Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Controlling Governments
- Introduction
- 1 Explaining the Electoral Performance of Incumbents in Democracies
- 2 How Can Governments Be Accountable If Voters Vote Ideologically?
- 3 Enduring Ethnicity: The Political Survival of Incumbent Ethnic Parties in Western Democracies
- 4 Performance or Representation? The Determinants of Voting in Complex Political Contexts
- 5 Political Knowledge and the Logic of Voting: A Comparative Study
- 6 The Political Consequences of Internal Party Democracy
- 7 Choosing Rules for Government: The Institutional Preferences of Early Socialist Parties
- 8 Constitutions and Democratic Breakdowns
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
7 - Choosing Rules for Government: The Institutional Preferences of Early Socialist Parties
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 October 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Contributors
- Controlling Governments
- Introduction
- 1 Explaining the Electoral Performance of Incumbents in Democracies
- 2 How Can Governments Be Accountable If Voters Vote Ideologically?
- 3 Enduring Ethnicity: The Political Survival of Incumbent Ethnic Parties in Western Democracies
- 4 Performance or Representation? The Determinants of Voting in Complex Political Contexts
- 5 Political Knowledge and the Logic of Voting: A Comparative Study
- 6 The Political Consequences of Internal Party Democracy
- 7 Choosing Rules for Government: The Institutional Preferences of Early Socialist Parties
- 8 Constitutions and Democratic Breakdowns
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Electoral institutions bear some effect on the control of governments because they influence the manner in which governments can be made vulnerable. Whatever makes office vulnerable for incumbents makes it accessible for nonincumbents. In this chapter, I propose an explanation of the institutional preferences of the most important newcomer group of parties to early democracies, the socialists, in terms of some of the consequences of electoral rules for government formation. I show that what mattered for the parties was not only how many seats could be expected under different institutional arrangements. For socialist parties, electoral rules had a broader impact on their general participation strategy, including their coalition strategy and the link between electoral success and democratic responsibility in policy making. The choice of electoral rules implied a choice between forging their alliances in the electorate – so as to surpass the majoritarian threshold in the constituencies – and obtaining a potentially very variable ability to influence government, including the responsibility of full control as a result of elections, or forging their alliances in parliament, under proportional rule, and holding a relatively constant but more restrained influence on government. It was the parties more firmly rooted in the working class, understood in terms of unionized voters, those who were more willing to commit themselves to an institutional strategy that entailed not only a broader electoral appeal but also a more steadfast, and risky, participation in democratic government.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Controlling GovernmentsVoters, Institutions, and Accountability, pp. 202 - 246Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
Aardal, Bernt. 2002. “Electoral Systems in Norway.” In and (eds.), Parties and Electoral Systems in the Nordic Countries (pp. 167–224). New York: Agathon Press.
. 1967. Australia since Federation: A Narrative and Critical Analysis. Melbourne: Nelson.Google Scholar
. 1985. “Le elezioni politiche nel Regno d'Italia. Appunti di bibliografia, legislazione e statistiche.” Quaderni dell'osservatorio elettorale 15: 141–220.Google Scholar
. 2000. The Political Mobilization of the European Left, 1860–1890: The Class Cleavage. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1949. The German Social Democratic Party 1914–1921. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
, , and . 2005. “To Adopt or Not to Adopt Proportional Representation: The Politics of Institutional Choice.” British Journal of Political Science 35 (1): 182–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies.” American Political Science Review 93 (3): 609–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1965. Histoire politique de la Troisième République. Tome premier: L'avant-guerre (1906–1914) (7 vols.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
. 1996. “State and Constitution: Ideologies of the Left and Proportional Representation in Britain, 1900–1924.” Contemporary Political Studies 1996. Proceedings at the Annual Conference held at the University of Glasgow, Vol. 3: 1551–64.Google Scholar
2003. “Son los partidos los que eligen los sistemas electorales (o las leyes de Duverger cabeza abajo).” Revista Española de Ciencia Política 9: 39–63.Google Scholar
Colomer, Josep M. 2004a. “Western Europe: General Overview.” In (ed.), Handbook of Electoral System Choice (pp. 179–208). New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colomer, Josep M. 2004b. “Spain: From Civil War to Proportional Representation.” In (ed.), Handbook of Electoral System Choice (pp. 265–78). New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1953. “Léon Blum and the French Socialists as a Government Party.” Journal of Politics 15 (4): 517–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cusack, Thomas, Torben Iversen, and David Soskice. 2003. “Specific Interests and the Origins of Electoral Institutions.” Paper presented at the Conference of the Diversity of Politics and Varieties of Capitalism, Wissenschaftszentrum, Berlin, October 2003.
