Electoral System Reviews in New Zealand, Britain and Canada: A Critical Comparison
This article compares the use of people outside government to consider electoral reform in three countries using the single-member plurality electoral system. The composition of electoral reform bodies, ranging from commissions of experts (New Zealand) and ex-politicians (Britain) to assemblies of r...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Government and opposition (London) 2007, Vol.42 (4), p.471-490 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 490 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 471 |
| container_title | Government and opposition (London) |
| container_volume | 42 |
| creator | Lundberg, Thomas Carl |
| description | This article compares the use of people outside government to consider electoral reform in three countries using the single-member plurality electoral system. The composition of electoral reform bodies, ranging from commissions of experts (New Zealand) and ex-politicians (Britain) to assemblies of randomly selected citizens (British Columbia), appears to have influenced how well their recommendations were received by the public. Governments should be careful not to assume that they can retain control of the electoral reform process once they let it out of their hands, as the cases of New Zealand and British Columbia show, where majorities of the voters chose reform. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00232.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61663785</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1111_j_1477_7053_2007_00232_x</cupid><jstor_id>44484108</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44484108</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5062-f8538262e333e0c76001dbe5803a90337326532cc7990dd2434ad051609a49b33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkV9rFDEUxYMouG79CELwwSdnvMnNJJmCD3WobaG4pSqILyE7k5UM82dNdt3ut2_GLRV82eYluTfnl5zLIYQyyFlaH9qcCaUyBQXmHEDlABx5fveMzB4vnpMZAFMZL9SPl-RVjG0qUchyRm7PO1dvxmA7-nUfN66nt-6Pd7tI_UC_uB396Wxnh-Y9_RT8xqZmKmhlB9vYU3pGq9T1daKrsV_b4OM4nJAXK9tF9_phn5Pvn8-_VZfZ9eLiqjq7zuoCJM9WukDNJXeI6KBWMnlqlq7QgLYERIVcFsjrWpUlNA0XKGwDBZNQWlEuEefk3eHddRh_b13cmN7H2nXJrhu30UgmJar0yzFhUWomeCGPClFqDRJZEr79T9iO2zCkaQ1nGrmYZHOiD6I6jDEGtzLr4Hsb9oaBmbIzrZkiMlNEZsrO_M3O3CX04wHd-c7tn8yZi8XiJp0S_-bAtzFl-8gLIbRgoNP96YM12y-Db365fwMcNXcPvRO3Jg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218324806</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Electoral System Reviews in New Zealand, Britain and Canada: A Critical Comparison</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Lundberg, Thomas Carl</creator><creatorcontrib>Lundberg, Thomas Carl</creatorcontrib><description>This article compares the use of people outside government to consider electoral reform in three countries using the single-member plurality electoral system. The composition of electoral reform bodies, ranging from commissions of experts (New Zealand) and ex-politicians (Britain) to assemblies of randomly selected citizens (British Columbia), appears to have influenced how well their recommendations were received by the public. Governments should be careful not to assume that they can retain control of the electoral reform process once they let it out of their hands, as the cases of New Zealand and British Columbia show, where majorities of the voters chose reform.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0017-257X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-7053</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00232.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: GVOPBP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>British Columbia ; Canada ; Citizens ; Commissions ; Commonwealth ; Comparative analysis ; Comparative politics ; Constituents ; Elections ; Electoral reform ; Electoral Systems ; Experts ; First-past-the-post system ; Government ; Government reform ; Great Britain ; Liberalism ; New Zealand ; Plurality voting ; Political elections ; Political parties ; Political reform ; Political systems ; Proportional representation ; Referendums ; Reform ; Systems analysis ; United Kingdom ; Voters ; Voting</subject><ispartof>Government and opposition (London), 2007, Vol.42 (4), p.471-490</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2007</rights><rights>2007 Government and Opposition Ltd.</rights><rights>The Author 2007. Journal compilation © 2007 Government and Opposition Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5062-f8538262e333e0c76001dbe5803a90337326532cc7990dd2434ad051609a49b33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5062-f8538262e333e0c76001dbe5803a90337326532cc7990dd2434ad051609a49b33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44484108$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44484108$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,800,1412,27905,27906,33755,33756,45555,45556,57998,58231</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lundberg, Thomas Carl</creatorcontrib><title>Electoral System Reviews in New Zealand, Britain and Canada: A Critical Comparison</title><title>Government and opposition (London)</title><description>This article compares the use of people outside government to consider electoral reform in three countries using the single-member plurality electoral system. The composition of electoral reform bodies, ranging from commissions of experts (New Zealand) and ex-politicians (Britain) to assemblies of randomly selected citizens (British Columbia), appears to have influenced how well their recommendations were received by the public. Governments should be careful not to assume that they can retain control of the electoral reform process once they let it out of their hands, as the cases of New Zealand and British Columbia show, where majorities of the voters chose reform.</description><subject>British Columbia</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Citizens</subject><subject>Commissions</subject><subject>Commonwealth</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Comparative politics</subject><subject>Constituents</subject><subject>Elections</subject><subject>Electoral reform</subject><subject>Electoral Systems</subject><subject>Experts</subject><subject>First-past-the-post system</subject><subject>Government</subject><subject>Government reform</subject><subject>Great Britain</subject><subject>Liberalism</subject><subject>New Zealand</subject><subject>Plurality voting</subject><subject>Political elections</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Political reform</subject><subject>Political systems</subject><subject>Proportional representation</subject><subject>Referendums</subject><subject>Reform</subject><subject>Systems analysis</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Voters</subject><subject>Voting</subject><issn>0017-257X</issn><issn>1477-7053</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkV9rFDEUxYMouG79CELwwSdnvMnNJJmCD3WobaG4pSqILyE7k5UM82dNdt3ut2_GLRV82eYluTfnl5zLIYQyyFlaH9qcCaUyBQXmHEDlABx5fveMzB4vnpMZAFMZL9SPl-RVjG0qUchyRm7PO1dvxmA7-nUfN66nt-6Pd7tI_UC_uB396Wxnh-Y9_RT8xqZmKmhlB9vYU3pGq9T1daKrsV_b4OM4nJAXK9tF9_phn5Pvn8-_VZfZ9eLiqjq7zuoCJM9WukDNJXeI6KBWMnlqlq7QgLYERIVcFsjrWpUlNA0XKGwDBZNQWlEuEefk3eHddRh_b13cmN7H2nXJrhu30UgmJar0yzFhUWomeCGPClFqDRJZEr79T9iO2zCkaQ1nGrmYZHOiD6I6jDEGtzLr4Hsb9oaBmbIzrZkiMlNEZsrO_M3O3CX04wHd-c7tn8yZi8XiJp0S_-bAtzFl-8gLIbRgoNP96YM12y-Db365fwMcNXcPvRO3Jg</recordid><startdate>2007</startdate><enddate>2007</enddate><creator>Lundberg, Thomas Carl</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Blackwell Publishing</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2007</creationdate><title>Electoral System Reviews in New Zealand, Britain and Canada: A Critical Comparison</title><author>Lundberg, Thomas Carl</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5062-f8538262e333e0c76001dbe5803a90337326532cc7990dd2434ad051609a49b33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>British Columbia</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Citizens</topic><topic>Commissions</topic><topic>Commonwealth</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Comparative politics</topic><topic>Constituents</topic><topic>Elections</topic><topic>Electoral reform</topic><topic>Electoral Systems</topic><topic>Experts</topic><topic>First-past-the-post system</topic><topic>Government</topic><topic>Government reform</topic><topic>Great Britain</topic><topic>Liberalism</topic><topic>New Zealand</topic><topic>Plurality voting</topic><topic>Political elections</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Political reform</topic><topic>Political systems</topic><topic>Proportional representation</topic><topic>Referendums</topic><topic>Reform</topic><topic>Systems analysis</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Voters</topic><topic>Voting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lundberg, Thomas Carl</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Government and opposition (London)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lundberg, Thomas Carl</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Electoral System Reviews in New Zealand, Britain and Canada: A Critical Comparison</atitle><jtitle>Government and opposition (London)</jtitle><date>2007</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>471</spage><epage>490</epage><pages>471-490</pages><issn>0017-257X</issn><eissn>1477-7053</eissn><coden>GVOPBP</coden><abstract>This article compares the use of people outside government to consider electoral reform in three countries using the single-member plurality electoral system. The composition of electoral reform bodies, ranging from commissions of experts (New Zealand) and ex-politicians (Britain) to assemblies of randomly selected citizens (British Columbia), appears to have influenced how well their recommendations were received by the public. Governments should be careful not to assume that they can retain control of the electoral reform process once they let it out of their hands, as the cases of New Zealand and British Columbia show, where majorities of the voters chose reform.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00232.x</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0017-257X |
| ispartof | Government and opposition (London), 2007, Vol.42 (4), p.471-490 |
| issn | 0017-257X 1477-7053 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61663785 |
| source | Wiley Journals; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; JSTOR |
| subjects | British Columbia Canada Citizens Commissions Commonwealth Comparative analysis Comparative politics Constituents Elections Electoral reform Electoral Systems Experts First-past-the-post system Government Government reform Great Britain Liberalism New Zealand Plurality voting Political elections Political parties Political reform Political systems Proportional representation Referendums Reform Systems analysis United Kingdom Voters Voting |
| title | Electoral System Reviews in New Zealand, Britain and Canada: A Critical Comparison |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T17%3A57%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Electoral%20System%20Reviews%20in%20New%20Zealand,%20Britain%20and%20Canada:%20A%20Critical%20Comparison&rft.jtitle=Government%20and%20opposition%20(London)&rft.au=Lundberg,%20Thomas%20Carl&rft.date=2007&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=471&rft.epage=490&rft.pages=471-490&rft.issn=0017-257X&rft.eissn=1477-7053&rft.coden=GVOPBP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00232.x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E44484108%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218324806&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1111_j_1477_7053_2007_00232_x&rft_jstor_id=44484108&rfr_iscdi=true |