Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T10:41:23.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Luck of the Draw? Private Members’ Bills and the Electoral Connection*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2017


The legislative agenda in most parliamentary systems is controlled tightly by the government and bills offered by individual members of parliament have low rates of success. Yet, members of parliament (MPs) do seek to present (private) members’ bills even where the rate of adoption is very low. We argue that members’ bills serve as an electoral connection but also as an opportunity for MPs to signal competence to their co-partisans. To demonstrate the presence of an electoral connection we take advantage of the random selection of private members’ bills in the New Zealand House of Representatives and show that survey respondents approve more of electorate MPs whose bills were drawn on the ballot. In addition, we show that MPs respond to the incentives created by the voters and parties’ willingness to reward legislative effort and, consequently, that electorally vulnerable legislators are more likely to place members’ bills on the ballot.

Original Articles
© The European Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Brian D. Williams, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Government, University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514 ( Indridi H. Indridason, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92521 ( The authors would like to thank Hannah Blumhardt for capable research assistance and Shaun Bowler, Jack Vowles, and the anonymous referees for useful comments and suggestions. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit 10.1017/psrm.2017.13


Banducci, Susan, and Karp, Jeffrey. 1998. ‘Representation Under a Proportional System’. In Jack Vowles, Peter Aimer, Susan Banducci and Jeffrey Karp (eds), VotersVictory? New Zealands First Election Under Proportional Representation , 153170. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun. 2010. ‘Is There an “Electoral Connection” to Private Member’s Bills? Evidence From the 1997-2001 and 2001-2005 Parliaments’. Journal of Legislative Studies 16(4):476494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, Jonathan, and Mitchell, James. 2007. ‘The Constituency Work of Members of the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales: Approaches, Relationships and Rules’. Regional & Federal Studies 17(1):117145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bräuninger, Thomas. 2009. ‘Responsivität und strategische Adaption im Parteienwettbewerb in den deutschen Bundesländern’. In Christian, Henning, Eric, Linhart and Susumu. Shikano (eds), Parteienwettbewerb, Wählerverhalten und Koalitionsbildung, 2846. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Bräuninger, Thomas, Brunner, Martin, and Däubler, Thomas. 2012. ‘Personal Vote-Seeking in Flexible List Systems: How Electoral Incentives Shape Belgian MPs’ Bill Initiation Behaviour’. European Journal of Political Research 51:607645.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1996. ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Systems’. Electoral Studies 14(4):417439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheibub, José, and Limongi, Fernando. 2002. ‘Democratic Institutions and Regime Survival: Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered’. Annual Review of Political Science 5:151179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrar, David. 2012. ‘The Members’ Bill Ballot’. The New Zealand Herald. June 28, 2012. Available at, accessed 8 February 2015.Google Scholar
French, Stewart L. 2009. ‘Early Day Motions and the Electoral Connection in the British House of Commons’. Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL, April 02, 2009.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Timothy, and Samuels, David. 2008. ‘Electoral Accountability and the Variety of Democratic Regimes’. British Journal of Political Science 38(1):6590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellermann, Michael. 2013. ‘Sponsoring Early Day Motions in the British House of Commons as a Response to Electoral Vulnerability’. Political Science and Research Methods 1(2):263280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollman, Ken, Hicken, Allen, Caramani, Daniele, Backer, David, and Lublin, David. 2013. ‘Constituency-Level Elections Archive’. Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Loewen, Peter, Koop, Royce, Settle, Jaime, and Fowler, James H.. 2014. ‘A Natural Experiment in Proposal Power and Electoral Success’. American Journal of Political Science 58(1):189196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Shane. 2011. ‘Electoral Institutions, the Personal Vote, and Legislative Organization’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(3):339362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, Ingvar. 1995. ‘Private Member’s Initiatives and Amendments’. In Herbert Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, 448487. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McLeay, Elizabeth, and Vowles, Jack. 2007. ‘Redefining Constituency Representation: The Roles of New Zealand MPs Under MMP’. Regional and Federal Studies 17(1):7195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, Robert G., and Scheiner, Ethan. 2011. ‘Strategic Ticket Splitting and the Personal Vote in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 30(2):259276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Jr., Bingham, G.. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, Jr., Bingham, G., and Whitten, Guy D.. 1993. ‘A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context’. American Journal of Political Science 37(2):391414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, Douglas W. 1971. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Siavelis, Peter M., and Morgenstern, Scott. 2008. ‘Political Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin America: A Framework for Analysis’. In Peter M. Siavelis and S. Morgenstern (eds), Pathways to Power: Political Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin America, 338. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Solvak, Mihkel, and Pajala, Antti. 2016. ‘Sponsoring Private Member’s Bills in Finland and Estonia: The Electoral Context of Legislative Behaviour’. Scandinavian Political Studies 39(1):5272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas, and Baur, Martin. 2002. ‘Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag: How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ Across Electoral Systems’. American Journal of Political Science 46(3):506514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 2000. ‘Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies’. European Journal of Political Research 37:261289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Michelle M. 1992. ‘Formal Versus Informal Incentive Structures and Legislator Behavior: Evidence From Costa Rica’. Journal of Politics 54(4):10551073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ugues, Jr., Vidal, Antonio, D. Xavier Medina, and Bowler, Shaun. 2012. ‘Experience Counts: Mixed Member Elections and Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies’. Journal of Legislative Studies 18(1):98112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Brian, and Indridason, Indridi H.. 2016. ‘Movin’ On Up: Members’ Bills & Party List Placement’. Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Diego, March 24, 2016.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Williams and Indridason Dataset