Candidate effects and spill-over in mixed systems: Evidence from New Zealand

Karp, Jeffrey A.

doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2008.06.012

Cited by 32 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such spillover effects can operate in two directions. Contamination can occur from the proportional representation tier to the majoritarian tier and vice versa (Hainmüller and Kern, 2008;Karp, 2009).…”

Section: Top-down and Bottom-up Electoral Spilloversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not always second order: Subnational elections, national-level vote intentions, and volatility spillovers in a multi-level electoral system

Bechtel

2012

Electoral Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier's archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

show abstract

Section: Top-down and Bottom-up Electoral Spilloversmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not always second order: Subnational elections, national-level vote intentions, and volatility spillovers in a multi-level electoral system

Bechtel

2012

Electoral Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both models have a long success record and are frequently applied in economics, psychology, consumer research, and related fields, including the domains of travel behavior (e.g., Adamowicz, Louviere, & Williams, 1994;Hensher, 1994;Train, 1978;Wardman, 1988), environmental behavior (e.g., Hanley, Wright, & Adamowicz, 1998;Roberts, Boyer, & Lusk, 2008), political choice behavior (e.g., Bowler, Karp, & Donovan, 2010;Karp, 2009;Nownes, 1992), consumer choices (e.g., Green & Srinivasan, 1978, 1990, or food choices (e.g., Gil & Sánchez, 1997;Loureiro & Umberger, 2005, 2007. For example, using probit models, Ryan and Farrar (2000) analyzed preferences in health care (e.g., treatment in a local clinic vs. treatment in a hospital), and Phillips, Maddala, and Johnson (2002) measured preferences for different HIV tests.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models.

Berkowitsch¹,

Scheibehenne

Rieskamp

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

104

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive models of decision making aim to explain the process underlying observed choices. Here, we test a sequential sampling model of decision making, multialternative decision field theory (MDFT; Roe, Busemeyer, & Townsend, 2001), on empirical grounds and compare it against 2 established random utility models of choice: the probit and the logit model. Using a within-subject experimental design, participants in 2 studies repeatedly choose among sets of options (consumer products) described on several attributes. The results of Study 1 showed that all models predicted participants' choices equally well. In Study 2, in which the choice sets were explicitly designed to distinguish the models, MDFT had an advantage in predicting the observed choices. Study 2 further revealed the occurrence of multiple context effects within single participants, indicating an interdependent evaluation of choice options and correlations between different context effects. In sum, the results indicate that sequential sampling models can provide relevant insights into the cognitive process underlying preferential choices and thus can lead to better choice predictions.

show abstract

“…Although theoretically providing accountability for local government, running such elections separately nevertheless has a cost for volunteer local party organizations both in time and effort. Indeed, this article suggests that 'contamination' effects are not just evident in electoral outcomes as previous research has indicated (Crisp, 2007(Crisp, : 1468Hainmueller and Kern, 2008;Karp, 2009;Samuels, 2000;Zittel and Gschwend, 2008), they also appear evident in local party campaign efforts; strong campaigns at one level are positively related to strong party campaigns at the other level. This suggests that there may be economies of scale for parties in fighting concurrent elections.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 61%

Party organization and concurrent multi-level local campaigning

Clark

2011

Party Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parties often have to campaign for two or more levels of office at the same time. However, declining levels of organization means that the demands of concurrent elections can potentially increase the demands on volunteer party organizations considerably. These demands are multiplied by the concurrent use of different electoral systems which provide party organizations with different incentives. The article examines how party organizations deal with such circumstances through a study of constituency party organizations in the 2007 Scottish parliamentary and local government elections. Parties were forced to campaign concurrently at three levels -local council, Scottish Parliament constituency and regional list -under two different electoral systems, STV (single-transferable vote) and MMP (mixed-member proportional). I argue that: there may be economies of scale for party organizations in fighting concurrent elections; while there may be evidence of vote-maximization activity at each level, local organizations are likely to give priority to their efforts towards higher level institutions and those on which their efforts potentially have a direct effort; and that the degree of local campaign effort is mediated by the extent of party organization and previous success in the area concerned.

show abstract

Candidate effects and spill-over in mixed systems: Evidence from New Zealand

Cited by 32 publications

References 25 publications

Not always second order: Subnational elections, national-level vote intentions, and volatility spillovers in a multi-level electoral system

Not always second order: Subnational elections, national-level vote intentions, and volatility spillovers in a multi-level electoral system

Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models.

Party organization and concurrent multi-level local campaigning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About