12,842 rated or chosen profiles from 2,177 respondents, in up to 3 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 5 attributes.
| Description | Electoral-reform conjoint (Study 1): 2,177 US adults each compared 3 pairs of hypothetical electoral-rule-change scenarios varying partisan support, number of House parties, ideological distribution (graph), ballot structure and district magnitude; four forced choices per pair (overall pick, voice, governability, responsiveness). |
|---|---|
| Reference | Mayne, Q., & Singh, S. P. (2026). Attitudes toward electoral system reform and party system change in the U.S. American Political Science Review, 1-24. |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0003055426101658 |
| Licence | CC0 1.0 |
| Source data | https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZQNHB1 |
These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.
| Respondents | 2,177 |
|---|---|
| Rows (one per respondent, task and profile) | 12,842 |
| Tasks per respondent (most) | 3 |
| Profiles per task | 2 |
| Attributes | 5 |
| Tasks with no profile chosen | 0 |
| Topic | democracy institutions |
|---|---|
| A profile represents | policy |
| Country | US |
| Language shown | en |
| Language of stored levels | en |
| Randomization restrictions | unknown |
| Task order | recorded in the deposit |
| Profile position | recorded in the deposit |
Outcomes:
| choice | If you had to choose one of these scenarios, which would you pick? [choice, forced] |
|---|---|
| choice_governability | Which of these scenarios do you think would make it more difficult for legislation on important issues to get passed by the House of Representatives? [choice, forced] |
| choice_responsiveness | Which of these scenarios do you think would best ensure that the majority of Americans’ views and policy preferences on important issues get included in legislation that is passed by the House of Representatives? [choice, forced] |
| choice_voice | Which of these scenarios do you think would best ensure Americans’ views and policy preferences on important issues get fully aired and debated in the House of Representatives? [choice, forced] |
attr_ballot_strucattr_district_magattr_ideo_repattr_num_partiesattr_party_supportattrpos_ballot_strucattrpos_district_magattrpos_ideo_repattrpos_num_partiesattrpos_party_supportchoicechoice_governabilitychoice_responsivenesschoice_voicecov_agecov_birth_yearcov_educationcov_gendercov_hispaniccov_ideologycov_incomecov_party_idcov_party_id7cov_satisfaction_democracyidprofiletask
The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.
Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):
# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("mayne_2026_electoral_reform", source = "conj")
# Python
pip install irw
import irw
df = irw.fetch("mayne_2026_electoral_reform", source="conj")
@article{MAYNE_2026, title={Attitudes Toward Electoral System Reform and Party System Change in the U.S.}, ISSN={1537-5943}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055426101658}, DOI={10.1017/s0003055426101658}, journal={American Political Science Review}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={MAYNE, QUINTON and SINGH, SHANE P.}, year={2026}, month=May, pages={1–24} }
| IRW version | v584 |
|---|---|
| Redivis dataset | irw_conjoint v4.2 |
| Redivis dataset DOI | 10.57761/qkye-q530 |
| Manifest pin for this IRW version | v4.2 |
| Metadata source | irw_meta v44.0 |