Advertisement

Dual candidacy as a source of legislator behaviour. The re-election and the mandate incentive under mixed-member electoral rules

  • Zsófia PappEmail author
Original Article
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Legislators are often viewed as ‘single-minded seekers of re-election’, and hence their actions are attributed to their ultimate goal of staying in office. However, an alternative approach ‘liberates’ legislators from the ever continuing struggle for re-election and argues that MPs carry out certain tasks simply because it is part of their jobs. This study is an attempt to empirically separate re-election and mandate incentives in the MPs’ behaviour. Hungary’s mixed-member electoral system with dual candidacy creates a situation in which the two types of incentives can be separately observed. If mandate incentives prevail there should be a difference between SMD and list MPs, while re-election motivations offer the dominant explanation to MP behaviour if the difference is between MPs nominated in SMDs and those who are not. Analysing legislators’ attitudes and behaviour between 2010 and 2014 it is found that although re-election incentives indeed prevail in the MPs’ behaviour, the effect of the mandate strongly characterizes attitudes creating a tension between what MPs do and what they think they should be doing.

Keywords

Legislators Parliament Electoral rules Hungary Constituency orientation Voting dissent 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by János Bolyai Scholarship and the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (Grant Nos. PD115747 and K119603).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

41269_2019_143_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 23 kb)

