Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Open/Closed List and Party Choice: Experimental Evidence from the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Abstract

Which parties benefit from open-list (as opposed to closed-list) proportional representation elections? This article shows that a move from closed-list to open-list competition is likely to be more favorable to parties with more internal disagreement on salient issues; this is because voters who might have voted for a unified party under closed lists may be drawn to specific candidates within internally divided parties under open lists. The study provides experimental evidence of this phenomenon in a hypothetical European Parliament election in the UK, in which using an open-list ballot would shift support from UKIP (the Eurosceptic party) to Eurosceptic candidates of the Conservative Party. The findings suggest that open-list ballots could restrict support for parties that primarily mobilize on a single issue.


Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

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

Footnotes

*

Department of Government, London School of Economics (email: j.blumenau@lse.ac.uk); Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford and Nuffeld College (email: andrew.eggers@nuffeld.ox.ac.uk); Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Department of Political Science, University of Zurich (email: d.hangartner@lse.ac.uk); Department of Government, London School of Economics (email: s.hix@lse.ac.uk). We acknowledge financial support from the Electoral Reform Society and the London School of Economics (LSE) for supporting the research for this article. We thank seminar participants at the LSE, Stanford University, the University of Sheffield, the University of Essex, the University of Leuven and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. Previous versions of this article were presented at the 2014 annual meetings of the American Political Science Association and the European Political Science Association. Data replication sets are available from https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BJPolS and online appendices from http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123415000629.


