Measuring the disproportionality of Turkish elections

References

• Anckar, C. 1997. Determinants of disproportionality and wasted votes. Electoral Studies 16, no. 4: 501–15. doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(97)00038-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arslantaş, D., Ş. Arslantaş, and A. Kaiser. 2020. Does the electoral system foster a predominant party system? Evidence from Turkey. Swiss Political Science Review 26, no. 1: 125–43. doi:10.1111/spsr.12386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bochsler, D. 2010. How party systems develop in mixed electoral systems. In Territory and electoral rules in post-communist democracies, 86–131. London: Palgrave MacMillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230281424.
   Google Scholar
• Bochsler, D. 2022. Measures of vote-seat disproportionality for incomplete data. Party Politics 28, no. 1: 174–83. doi:10.1177/1354068820968386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaards, M. 2008. Dominant party systems and electoral volatility in Africa: A comment on Mozaffar and Scarritt. Party Politics 14, no. 1: 113–30. doi:10.1177/1354068807083825.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çakırözer, U. 1995. “Electoral systems and their political consequences a special case: Turkey.” Master’s Thesis, Bilkent University, Turkey. http://hdl.handle.net/11693/18395
   Google Scholar
• Çarkoğlu, A., and D. Aksen. 2019. Partisan and apportionment bias in creating a predominant party system. Political Geography 69: 43–53. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2018.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cinar, K. 2016. Local determinants of an emerging electoral hegemony: The case of justice and development party (AKP) in Turkey. Democratization 23, no. 7: 1216–35. doi:10.1080/13510347.2015.1077228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cop, B. 2011. Extreme instability in electoral system changes: The Turkish case. Turkish Studies 12, no. 1: 5–13. doi:10.1080/14683849.2011.563499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirkol, Ö. 2015. Party splits in Turkish party system: The case of centre-right parties. Turkish Studies 16, no. 1: 97–114. doi:10.1080/14683849.2015.1021247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiva, J.H., and O. Folke. 2016. Mechanical and psychological effects of electoral reform. British Journal of Political Science 46, no. 2: 265–79. doi:10.1017/S0007123414000209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, M. 1991. Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems. Electoral Studies 10, no. 1: 33–51. doi:10.1016/0261-3794(91)90004-C.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, M. 2017. “Indices.Xls.” Accessed 20 May 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20171204091823/http://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/ElSystems/Docts/IndicesCalc.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gallagher, M., and P. Mitchell. 2005. Appendix B: Indices of fragmentation and disproportionality. In The politics of electoral systems, 598–606. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/0199257566.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Golosov, G.V. 2006. Disproportionality by proportional design: Seats and votes in Russia’s regional legislative elections, December 2003-March 2005. Europe-Asia Studies 58, no. 1: 25–55. doi:10.1080/09668130500401657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooghe, M., J. Noppe, and B. Maddens. 2003. The effect of electoral reform on the Belgian election results of 18 May 2003. Representation 39, no. 4: 270–76. doi:10.1080/00344890308523234.
   Google Scholar
• Kalaycıoğlu, E. 2002. Elections and governance. In Politics, parties, and elections in Turkey, 55–72. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. doi: 10.1515/9781588261878.
   Google Scholar
• Karpov, A. 2008. Measurement of disproportionality in proportional representation systems. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 48, no. 9–10: 1421–38. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2008.05.027.
   Google Scholar
• Kay, A. 2005. A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration 83, no. 3: 553–71. doi:10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00462.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lijphart, A. 1994. Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945-1990. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198273479.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Öney, B., and T.J. Selck. 2017. Exploring the level of party system institutionalization and party system type in Turkey: A convergence with established or new democracies? Turkish Studies 18, no. 2: 209–28. doi:10.1080/14683849.2016.1266446.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierson, P. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review 94, no. 2: 251–67. doi:10.2307/2586011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Special Committee on Electoral Reform. 2016. Strengthening democracy in Canada: Principles, process and public engagement for electoral reform. Ottawa: Special Committee on Electoral Reform. Accessed 5 July 2021. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ERRE/Reports/RP8655791/errerp03/errerp03-e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Strambach, S., and H. Halkier. 2013. Reconceptualizing change: Path dependency, path plasticity and knowledge combination. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 57, no. 1–2: 1–14. doi:10.1515/zfw.2013.0001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taagepera, R., and B. Grofman. 2003. Mapping the indices of seats-votes disproportionality and inter-election volatility. Party Politics 9, no. 6: 659–77. doi:10.1177/13540688030096001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tezcür, G.M. 2012. Trends and characteristics of the Turkish party system in light of the 2011 elections. Turkish Studies 13, no. 2: 117–34. doi:10.1080/14683849.2012.685251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakeman, R.L. 2009. “Containing the opposition: selective representation in Jordan and Turkey.” Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/53083
   Google Scholar