Measuring electoral performance
| Electoral performance | Voting spread | Assigned value |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral asymmetry | The voting spread between the government and the rebel group [or ideologically similar parties] is more than 30% in favour of the government. Case examples Guatemala, 1996 Indonesia, 2005 Liberia, 2003 | 1 |
| Tending towards asymmetry | The voting spread between the government and the rebel group is more than 20%. Case examples Niger, 1995 Rwanda, 1993 Sudan, 2005 | 2 |
| Tending towards symmetry | The voting spread between the government and the rebel group is less than 20%. Case examples Nicaragua, 1988 Mozambique 1992 DR Congo, 2002 | 3 |
| Electoral symmetry | The voting spread between the ruling party and the rebel group is less than 10%. Case examples Mozambique, 1999 United Kingdom, 1998 Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), 2003 | 4 |
| Electoral performance | Voting spread | Assigned value |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral asymmetry | The voting spread between the government and the rebel group [or ideologically similar parties] is more than 30% in favour of the government. | 1 |
| Tending towards asymmetry | The voting spread between the government and the rebel group is more than 20%. | 2 |
| Tending towards symmetry | The voting spread between the government and the rebel group is less than 20%. | 3 |
| Electoral symmetry | The voting spread between the ruling party and the rebel group is less than 10%. | 4 |