References

Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2006. Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):513529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ames, Barry. 1995. Electoral Rules, Constituency Pressures, and Pork Barrel: Bases of Voting in the Brazilian Congress. Journal of Politics 57 (2):324343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, Scott, and Mesquita, Ethan Bueno de. 2006. Delivering the Goods: Legislative Particularism in Different Electoral and Institutional Settings. The Journal of Politics 68 (1):168179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Ryan, Vries, Catherine de, Edwards, Erica, Hooghe, Liesbet, Jolly, Seth, Marks, Gary, Polk, Jonathan, Rovny, Jan, Steenbergen, Marco, and Vachudova, Milada Anna. 2012. Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999–2010. Party Politics 21 (1):115.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, and Farrell, David M.. 2011. Electoral Institutions and Campaigning in Comparative Perspective: Electioneering in European Parliament Elections. European Journal of Political Research 50 (5):668688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., and Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14 (4):417439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Eric C.C. 2005. Electoral Incentives for Political Corruption Under Open-List Proportional Representation. The Journal of Politics 67 (3):716730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Eric C.C., and Golden, Miriam A.. 2007. Electoral Systems, District Magnitude and Corruption. Journal of Political Science 37 (1):115137.Google Scholar
Cowley, Philip. 2000. British Parliamentarians and European Integration A Re-Examination of the MPP Data. Party Politics 6 (4):463472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew Daniel. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House, Vol. 23. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Brian F., Escobar-Lemmon, Maria C., Jones, Bradford S., Jones, Mark P., and Taylor-Robinson, Michelle M.. 2004. Vote-Seeking Incentives and Legislative Representation in Six Presidential Democracies. The Journal of Politics 66 (3):823846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominiczak, Peter. 2013. Labour Split Over EU Referendum, Jon Cruddas Suggests, The Telegraph, 19 September 2013. Available from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10321817/Labour-split-over-EU-referendum-Jon-Cruddas-suggests.html, accessed 15 November 2015.Google Scholar
Duff, Andrew, ed. 2011. Report on a Proposal for a Modification of the Act Concerning the Election of the Members of the European Parliament by Direct Universal Suffrage of 20 September 1976. Number 2009/2134(INI) European Parliament. Available from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-440.210+03+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN, accessed 15 November 2015.Google Scholar
Eaton, George. 2013. Labour Divisions Over EU Emerge as MPs Launch Pro-Referendum Group, New Statesman politics blog, 13 May 2013. Available from http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/labour-divisions-over-eu-emerge-mps-launch-pro-referendum-group, accessed 15 November 2015.Google Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C. 2015. Proportionality and Turnout: Evidence from French Municipalities. Comparative Political Studies 48 (2):135167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. 2013. Eurobarometer 74.3: The European Parliament, Energy Supply, Data Protection and Electronic Identity, Chemical Labeling and Rare Diseases, November-December 2010. Available from http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34264.v3, accessed 15 November 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2008. Research Note: On the Inverse Relationship Between Votes and Proximity for Niche Parties. European Journal of Political Research 47 (2):206220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Federico, and Weishaupt, J. Timo. 2004. Get Your Act Together: Party Performance in European Parliament Elections. European Union Politics 5 (3):283306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, Olle, Persson, Torsten, and Rickne, Johanna. 2014. Preferential Voting, Accountability and Promotions into Political Power: Evidence from Sweden, Working paper. Stockholm: IFN.Google Scholar
Ford, Robert, Goodwin, Matthew J., and Cutts, David. 2012. Strategic Eurosceptics and Polite Xenophobes: Support for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2009 European Parliament Elections. European Journal of Political Research 51 (2):204234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, Justin, Messing, Solomon, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2012. How Words and Money Cultivate a Personal Vote: The Effect of Legislator Credit Claiming on Constituent Credit Allocation. American Political Science Review 106 (4):703719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallerberg, Mark, and Marier, Patrik. 2004. Executive Authority, the Personal Vote, and Budget Discipline in Latin American and Caribbean Countries. American Journal of Political Science 48 (3):571587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., Spoon, Jae-Jae, and Tilley, James. 2009. A Vote Against Europe? Explaining Defection at the 1999 and 2004 European Parliament Elections. British Journal of Political Science 39 (1):93115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Wittrock, Jill. 2011. The Second-Order Election Model Revisited: An Experimental Test of Vote Choices in European Parliament Elections. Electoral Studies 30:2940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Philip, and Whitaker, Richard. 2013. Where There is Discord, Can They Bring Harmony? Managing Intra-Party Dissent on European Integration in the Conservative Party. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 15 (3):317339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Philip, Whitaker, Richard, and Loomes, Gemma. 2012. The UK Independence Party: Understanding a Niche Party’s Strategy, Candidates and Supporters. Parliamentary Affairs 65 (5):733757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meguid, Bonnie M. 2005. Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review 99 (3):347359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myatt, David P. 2007. On the Theory of Strategic Voting. The Review of Economic Studies 74 (1):255281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, David J. 1999. Incentives to Cultivate a Party Vote in Candidate-Centric Electoral Systems: Evidence from Brazil. Comparative Political Studies 32 (4):487518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Søberg, Valdini, Melody Ellis, and Suominen, Kati. 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
Sieghart, Mary Ann. 2011. They are All Eurosceptics Now, The Independent, 10 October 2011.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2009. Effect of Local Ties on Electoral Success and Parliamentary Behaviour: The Case of Estonia. Party Politics 16 (2):215235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UK Polling Report. 2014. UK Polling Report. Available from http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/european-elections, accessed 15 November 2015.Google Scholar
Wagner, Markus. 2012. When Do Parties Emphasise Extreme Positions? How Strategic Incentives for Policy Differentiation Influence Issue Importance. European Journal of Political Research 51 (1):6488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Markus. 2013. Defining and Measuring Niche Parties. Party Politics 18 (6):845864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Nicholas. 2014. David Cameron Aims to Stare Down Eurosceptic Rise Within Tory Ranks, The Guardian, 26 May 2014.Google Scholar

Blumenau supplementary material

Appendix

[Opens in a new window]
PDF 396 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: 222
Total number of PDF views: 1078 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th November 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-57c975d4c7-twjcd Total loading time: 0.502 Render date: 2020-11-24T23:44:30.203Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Tue Nov 24 2020 23:27:58 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": 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.

Open/Closed List and Party Choice: Experimental Evidence from the UK
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.

Open/Closed List and Party Choice: Experimental Evidence from the UK
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.

Open/Closed List and Party Choice: Experimental Evidence from the UK
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *