Abstract
This work develops and tests a theory of voter choice in parliamentary elections. I demonstrate that voters are concerned with policy outcomes and hence incorporate the way institutions convert votes to policy into their choices. Since policy is often the result of institutionalized multiparty bargaining and thus votes are watered down by power-sharing, voters often compensate for this watering-down by supporting parties whose positions differ from (and are often more extreme than) their own. I use this insight to reinterpret an ongoing debate between proximity and directional theories of voting, showing that voters prefer parties whose positions differ from their own views insofar as these parties pull policy in a desired direction. Utilizing data from four parliamentary democracies that vary in their institutional design, I test my theory and show how institutional context affects voter behavior.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science
Reference47 articles.
1. Lijphart Arend 1999.Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
2. Taylor Michael , and Han Dorussen .2000.“Group Economic Voting: A Comparison of Three Countries.”Presented at the Special Conference on Institutions and Economic Voting, Trondheim, Norway.
3. Cho Sungdai , and James W. Endersby .2003.“Issues, the Spatial Theory of Voting, and British General Elections: A Comparison of Proximity and Directional Models.”Public Choice 114 (March):275–93.
4. Macdonald Stuart Elaine , George Rabinowitz , and Ola Listhaug .1995.“Political Sophistication and Models of Issue Voting.”British Journal of Political Science 25 (October):453–83.
5. Westholm Anders .1997.“Distance Versus direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice.”American Political Science Review 91 (December):865–85.
Cited by
309 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献