References

  1. Atmor, Nir, Reuven Y. Hazan, and Gideon Rahat. 2011. Candidate Selection. In Personal Representation. The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems, ed. Josep M. Colomer, 21–36. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baumann, Markus, Marc Debus, and Tristan Klingelhöfer. 2017. Keeping One’s Seat: The Competitiveness of MP Renomination in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. The Journal of Politics 79 (3): 979–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bawn, Kathleen, and Michael F. Thies. 2003. A Comparative Theory of Electoral Incentives Representing the Unorganized Under PR, Plurality and Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15 (1): 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borghetto, Enrico, and Marco Lisi. 2018. Productivity and Reselection in a Party-Based Environment: Evidence from the Portuguese Case. Parliamentary Affairs 71 (4): 868–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowler, Shaun, and David M. Farrell. 1993. Legislator Shirking and Voter Monitoring: Impacts of European Parliament Electoral Systems upon Legislator—Voter Relationships. Journal of Common Market Studies 31 (1): 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bräuninger, Thomas, Martin Brunner, and Thomas Däubler. 2012. Personal Vote-Seeking in Flexible List Systems: How Electoral Incentives Shape Belgian MPs’ Bill Initiation Behaviour. European Journal of Political Research 51 (5): 607–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris P. Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron, A.Colin, and Pravin K. Trivedi. 1998. Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carey, John M. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey, J.M., and M.S. Shugart. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14 (4): 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carman, Christopher, and Mark Shephard. 2007. Electoral Poachers? An Assessment of Shadowing Behaviour in the Scottish Parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies 13 (4): 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiru, Mihail. 2018. The Electoral Value of Constituency-Oriented Parliamentary Questions in Hungary and Romania. Parliamentary Affairs 71 (4): 950–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, Christopher A., and Lilliard E. Richardson. 2006. Institutions and Representational Roles in American State Legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 6 (2): 174–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox, Karen E., and Leonard J. Schoppa. 2002. Interaction Effects in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. Comparative Political Studies 35 (9): 1027–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crisp, Brian F. 2007. Incentives in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. Comparative Political Studies 40 (12): 1460–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Curtice, John, and Phillips Shively. 2009. Who Represents Us Best? One Member or Many? In The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, ed. Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 171–192. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Däubler, Thomas, Love Christensen, and Lukáš Linek. 2018. Parliamentary Activity, Re-Selection and the Personal Vote. Evidence from Flexible-List Systems. Parliamentary Affairs 71 (4): 930–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Depauw, Sam. 2003. Government Party Discipline in Parliamentary Democracies: The Cases of Belgium, France and the United Kingdom in the 1990s. The Journal of Legislative Studies 9 (4): 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Depauw, Sam, and Shane Martin. 2009. Legislative Party Discipline and Cohesion in Comparative Perspective. In Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments, ed. D. Giannetti and K. Benoit, 103–120. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Fearon, James. 1999. Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types Versus Sanctioning Poor Performance. In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, ed. Adam Przeworski, Susan C. Stokes, and Bernard Manin. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Glenview, IL: Longman.Google Scholar
  22. Ferrara, Federico, and Erik S. Herron. 2005. Going It Alone? Strategic Entry under Mixed Electoral Rules. American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallagher, Michael, and Ian Holliday. 2003. Electoral Systems, Representational Roles and Legislator Behaviour: Evidence from Hong Kong. New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies 5 (1): 107–120.Google Scholar
  24. Heitshusen, Valerie, Garry Young, and David M. Wood. 2005. Electoral Context and MP Constituency Focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herron, Erik S. 2002. Electoral Influences on Legislative Behavior in Mixed-Member Systems: Evidence from Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada. Legislative Studies Quarterly 27 (3): 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herron, Eric S., and Misa Nishikawa. 2001. Contamination Effects and the Number of Parties in Mixed-Superposition Electoral Systems. Electoral Studies 20 (1): 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hix, Simon. 2004. Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting Defection in the European Parliament. World Politics 56 (2): 194–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoyle, Rick H. 1999. Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, 1st ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Ishiyama, John. 2000. Candidate Recruitment, Party Organisation and the Communist Successor Parties: The Cases of the MSzP, the KPRF and the LDDP. Europe-Asia Studies 52 (5): 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, and Bernard Wessels. 2001. The Political Consequence of Germany’s Mixed-Member System: Personalization at the Grass Roots? In Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. The Best of Both Worlds, ed. Matthew S. Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg, 279–296. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kunicova, Jana, and Thomas Frederick Remington. 2008. Mandates, Parties and Dissent Effect of Electoral Rules on Parliamentary Party Cohesion in the Russian State Duma, 1994—2003. Party Politics 14 (5): 555–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lancaster, Thomas D. 1986. Electoral Structures and Pork Barrel Politics. International Political Science Review 7 (1): 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lancaster, Thomas D., and W. David Patterson. 1990. Comparative Pork Barrel Politics: Perceptions from the West German Bundestag. Comparative Political Studies 22 (4): 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Long, J.Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Lundberg, Thomas Carl. 2006. Second-Class Representatives? Mixed-Member Proportional Representation in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs 59 (1): 60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manow, Philip. 2013. Mixed Rules, Different Roles? An Analysis of the Typical Pathways into the Bundestag and of MPs’ Parliamentary Behaviour. The Journal of Legislative Studies 19 (3): 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mansbridge, Jane. 2009. A ‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation. Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (4): 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marangoni, Francesco, and Federico Russo. 2018. Not All Roads Lead to Rome: The Conditional Effect of Legislative Activity on Reselection Prospects in Italy. Parliamentary Affairs 71 (4): 888–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marjai, Erzsébet. 2012. Candidate Selection Patterns in the 2010 Hungarian Parliamentary Elections. MA thesis, Central European University.Google Scholar
