A Theory of Critical Elections
A Theory of Critical Elections
复制标题
关键选举理论
DOI：
10.2307/2126401
复制
发表时间：
1955
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
V. Key
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
V. Key
也许民主秩序的基本区别特征在于人民群众在选举中表达有效的选择。至少在这种神秘的秩序中，选民占据着主要治理机构的地位。它通过选举发挥作用。选举本身是集体决策的正式行为，发生在一系列相互关联的前因和后续行为中。在民主秩序中，选举的定义如此广泛，但其性质、意义和后果却存在巨大差异。即使在一个国家内，选举的现实情况有时也会有很大差异。关注选举性质差异的系统比较方法无疑将有助于增进对民主治理过程的理解。在投票前的行为中，选举在心理上参与的选民比例、与竞选分裂相关的态度强度、对投票结果的预期性质、与个人政治选择相关的客观事件的影响、与社区决策的有效联系的个人意识等方面有所不同。这些和其他先行变化会影响投票行为本身以及随后的行为。对选举以及对整个民主进程的理解必须部分依赖于我们称之为选举的行为复合体的广泛差异。2虽然现在不是发展全面的选举类型学的时机，但上述言论为试图根据美国经验制定一种类型的选举概念提供了方向，该概念可能会被纳入更一般的选举理论中。即使是对美国最短暂的检查
PERHAPS the basic differentiating characteristic of democratic orders consists in the expression of effective choice by the mass of the people in elections.' The electorate occupies, at least in the mystique of such orders, the position of the principal organ of governance; it acts through elections. An election itself is a formal act of collective decision that occurs in a stream of connected antecedent and subsequent behavior. Among democratic orders elections, so broadly defined, differ enormously in their nature, their meaning, and their consequences. Even within a single nation the reality of election differs greatly from time to time. A systematic comparative approach, with a focus on variations in the nature of elections would doubtless be fruitful in advancing understanding of the democratic governing process. In behavior antecedent to voting, elections differ in the proportions of the electorate psychologically involved, in the intensity of attitudes associated with campaign cleavages, in the nature of expectations about the consequences of the voting, in the impact of objective events relevant to individual political choice, in individual sense of effective connection with community decision, and in other ways. These and other antecedent variations affect the act of voting itself as well as subsequent behavior. An understanding of elections and, in turn, of the democratic process as a whole must rest partially on broad differentiations of the complexes of behavior that we call elections.2 While this is not the occasion to develop a comprehensive typology of elections, the foregoing remarks provide an orientation for an attempt to formulate a concept of one type of election -based on American experience -which might be built into a more general theory of elections. Even the most fleeting inspection of American