Measuring electoral democracy with observables

Abstract Most cross‐national indices of democracy rely centrally on coder judgments, which are susceptible to bias and error, and require expensive and time‐consuming coding by experts. We present an approach to measurement based on observables that aim to preserve the nuanced quality of subjectively coded democracy indices. Our observable‐to‐subjective score mapping is free of idiosyncratic coder errors arising from misinformation, slack, or biases. It is less susceptible to systematic bias that may arise from coders’ inferences about a country's regime, for example, from the ideology of the ruler. The data collection procedure and mode of analysis are fully transparent and replicable, and the procedure is based on random forests and is cheap to produce, easy to update, and offers coverage for all polities with sovereign or semisovereign status, surpassing the sample of any existing index. We show that this expansive coverage makes a big difference to our understanding of some causal questions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Political Science
Published
2025-04-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12968
Primary Topic
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Measuring electoral democracy with observables

Daniel Weitzel, Svend‐Erik Skaaning, John Gerring, Daniel Pemstein
American Journal of Political Science
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
article

Measuring electoral democracy with observables

Daniel Weitzel, Svend‐Erik Skaaning, John Gerring, Daniel Pemstein
article en

Abstract

Abstract Most cross‐national indices of democracy rely centrally on coder judgments, which are susceptible to bias and error, and require expensive and time‐consuming coding by experts. We present an approach to measurement based on observables that aim to preserve the nuanced quality of subjectively coded democracy indices. Our observable‐to‐subjective score mapping is free of idiosyncratic coder errors arising from misinformation, slack, or biases. It is less susceptible to systematic bias that may arise from coders’ inferences about a country's regime, for example, from the ideology of the ruler. The data collection procedure and mode of analysis are fully transparent and replicable, and the procedure is based on random forests and is cheap to produce, easy to update, and offers coverage for all polities with sovereign or semisovereign status, surpassing the sample of any existing index. We show that this expansive coverage makes a big difference to our understanding of some causal questions.

American Journal of Political Science
Aarhus University (DK), North Dakota State University (US), The University of Texas at Austin (US), Colorado State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 90%
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.