  42. Martin, Shane. 2011. Using Parliamentary Questions to Measure Constituency Focus: An Application to the Irish Case. Political Studies 59 (2): 472–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mitchell, Paul. 2000. Voters and Their Representatives: Electoral Institutions and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies. European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 335–351.Google Scholar
  45. Montgomery, Kathleen A. 1999. Electoral Effects on Party Behavior and Development. Party Politics 5 (4): 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morlang, Diana. 1999. Socialists Building Capitalism: The Hungarian Socialist Party and Economic Policy Making. Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University.Google Scholar
  47. Norris, Pippa. 2000. The Twilight of Westminster? Electoral Reform and Its Consequences. Political Studies 49 (5): 877–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Norris, Pippa. 2004. Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Norton, Philip. 2002. Introduction: Linking Parliaments and Citizens. In Parliaments and Citizens in Western Europe, ed. Philip Norton, 1–18. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  50. Norton, Philip, and David Wood. 1990. Constituency Service by Members of Parliament: Does It Contribute to a Personal Vote? Parliamentary Affairs 43 (2): 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Olivella, Santiago, and Margit Tavits. 2014. Legislative Effects of Electoral Mandates. British Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Owens, John E. 2003. Explaining Party Cohesion and Discipline in Democratic Legislatures: Purposiveness and Contexts. The Journal of Legislative Studies 9 (4): 12–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Papp, Zsófia. 2019. Same Species, Different Breed: The Conditional Effect of Legislator Activities in Parliament on Re-Selection in a Mixed-Member Electoral System. Parliamentary Affairs 72 (1): 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Papp, Zsófia, and Federico Russo. 2018. Parliamentary Work, Re-Selection and Re-Election. In Search of the Accountability Link. Parliamentary Affairs 71 (4): 853–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Papp, Zsófia, and Burtejin Zorigt. 2016. Party-Directed Personalisation: The Role of Candidate Selection in Campaign Personalisation in Hungary. East European Politics 32 (4): 466–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pekkanen, Robert, Benjamin Nyblade, and Ellis S. Krauss. 2006. Electoral Incentives in Mixed-Member Systems: Party, Posts, and Zombie Politicians in Japan. American Political Science Review 100 (02): 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pilet, Jean-Benoit, André Freire, and Olivier Costa. 2012. Ballot Sturcture, District Magnitude and Constituency-Orientation of MPs in Proportional Representation and Majority Electoral Systems. Representation 48 (4): 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rozenberg, Olivier, et al. 2011. Not Only a Battleground: Parliamentary Oral Questions Concerning Defence Policies in Four Western Democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 340–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Russo, Federico. 2011. The Constituency as a Focus of Representation: Studying the Italian Case Through the Analysis of Parliamentary Questions. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Russo, Federico, and Matti Wiberg. 2010. Parliamentary Questioning in 17 European Parliaments: Some Steps Towards Comparison. The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (2): 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saalfeld, Thomas. 2011. Parliamentary Questions as Instruments of Substantive Representation: Visible Minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005–10. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scholl, Edward L. 1986. The Electoral System and Constituency-Oriented Activity in the European Parliament. International Studies Quarterly 30 (3): 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shugart, Matthew S., Melody Ellis Valdini, and Kati Suominen. 2005. Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under Proportional Representation. American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sieberer, Ulrich. 2010. Behavioral Consequences of Mixed Electoral Systems: Deviating Voting Behavior of District and List MPs in the German Bundestag. Electoral Studies 29 (3): 484–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stratmann, Thomas, and Martin Baur. 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): 506–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strøm, Kaare. 1997. Rules, Reasons and Routines: Legislative Roles in Parliamentary Democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies 3 (1): 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tavits, Margit. 2010. Effect of Local Ties On Electoral Success and Parliamentary Behaviour the Case of Estonia. Party Politics 16 (2): 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thames, Frank C. 2001. Legislative Voting Behaviour in the Russian Duma: Understanding the Effect of Mandate. Europe-Asia Studies 53 (6): 869–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thames, Frank C. 2005. A House Divided Party Strength and the Mandate Divide in Hungary, Russia, and Ukraine. Comparative Political Studies 38 (3): 282–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vliegenthart, Rens, and Stefaan Walgrave. 2011. Content Matters: The Dynamics of Parliamentary Questioning in Belgium and Denmark. Comparative Political Studies 44: 1031–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wahlke, John C., Heinz Eulau, William Buchanan, and LeRoy C. Ferguson. 1962. The Legislative System. Explorations in Legislative Behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Ward, Leigh J. 1998. ‘Second-Class MPs’? New Zealand’s Adaptation to Mixed-Member Parliamentary Representation. Political Science 49 (2): 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zittel, Thomas. 2012. Legislators and Their Representational Roles: Strategic Choices or Habits of the Heart? In Parliamentary Roles in Modern Legislatures, ed. Magnus Blomgren and Olivier Rozenberg, 101–121. London: Routledge, ECPR.Google Scholar
  74. Zittel, Thomas, and Thomas Gschwend. 2008. Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Candidates in the 2005 German Elections. West European Politics 31 (5): 978–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Social SciencesHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations