Regional Elections in Multi-Level Systems

Abstract

This article sets out to find ways of analysing the relationship of regional and statewide electoral processes in multi-level systems. First, we analyse a number of `top down' approaches with the aim of assessing how and when statewide issues are perceived as shaping regional election outcomes. Second, we discuss a `bottom up' approach in which the importance of territorial politics can be measured. Both of these approaches, although not originally developed for use in this particular context, provide at least initial techniques for mapping out the dynamics of multi-level voting. They test for the subordination of regional elections to the electoral rhythms of statewide politics as well as exploring how different patterns of voting behaviour compare from region to region and from election to election. Finally, we move on to apply these two basic models to the cases of Germany, Canada and Spain, illustrating that in contexts which lack deep territorial cleavages, regional and statewide election results are broadly similar. However, in territorially heterogeneous environments, this pattern of subordination of regional elections is broken up by territorially specific influences.

‘Less at Stake’ or a Different Game? Regional Elections in Catalonia and Scotland

“…Thus, there has been some debate on which one of these logics is the most relevant in regional elections. On the one hand, some previous research on regional elections has suggested that second-order interpretations are not helpful to understand electoral dynamics in regions with a strong sense of cultural and political distinctiveness (Jeffery and Hough, 2003). If a centre -periphery cleavage has found expression through the existence of nationalist parties, national factors should not be assumed to be the dominant drivers of voting patterns in regional elections (Wyn Jones and Scully, 2006).…”

“…However, some authors question the simplicity of Reif and Schmitt's initial formulation. As the term multi-level governance implies, a straightforward distinction between the national level and 'everything else' is inadequate (Jeffery and Hough, 2003). Thus, some scholars point to a continuum rather than a dichotomy, with elections ranging from purely first-order (with decisions driven entirely by factors pertaining to that arena) to purely second-order (van der Eijk et al, 1996).…”

Credit Where it’s Due? Valence Politics, Attributions of Responsibility, and Multi-Level Elections

“…As the term multi-level governance implies, a straightforward distinction between the national level and 'everything else' is inadequate. Many countries have more than one subnational level of government, and the amount 'at stake' can vary substantially between different levels (Jeffery and Hough 2003). In federal systems such as Canada, the immediately subnational (subfederal) level is much more powerful than local or municipal governments-in that sense, it is 'less secondorder' (Watts 1989).…”

“…5 Although most work on second-order elections was based on aggregate election results (e.g. Reif and Schmitt 1980;Jeffery and Hough 2003), this is a highly indirect means of inferring the basis for voters' decisions. As Cutler (2008) points out, what is needed instead are well-specified individual-level models of party choice (e.g.…”

On the Electoral Relevance of Education Policy in the German Länder

“…6 And Jeffery and Hough attested that after re-unification there are still some indications of Landtag elections' second-orderness, but also 'a reduced tendency for regional election results to follow statewide electoral rhythms'. 7 According to Burkhart, the causal mechanism by which the federal government's popularity influences Landtag election outcomes is still intact after re-unification, and its importance even slightly increased. 8 Nevertheless, Landtag elections were often the harbinger of new electoral trends, both in terms of party system development (as with the rise of the Greens in the early 1980s or, much more recently, the Pirate Party) and the rise and fall of issues voters decided upon.…”