mayne_2026_electoral_reform

12,842 rated or chosen profiles from 2,177 respondents, in up to 3 tasks of 2 profiles varying on 5 attributes.

About this table

DescriptionElectoral-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).
ReferenceMayne, Q., & Singh, S. P. (2026). Attitudes toward electoral system reform and party system change in the U.S. American Political Science Review, 1-24.
DOI10.1017/S0003055426101658
LicenceCC0 1.0
Source datahttps://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZQNHB1

Notes

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Size and shape

Respondents2,177
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)12,842
Tasks per respondent (most)3
Profiles per task2
Attributes5
Tasks with no profile chosen0

Design

Topicdemocracy institutions
A profile representspolicy
CountryUS
Language shownen
Language of stored levelsen
Randomization restrictionsunknown
Task orderrecorded in the deposit
Profile positionrecorded in the deposit

Outcomes:

choiceIf you had to choose one of these scenarios, which would you pick? [choice, forced]
choice_governabilityWhich 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_responsivenessWhich 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_voiceWhich 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]

Columns

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.

Get the data

Download CSVno account neededBrowse on Redivisexplore and queryCroissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

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")

How to cite

@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} }

Version and provenance

IRW versionv584
Redivis datasetirw_conjoint v4.2
Redivis dataset DOI10.57761/qkye-q530
Manifest pin for this IRW versionv4.2
Metadata sourceirw_meta v44.0