Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Legislative Effects of Electoral Mandates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

Abstract

Data has been taken from the Hungarian National Assembly, where the mandate type (single member district (SMD) vs. party list or proportional representation (PR)) changes for a number of legislators each term, to explore whether and how such changes lead to changes in legislators’ voting behavior. When the electoral system under which a legislator was elected changes from PR to SMD, then the rate at which the legislator defects against the party line of voting increases significantly. Contrary to expectations, when the electoral system changes from SMD to PR, there is no significant change in the voting behavior of legislators. Additional robustness tests confirm these results. The lasting influence of reputations and habits may account for the asymmetric results.


Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

*

Washington University in St. Louis (emails: olivella@wustl.edu, tavits@wustl.edu). We would like to thank Larry Bartels, Ken Benoit, André Blais, Dawn Brancati, Joshua Clinton, Brian Crisp, Pamela Edwards-Ham, Simon Hix, Matt Gabel, Indridi Indridason, Nate Jensen, Cindy Kam, Richard Katz, Gail McElroy, Bruce Oppenheimer, Andrew Reynolds, Guillermo Rosas, Susan Scarrow, Dawn Teele, and Alan Wiseman, whose comments and critiques have helped significantly to improve this article. Earlier versions of it were presented at the University of Mannheim, Vanderbilt University, Washington University, the 2011 Midwest Political Science Association meeting in Chicago, the 2011 European Political Science Association meeting in Dublin, the 2011 American Political Science Association meeting in Seattle, and at the workshop on Electoral Reform and Political Representation at Washington University. The authors are grateful to participants in these events for their comments and to Agnes Simon for valuable research assistance. Financial support for the project was provided by the Weidenbaum Center. An online appendix with supplementary information, as well as replication data and code, is available at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123412000828. or at http://solivella.wustl.edu/replication-data-and-code/.


