Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-rz424 Total loading time: 0.278 Render date: 2021-02-28T07:21:46.519Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

A Comparative Study of the Effects of Electoral Institutions on Campaigns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2017

Abstract

A long tradition of studies in political science has unveiled the effects of electoral institutions on party systems and parliamentary representation. Yet their effects on campaign activities remain overlooked. Research in this tradition still lacks a strong comparative element able to explore the nuanced role of electoral institutions in shaping individual-level campaigns during first-order parliamentary elections. This study uses data from a variety of national candidate studies to address this lacuna, and shows that the structure of electoral institutions affects the electoral mobilization efforts put in place by candidates. Candidate-centred electoral systems incentivize more intense and complex mobilization efforts, and shift the campaign focus towards individuals rather than parties. By directly addressing the effects of electoral institutions on campaign behaviour, this study contributes to the wider debate on their role in promoting political engagement and mobilization. These results indicate that electoral institutions affect political competition much more than previously thought.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

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

Footnotes

*

School of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent (email: l.sudulich@kent.ac.uk); School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham (email: siim.trumm@nottingham.ac.uk). Data replication sets are available at http://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123416000570.

References

Ai, Chunrong, and Norton, Edward C.. 2003. Interaction Terms in Logit and Probit Models. Economics Letters 80:123129.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Michael, and Sinclair, Betsy. 2012. Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behaviour: The Effects of Primary Processes. Political Research Quarterly 63:544557.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth. 2002. The Endogeneity Problem in Electoral Studies: A Critical Re-Examination of Duverger’s Mechanical Effect. Electoral Studies 21:3546.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2007. Estimating Party Policy Positions: Comparing Expert Surveys and Hand-Coded Content Analysis. Electoral Studies 26:90107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Farrell, David. 1992. The Study of Election Campaigning. In Electoral Strategies and Political Marketing, edited by Shaun Bowler and David Farrell, 123. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Farrell, David. 2011. Electoral Institutions and Campaigning in Comparative Perspective: Electioneering in European Parliament Elections. European Journal of Political Research 50:668688.Google Scholar
Carey, John. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51:92107.Google Scholar
Carey, John, and Shugart, Matthew. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14:417439.Google Scholar
Colomer, Josep M. 2011. Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell. 2008. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, David. 2006. Political Parties in a Changing Campaign Environment. In Handbook of Party Politics, edited by Richard Katz and William Crotty, 122133. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, David. 2011. Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, David, and Webb, Paul. 2000. Political Parties as Campaign Organizations. In Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, edited by Richard Dalton and Martin Wattenberg, 102128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, David, and Scully, Roger. 2007. Representing Europe’s Citizens? Electoral Institutions and the Failure of Parliamentary Representation in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, David, and Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger. 2002. Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fauvelle-Aymar, Christine, and Lewis-Beck, Michael. 2008. TR Versus PR: Effects of the French Double Ballot. Electoral Studies 27:400406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fieldhouse, Edward, and Cutts, David. 2009. The Effectiveness of Local Party Campaigns in 2005: Combining Evidence from Campaign Spending and Agent Survey Data. British Journal of Political Science 39:367388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Michael, and Mitchell, Paul. 2005. The Politics of Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Rachel, and McAllister, Ian. 2006. Does Cyber-Campaigning Win Votes? Online Communication in the 2004 Australian Election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 16:243263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giebler, Heiko, and Wüst, Andreas. 2011. Campaigning on an Upper Level? Individual Campaigning in the 2009 European Parliament Elections in its Determinants. Electoral Studies 30:5366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Górecki, Maciej A., and Marsh, Michael. 2012. Not Just ‘Friends and Neighbours’: Canvassing, Geographic Proximity and Voter Choice. European Journal of Political Research 51:563582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Górecki, Maciej A., and Marsh, Michael. 2014. A Decline of ‘Friends and Neighbours Voting’ in Ireland? Local Candidate Effects in the 2011 Irish ‘Earthquake Election’. Political Geography 41:1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2008. Get Out The Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Aronow, Peter M., and McGrath, Mary C.. 2013. Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 23:2748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey, Vowles, Jack, Banducci, Susan, and Donovan, Todd. 2002. Strategic Voting, Party Activity, and Candidate Effects: Testing Explanations for Split Voting in New Zealand’s New Mixed System. Electoral Studies 21:122.Google Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey, and Banducci, Susan. 2007. Party Mobilization and Political Participation in New and Old Democracies. Party Politics 13:217234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey, Banducci, Susan, and Bowler, Shaun. 2008. Getting Out the Vote: Party Mobilization in a Comparative Perspective. British Journal of Political Science 38:91112.Google Scholar
Kreft, Ita. 1996. Are Multilevel Techniques Necessary? An Overview, Including Simulation Studies. Los Angeles: California State University.Google Scholar
Marsh, Michael. 2000. Candidate Centered But Party Wrapped: Campaigning in Ireland Under STV. In Elections in Australia, Ireland and Malta Under the Single Transferable Vote, edited by Shaun Bowler and Bernard Grofman, 114130. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McAllister, Ian. 2002. Calculating or Capricious? The New Politics of Late Deciding Voters. In Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums, edited by David Farrell and Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, 2240. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W., Friedrichs, Ryan D., and King, David C.. 2006. Partisan Mobilization Campaigns in the Field: Results from a Statewide Turnout Experiment in Michigan. Political Research Quarterly 59:8597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2004. Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Inglehart, Ronald. 2001. Cultural Obstacles to Equal Representation. Journal of Democracy 12:126140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, Edward C., Wang, Hua, and Ai, Chunrong. 2004. Computing Interaction Effects and Standard Errors in Logit and Probit Models. Stata Journal 4:154167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivella, Santiago, and Tavits, Margit. 2014. Legislative Effects and Electoral Mandates. British Journal of Political Science 44:301321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew. 2001. ‘Electoral Efficiency’ and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems. Electoral Studies 20:173193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wüst, Andreas M., Schmitt, Hermann, Gschwend, Thomas, and Zittel, Thomas. 2006. Candidates in the 2005 Bundestag Election: Mode of Candidacy, Campaigning and Issues. German Politics 15:420438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zittel, Thomas. 2009. Lost in Technology? Political Parties and the Online Campaigns of Constituency Candidates in Germany’s Mixed Member Electoral System. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 6:298311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zittel, Thomas, and Gschwend, Thomas. 2008. Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Candidates in the 2005 German Elections. West European Politics 31:9781003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sudulich and Trumm Dataset

Link

Sudulich and Trumm supplementary material

Appendix

PDF 283 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 86
Total number of PDF views: 428 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 06th February 2017 - 28th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

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.

A Comparative Study of the Effects of Electoral Institutions on Campaigns
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.

A Comparative Study of the Effects of Electoral Institutions on Campaigns
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.

A Comparative Study of the Effects of Electoral Institutions on Campaigns
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *