{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01443298969072165, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010309278350515464, 'mean_word_length': 5.6506849315068495, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCES ON TURNOUT IN MIXED MEMBER ELECTORAL SYSTEMS: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS

What institutional factors influence turnout among mixed member electoral systems? Mixed systems have increased in popularity over the past 20 years, yet no study evaluates variation in turnout within these systems. While the main distinction in mixed systems—MMM versus MMP—is salient regarding other outputs, it remains unclear if this distinction is salient regarding turnout. In addition, debates endure as to how best to measure turnout. Through statistical analysis of an original dataset of all mixed system legislative elections from 1990 to 2010, this article finds that the electoral threshold consistently correlates with an increase in turnout while the sub-type of mixed system does not consistently correlated with turnout. Ultimately this analysis suggests salient differences in both how we measure turnout and the institutional choices within mixed systems.