References

Agresti, Alan Finlay, Barbara. 2008. Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ames, Barry. 2001. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen Thies, Michael F.. 2003. A Comparative Theory of Electoral Incentives. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15 (1):532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth. 2005. Hungary: Holding Back the Tiers. Pp. 231252 in The Politics of Electoral Systems, edited by Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Schiemann, John W.. 1995. Electoral System Origins: Institutional Choice in Hungary. Presented at the Northeastern Political Science Association Meeting, Newark, N.J.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun Farrell, David M.. 1993. Legislator Shirking and Voter Monitoring: Impacts of European Parliament Electoral Systems upon Legislator-Voter Relationships. Journal of Common Market Studies 31 (1):4570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John A. Fiorina, Morris P.. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51 (1):92107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. Shugart, Matthew S.. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14:417440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiva, Cristina. 2007. The Institutionalisation of Post-Communist Parliaments: Hungary and Romania in Comparative Perspective. Parliamentary Affairs 60 (2):187211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruba, Clifford, Gabel, Matthew, Murrah, Lacey, Clough, Ryan, Montgomery, Elizabeth Schambach, Rebecca. 2006. Off the Record: Unrecorded Legislative Votes, Selection Bias and Roll-Call Vote Analysis. British Journal of Political Science 36 (4):691704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Tom, Martinaitis, Zilvinas Dilba, Ramunas. 2008. Electoral Mandate and Party Cohesion: Does it Matter in Lithuania? Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 24 (2):317337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Brian. 2007. Incentives in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. Comparative Political Studies 40 (12):14601485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Brian F. et al. 2004. Vote-Seeking Incentives and Legislative Representation in Six Presidential Democracies. Journal of Politics 66 (3):823846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Brian F. et al. 2009. The Electoral Connection and Legislative Committees. Journal of Legislative Studies 15 (1):3552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desposato, Scott W. 2006. The Impact of Electoral Rules on Legislative Parties: Lessons from the Brazilian Senate and Chamber of Deputies. Journal of Politics 68 (4):10181030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enyedi, Zsolt. 2006. Accounting for Organization and Financing. A Comparison of Four Hungarian Parties. Europe-Asia Studies 58 (7):11011117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Federico. 2004. Electoral Coordination and the Strategic Desertion of Strong Parties in Compensatory Mixed Systems with Negative Vote Transfers. Electoral Studies 23 (3):391413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew Hill, Jennifer. 2006. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multi-level/Hierarchical Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspel, Moshe, Remington, Thomas F. Smith, Steven S.. 1998. Electoral Institutions and Party Cohesion in the Russian Duma. Journal of Politics 60 (2):417439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitshusen, Valerie, Young, Garry Wood, David M.. 2005. Electoral Context and MP Constituency Focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 49 (1):3245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herron, Erik S. 2002. Electoral Infuences on Legislative Behavior in Mixed-Member Systems: Evidence from Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada. Legislative Studies Quarterly 27 (3):361382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2002. Parliamentary Behavior with Two Principals: Preferences, Parties, and Voting in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science 46 (3):688698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2004. Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting Defection in the European Parliament. World Politics 56 (2):194223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, Weiwei. 2012. Career Ambition, Party Unity, and Party Policy Positioning: A Comparative Examination of Intra-party Organization, 1945–2010. Doctoral dissertation, Binghamton University, SUNY.Google Scholar
Hu, Weiwei, Heller, William B.. 2010. Investing in Agreement: Party Organization, Leadership Change and Policy Positions. Unpublished manuscript (available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1642345).Google Scholar
Hubai, László. 2001. Magyarország Xx. Xx. Századi Választási Atlasza 1920–2000. Budapest: Napvil - Alma Mater.Google Scholar
Ilonszki, Gabriella Judge, David. 1994. Representational Roles in the Hungarian Parliament. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 10 (3):137152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, David Ilonszki, Gabriella. 1995. Member–Constituency Linkages in the Hungarian Parliament. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (2):161176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Hae Won Hix, Simon. 2010. Electoral Systems, Political Career Paths and Legislative Behavior: Evidence from South Korea's Mixed-Member System. Japanese Journal of Political Science 11 (02):153171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Christopher. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Heemin Fording, Richard C.. 1998. Voter Ideology in Western Democracies, 1946–1989. European Journal of Political Research 33 (1):7397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Heemin Fording, Richard C.. 2003. Voter ideology in Western democracies: An update. European Journal of Political Research 42 (1):95105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Körösényi, András. 1999. Government and Politics in Hungary. Budapest: Central European University Press.Google Scholar
Kunicova, Jana Remington, Thomas F.. 2008. Mandates, Parties and Dissent. Party Politics 14 (5):555574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, Thomas D. Patterson, W. David. 1990. Comparative Pork Barrel Politics. Comparative Political Studies 22 (4):458477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, James Thelen, Kathleen A.. 2010. Explaining Institutional Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott Perez-Linán, Anibal. 1997. Party Discipline in the Brazilian Constitutional Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (4):453483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Paul. 2000. Voters and Their Representatives: Electoral Institutions and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37 (3):335351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Kathleen A. 1999. Electoral Effects on Party Behavior and Development. Party Politics 5 (4):507523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott. 2004. Patterns of Legislative Politics: Roll-Call Voting in Latin America and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott Swindle, Stephen M.. 2005. Are Politics Local? An Analysis of Voting Patterns in 23 Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 38 (2):143170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, Robert G. 2001. Unexpected Outcomes: Electoral Systems, Political Parties, and Representation in Russia. Pittsburgh, Penn.: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Moser, Robert G. Scheiner, Ethan. 2004. Mixed Electoral Systems and Electoral System Effects: Controlled Comparison and Cross-National Analysis. Electoral Studies 23 (4):575599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, John E. 2003. Explaining Party Cohesion and Discipline in Democratic Legislatures: Purposiveness and Contexts. Journal of Legislative Studies 9 (4):1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosas, Guillermo, Shomer, Yael, Haptonstahl, Stephen. 2012. No News is News: Non-Ignorable Non-Response in Roll-Call Data Analysis. (Unpublished manuscript. available at http://www.polmeth.wustl.edu/media/Paper/RosasShomerHaptonstahl2009p.pdf).Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 2006. Matched Sampling for Causal Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, David J. 1999. Incentives to Cultivate a Party Vote in Candidate-Centric Electoral Systems. Comparative Political Studies 32 (4):487518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheiner, Ethan. 2008. Does Electoral System ReformWork? Electoral System Lessons from Reforms of the 1990s. Political Science 11 (1):161181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekhon, Jasjeet Singh. 2011. Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching Package for R. Journal of Statistical Software 42 (7):152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shomer, Yael. 2010. The Effects of Electoral Systems and Intra-Party Candidate Selection Processes on Legislators’ Behavior. Doctoral dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S. 2005. Comparative Electoral Systems Research: The Maturation of a Field and New Challenges Ahead. Pp. 2556 in The Politics of Electoral Systems, edited by Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S. Valdini, Melody E. Suominen, Katie. 2005. Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under Proportional Representation. American Journal of Political Science 49 (2):437449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieberer, Ulrich. 2006. Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (2):150178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieberer, Ulrich. 2010. Behavioral Consequences of Mixed Electoral Systems: Deviating Voting Behavior of District and List MPs in the German Bundestag. Electoral Studies 29:484496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjaeveland, Asbjorn. 2001. Party Cohesion in the Danish Parliament. Journal of Legislative Studies 7 (2):3556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steven S. Remington, Thomas F.. 2001. The Politics of Institutional Choice: The Formation of the Russian State Duma. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas Baur, Martin. 2002. Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag: How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ across Electoral Systems. American Journal of Political Science 46 (3):506514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2009. The Making of Mavericks: Local Loyalties and Party Defection. Comparative Political Studies 42 (6):793815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Michelle M. 1992. Formal versus Informal Incentive Structures and Legislator Behavior: Evidence from Costa Rica. Journal of Politics 54 (4):10551073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thames, Frank C. 2001. Legislative Voting Behaviour in the Russian Duma: Understanding the Effect of Mandate. Europe-Asia Studies 53 (6):869884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thames, Frank C. 2004. Party and Personal Preference in Post-Soviet Legislatures. Social Science Quarterly 85 (2):478496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thames, Frank C. 2005. Searching for Party Effects in Post-Communist Ukraine. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 38 (1):89108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Hungarian National Assembly. 1997. Act C of 1997: On Electoral Procedure. Available from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c3465ed2.html, accessed 9 September 2012.Google Scholar
Volkens, Andrea et al. 2011. The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
Zittel, Thomas Gschwend, Thomas. 2008. Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Candidates in the 2005 German Elections. West European Politics 31 (5):9781003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olivella Supplementary Material

Appendix

[Opens in a new window]
PDF 3 MB

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

Hostname: page-component-57c975d4c7-69ptw Total loading time: 0.548 Render date: 2020-11-24T01:45:31.109Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Tue Nov 24 2020 00:50:21 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": false, "relatedCommentaries": false, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Legislative Effects of Electoral Mandates
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Legislative Effects of Electoral Mandates
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Legislative Effects of Electoral Mandates
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *