Is the US-based observation that "the larger the proportion of minorities, the more exclusionary the electoral system" generalizable?

Question

Trebbi et al. (2008) have observed that (in the US):

Majorities tend to disenfranchise minorities through strategic manipulation of electoral rules. With the aim of explaining changes in electoral rules adopted by U.S. cities, particularly in the South, we show why majorities tend to adopt “winner-take-all” city-wide rules (at-large elections) in response to an increase in the size of the minority when the minority they are facing is relatively small. In this case, for the majority it is more effective to leverage on its sheer size instead of risking conceding representation to voters from minority-elected districts. However, as the minority becomes larger (closer to a fifty-fifty split), the possibility of losing the whole city induces the majority to prefer minority votes to be confined in minority-packed districts. Single-member district rules serve this purpose. We show empirical results consistent with these implications of the model in a novel data set covering U.S. cities and towns from 1930 to 2000.

Is this idea (well, it doesn't seem to have a name, let's call it "Trebbi's law") true in other parts of the world? Or are there substantial counter-examples outside of the US?

I looked at the full text of the paper, but they don't mention any other countries. My own hypothesis is that the level of covert racism (or even just ethnocentrism) in a country/region would be a significant predictor/covariate for where this electorally exclusionary strategy is employed...

Answer 1

It's definitely not applicable to my home country (the Netherlands) for the simple reason that our electoral system has no provision for it. As we don't have a district based system, the 'tools of the trade' so to speak are simply not available. Gerrymandering is tied one on one to a district system, so no districts, no gerrymandering. Also, since there is no registration to vote (all dutch citizens are registered by virtue of being a citizen and will get their voting pass over the mail, wheter they want it or not) this too can not be used/abused to encourage or discourage people to vote.

Our system of equal representation shows a different outcome: While a sizable chunk of our electorate is opposed to immigration and the growing presence of minorities, they don't use or see the electoral system as a mean to their ends. In stead they support, and vote for, political parties that represent these views. For instance, the dutch 'anti immigration' party, the PVV, has 20 of the 150 seats of parliament and will use their mandate and influence to support their cause, while our most outspoken pro-minorities party (Denk) will use the same means to their ends. In between there is a whole array of parties who take on more moderate positions, both to the left and the right of the spectrum. So while I have no reason to assume that 'covert racism' is any more or less a factor in the Netherlands, the system tends to include all voters to a large extend and does not lead to the phenomenon observed by Trebbi et al. Of course on a local (municipal?) level there are places where minorities are represented to a higher or lesser extend. (minorities tend to be represented more in urban area's, less in rural as a matter of demographics) but this does not effect general elections as our representatives are chosen directly*.

This is not at all saying that the Netherlands does not have their fair share of problems centered around the issue of minorities, or that the existing viewpoints differ fundamentally from those in the US, it is just that our system protects us from this particular evil.

(*) I am very much aware of that our senate (as opposed to our main parliament '2de kamer') is indeed chosen through a district system but I don't want to delve too deep into the Dutch political system here. There is afaik no reason to assume it can be used as described by Trebbi et al, let alone that it is.

Edit: Apparently, it is in fact not reasonable to assume the same applies to countries with a comparable system, as it seems that the Dutch system is unique in having no districts (or a single district for all voters, which amounts to the same thing). Thanks to @MartinTournoij for pointing this out.

Answer 2

I think Trebbi's assertion is false. In the US, it is common knowledge that rural areas poll heavily conservative while urban areas poll liberal. Rural dwellers are by every definition minorities. Their population is much lower than urban dwellers. However the fact is that the electoral process gives far more representation to rural dwellers so the rural conservative minorities have actually gained power. We have had 2 elections in recent years where the popular vote went to Clinton and Gore yet the electoral college went to their opponents who got significantly fewer popular votes - this is due to the rural minorities ability to override the urban vote.