Reevaluating the presidential runoff rule: Does a provision promote the protection of human rights?

Joshua Holzer,Sean Eric Richey

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217650

Abstract

In recent years, an increasing number of democracies have adopted a runoff rule to elect their president. Some have argued, however, that the benefits of such a rule are dubious at best. In this article, I seek to counter this claim, as I posit that a runoff rule promotes the protection of human rights by reducing outcomes that are negatively associated with high government respect for human rights. Using ordered logistic regression and an analysis of predicted probabilities, I find that democratic presidential elections held using a runoff rule produce presidents that are less likely to be associated with lower government respect for human rights, and more likely to be associated with greater government respect for human rights. I conclude by suggesting that politicians should consider embracing a presidential runoff rule, as its adoption could be a relatively easy way to reduce repression.

Highlights

Accepted: May 14, 2019Published: May 31, 2019
I seek to counter this claim, as I posit that a runoff rule promotes the protection of human rights by reducing outcomes that are negatively associated with high government respect for human rights
Using ordered logistic regression and an analysis of predicted probabilities, I find that democratic presidential elections held using a runoff rule produce presidents that are less likely to be associated with lower government respect for human rights, and more likely to be associated with greater government respect for human rights

Summary

Introduction

My first premise is that president’s who are ideological distant from the median voter are less likely to be associated with high government respect for human rights. My second premise is that cabinets comprised of a high percentage of individuals in the same party as the president are less likely to be associated with high government respect for human rights. My third premise is that presidents elected without a majority are less likely to be associated with high government respect for human rights. Politicians that are ideologically “closer to the median voter’s ideal point are most likely to win” ([12]: 459) This leads me to my fourth premise: a presidential runoff rule is unlikely to lead to a president that is ideological distant from the median voter. This leads me to my hypothesis: In comparison to when the president is elected using plurality rule, when the president is elected using a runoff rule, that state is more likely to be associated with high government respect for human rights

Methods

Findings

Conclusion