, or are
not, possible. For Powell, for example, there are distinct trade-oVs between policy
responsiveness on the one hand and representation on the other (Powell 2000 ).
electoral systems 591