Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 845

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 405 of the 405 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electoral engineering: voting rules and political behavior

·2004·Choice Reviews Online

Abstract

From Kosovo to Kabul, the last decade witnessed growing interest in 'electoral engineering'. Underlying the normative debates are important claims about the impact and consequences of electoral reform for political representation and voting behaviour. This study compares and evaluates two broad schools of thought.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5860/choice.42-1232

Cites

405 of 405 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 405 references

Cited by

See all 845

Metadata

Venue
Choice Reviews Online
Published
2004-10-01
Volume
42
Issue
02
Pages
42-1232-42-1232
ISSN
  • 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-8253
OpenAlex
W422945158
Cited by
845
References
405
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Electoral engineering: voting rules and political behavior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.42-1232
The paper
Electoral engineering: voting rules and political behavior. (2004). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.42-1232

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.