This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Grofman, B. Articles by Feld, S. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Comparing and Contrasting the Uses of Two Graphical Tools for Displaying Patterns of Multiparty Competition

Nagayama Diagrams and Simplex Representations

Department of Political Science, University of California, Irvine, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697–5100, USA.bgrofman{at}uci.edu

Alessandro Chiaramonte

Universit di Firenze, Dip. di Scienza politica e sociologia (Dispo), Via F. Valori n. 9, IT-50132 Firenze, Italy.chiaramonte{at}unifi.it

Roberto D’Alimonte

DISPO, University of Florence, Via F. Valori 9, 50132 Firenze, Italy. dalimonte{at}unifi.it

Scott L. Feld

Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge LA 70803, USA.sfeld{at}lsu.edu

We compare two tools for displaying, in graphical form, information about vote outcomes in multiparty elections at the constituency level. One was recently proposed by Nagayama and introduced to the English-speaking world by Reed, who applied this method to Japanese and Italian election data. Reed labels the method Nagayama diagrams. Recently, Taagepera has shown how the domain of potential uses of Nagayama diagrams can be expanded significantly. A second graphical device has been used by a number of authors for various types of election analyses, but is not that well known in the comparative parties literature. This method, which uses barycentric coordinates (i.e. triangular) rather than the more familiar rectangular coordinates, has gone under a variety of names (e.g. trilinear plot, toroidal diagram and simplex representation), but we have chosen to use the last of these labels. We make use of both methods to visually present election data (by constituency) for the Italian national elections of 1994, 1996 and 2001. We show how different types of information may be readily gleaned from the two types of graph, and, perhaps most importantly, illustrate how we may improve the ready intuitive interpretability of each type of graph by specifying boundary constraints to define particular regions of the graph – a technique we call ‘segmentation’.

Key Words: graphics • political competition • visual display

Party Politics, Vol. 10, No. 3, 273-299 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1354068804042459


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Blau The Effective Number of Parties At Four Scales: Votes, Seats, Legislative Power and Cabinet Power Party Politics, March 1, 2008; 14(2): 167 - 187. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Diwakar Duverger's Law and the Size of the Indian Party System Party Politics, September 1, 2007; 13(5): 539 - 561. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Taagepera Extension of the Nagayama Triangle for Visualization of Party Strengths Party Politics, May 1, 2004; 10(3): 301 - 306. [Abstract] [PDF]