Parliamentary Voting

Hug, Simon

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6588-1_8

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 105 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, Switzerland shares many similarities with other political systems. First, the electoral system in Switzerland combines elements of a proportional and a majoritarian electoral system, as some MPs of the lower house are elected in majoritarian elections while the rest are elected through proportional representation (see, e.g., Hug ). Hence, studying MP behavior in Switzerland allows for making comparisons to MP behavior in both proportional and majoritarian electoral systems.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voting Against Your Constituents? How Lobbying Affects Representation

Giger

Klüver

2015

American J Political Sci

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizens delegate the representation of their political preferences to members of Parliament (MPs), who are supposed to represent their interests in the legislature. However, MPs are exposed to a variety of interest groups seeking to influence their voting behavior. We argue that interest groups influence how MPs cast their vote in Parliament, but that this effect varies across groups. While lobbying by sectional groups provides incentives for MPs to defect from their constituents, we expect that cause groups in fact strengthen the link between MPs and their voters. We test our argument based on an innovative study of 118 Swiss public referenda, which allows for directly comparing voter preferences with legislative voting of 448 MPs on these issues. Drawing on a multilevel regression analysis, this study shows that interest groups considerably affect the link between MPs and their voters. Our findings have important implications for our understanding of political representation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voting Against Your Constituents? How Lobbying Affects Representation

Giger

Klüver

2015

American J Political Sci

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand -in an era of direct communication through social media and with intra-party choice in list PR systems becoming more common (Renwick and Pilet, 2016) -MPs' incentives for personal forms of representation seem to grow.Given the generally high levels of unity in parliamentary voting (e.g. Sieberer, 2006;Hug, 2013), scholars have recently paid considerable attention to other types of dyadic representation efforts. These include extra-parliamentary work in the form of constituency service (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

National policy for local reasons: how MPs represent party and geographical constituency through initiatives on social security

Däubler

2018

Acta Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In parliamentary systems of government, dyadic representation between MP and geographical constituency is considered to be of secondary importance and is typically understood as work related to particularized issues (e.g., constituency service, "pork" allocation and local matters). This paper argues that personal representation need not be particularistic. It may also come in the form of attention to national policy for local reasons, when issue salience varies across geographical constituencies due to the number of affected people or problem severity. The specific focus of the study lies on private members' bills related to social security (pensions, unemployment, welfare). These three policies differ, among other things, in their alignment with class divisions and their link to the economic left-right dimension. They therefore allow for studying how both the party constituency and the geographical constituency shape MPs' legislative work. The article develops specific predictions regarding how left-right position, electoral support among the affected group, and district-level recipient numbers affect legislative activity in the three policy fields are developed. The empirical analysis uses data from Belgium (1999Belgium ( -2007. The results suggest that Belgian MPs represent party and geographical constituency in the case of pensions and unemployment benefits, but not in the same way as when it comes to social welfare.In parliamentary systems of government, representation is strongly party-based, and the dyadic relationship between members of parliament (MPs) and their geographical constituency is considered less relevant (e.g., Thomassen and Andeweg, 2004;Colomer, 2011). It has been argued that in modern societies most interests cut across electoral districts (Thomassen, 1994), 1 so the demand for dyadic representation by voters should be small. On the other hand -in an era of direct communication through social media and with intra-party choice in list PR systems becoming more common (Renwick and Pilet, 2016) -MPs' incentives for personal forms of representation seem to grow.Given the generally high levels of unity in parliamentary voting (e.g. Sieberer, 2006;Hug, 2013), scholars have recently paid considerable attention to other types of dyadic representation efforts. These include extra-parliamentary work in the form of constituency service (e.g. Cain

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the discussions that are being had about which politicians supported Leave focus on their publicly stated EU referendum vote choice and a limited range of explanatory factors. The former can be problematic to describe politicians' sincere beliefs as positions that become public may be influenced by considerations of how one's party and voters react to them (e.g., Hug 2013;Schwarz et al 2017;Trumm 2015). Moreover, a broader range of explanatory factors should be accounted for when explaining politicians' EU referendum vote choice.…”

Section: Who Voted For Leave?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining support for Brexit among parliamentary candidates: the case of Wales

Trumm

2020

Br Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2016 EU referendum was a key moment in the history of the United Kingdom. It has changed the course of the country and continues to define political battlegrounds. Despite research on which voters cast their ballot for Leave having become a minor industry in recent years, we still know little about what factors motivated our politicians to do so. Using original data from the 2016 Welsh Candidate Study, this paper explains support for Brexit among parliamentary candidates in Wales. It finds that both candidates' socio-economic profile and political attitudes influenced their decision to vote Leave in 2016. The strongest determinants of Leave vote were candidates' views on how the EU works; how democratic it is and how much influence it can exert. Candidates' occupational background and policy concerns were also relevant, but their effects were slightly weaker. These findings highlight that there are important similarities between what influenced politicians and voters to cast their ballot for Leave, but also some salient differences.

show abstract

Parliamentary Voting

Cited by 7 publications

References 105 publications

Voting Against Your Constituents? How Lobbying Affects Representation

Voting Against Your Constituents? How Lobbying Affects Representation

National policy for local reasons: how MPs represent party and geographical constituency through initiatives on social security

Explaining support for Brexit among parliamentary candidates: the case of Wales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About