. 1970. Les majorités de reflux a la chambre des députés de 1918 a 1958. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Simpler than Its Reputation: The Electoral System in Denmark since 1920.” Electoral Studies 12 (1): 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elklit, Jørgen. 2002. “The Politics of Electoral System Development and Change: The Danish Case.” In and (eds.), Parties and Electoral Systems in the Nordic Countries (pp. 15–66). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
. 1985. Politics against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
, , et al. 1983. State, Economy, and Society in Western Europe, 1815–1975. Vol. 1: The Growth of Mass Democracies and Welfare States. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1981. “The Pact General Election of 1922.” Irish Historical Studies 21: 404–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1980. “Évolution des systèmes électoraux dans les pays du Benelux, 1814–1921.” Cashiers de Clio 15: 26–48.Google Scholar
. 1900. La représentation proportionnelle en Belgique. Histoire d'une reforme. Bruxelles: Weissenbruch.Google Scholar
1962. “The Choice of Voting Methods in Federal Politics, 1902–1918.” Australian Journal of Politics and History 8: 164–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1986. The First 50 Years: A History of the New Zealand National Party. Auckland: Reed Meuthen.Google Scholar
. 1987. “The Second Ballot: A New Zealand Electoral Experiment.” New Zealand Journal of History 21: 97–111.Google Scholar
Hardarson, Ólafur Th. 2002. “The Icelandic Electoral System 1844–1999.” In and (eds.), Parties and Electoral Systems in the Nordic Countries (pp. 101–66). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
1966. “Development of Election Law in Japan.” Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 15: 471–511.Google Scholar
, and . 1974. Voting for the Australian House of Representatives: 1901–1964. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and David Soskice. 2002. “Electoral Systems and the Politics of Coalition: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More than Others.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September 2002.
. 1987. Modern Austria: Empire and Republic, 1815–1986. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1976. “The French Socialists and the Cartel des Gauches of 1924.” Journal of Contemporary History 11 (2/3): 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jutikkala, Eno. 1961. “Political Parties in the Election of Deputies to the Estate of Burgesses and the Estate of Farmers in the Finnish Diet of Estates.” Sitzungberichte der Finnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1960 (pp. 167–84). Helsinki.
. 2001. Institutions and Innovation: Voters, Parties, and Interest Groups in the Consolidation of Democracy – France and Germany, 1870–1939. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Ideology and Strategy: A Century of Swedish Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, and . 2000. It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
. 1948. The Politics of Equality: New Zealand's Adventures in Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Loewenberg, Peter. 1985. “Otto Bauer as an Ambivalent Party Leader.” In (ed.), The Austrian Socialist Experiment: Social Democracy and Austromarxism, 1918–1934. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Loveday, P. 1977. “The Federal Parties.” In , and , (eds.). The Emergence of the Australian Party System. Sidney: Hale and Iremonger.Google Scholar
1991. Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy: Social Classes and the Political Origins of Regimes in Interwar Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lutz, George. 2004. “Electoral Reform from Below: The Introduction of Proportional Representation in Switzerland 1918.” In (ed.), The Handbook of Electoral System Choice. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
, and . 1982 (2nd). The International Almanac of Electoral History. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maravall, José María. 2007. “Accountability and the Survival of Governments.” In and (eds.), Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. Unions in Politics: Britain, Germany, and the United States in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastropaolo, Alfio. 1980. “Electoral Processes, Political Behavior, and Social Forces in Italy from the Rise of the Left to the Fall of Giolliti, 1876–1913.” In (ed.), Wählerbewegnung in der Europäischer Gesichte. Berlin: Coloquim Verlag.Google Scholar
, and . 1999. Parliamentary Representation: The Case of the Norwegian Storting. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
1983. Stillborn Republic: Social Coalitions and Party Strategies in Greece, 1922–1936. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
1958. Representative Government in Ireland: A Study of Dáil Éireann 1919–48. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1996. Friends and Rivals: Coalition Politics in Denmark, 1901–1995. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
. 1994. La nascita dei partiti nell'Italia contemporanea. La proporzionale del 1919. Manduria: Piero Lacaita.Google Scholar
. 1949. “The Australian Labour Party.” American Political Science Review 43 (4): 677–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1955. “The New Zealand Labour Party.” American Political Science Review 49 (3): 708–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Capitalism and Social Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 1986. Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1980. “Political Parties and the Campaign for Proportional Representation 1905–1914.” Parliamentary Affairs 33 (3): 294–307.Google Scholar
. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
1950. “Some Observations on Proportional Representation.” Journal of Politics 12 (1): 107–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1955. The Politics of Compromise: A Study of Parties and Cabinet Government in Sweden. New York: Greenwood Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1956. “Electoral Methods and the Australian Party System, 1910–1951.” Australian Journal of Politics and History 11 (1): 68–83.Google Scholar
1953. Democracy and the Party Movement in Prewar Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 1972. “Die Entwicklung des Österreichischen Whalrechtes.” Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts des Gegenwarts 21: 247–308.Google Scholar
1955. German Social Democracy 1905–1917: The Development of the Great Schism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Seip, Dick. 1979. “The Netherlands.” In , , and (eds.), European Electoral Systems Handbook. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
. 1997. The Kaiser's Voters: Electors and Elections in Imperial Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stengers, Jean. 1990. “Histoire de la législation électorale en Belgique.” In (ed.), Political Strategies and Electoral Reforms: Origins of Voting Systems in Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Sully, Melanie A. 1985. “Social Democracy and the Political Culture of the First Republic.” In (ed.), The Austrian Socialist Experiment: Social Democracy and Austromarxism, 1918–1934. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
. 1985. Electoral Politics in Wilhemine Germany. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
. 1973 [1941]. The Swedish Social Democrats: Their Ideological Development. Translated by Greta Frankel and Patricia Howard-Rosen. Totowa: Bedminster Press.Google Scholar
van den Berghe, Guido. 1979. “Belgium.” In , , and (eds.), European Electoral Systems Handbook. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Varela-Ortega, José. 1997. “De los orígenes de la democracia en España, 1845–1923.” In (ed.), Democracia, elecciones y modernización en Europa. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
. 1974. “The Rise of National Political Parties in the Netherlands, 1888–1913.” International Journal of Politics, 207–21.Google Scholar
. 1965. Democratic Parties in the Low Countries and Germany: Origins and Historical Developments. Leyden: Universitaire Pers Leiden.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by