Abstract
The literature on electoral systems is one of the more well developed within political science. Unlike many branches of the discipline it has successfully developed a series of commonly adopted definitions, measures and standards. Nevertheless, areas of uncertainty and disagreement exist. Using responses from a survey of scholars who study electoral systems we show where some of these areas of uncertainty lie. Intriguingly, some relate to our (collective) preference for a mixed member proportional system (MMP). MMP is the most highly regarded of electoral systems, yet it is does not seem to be the case that we have clear and consistent criteria for ranking this system so highly. Exploring this puzzle leads us to suggest topics where we, as students of electoral systems, may want to consider developing our studies further.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.