Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T10:53:12.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constituency Effects and Legislative Dissent Under Closed-List Proportional Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2021

Eduardo Alemán Open the ORCID record for Eduardo Alemán [Opens in a new window] ,
Juan Pablo Micozzi Open the ORCID record for Juan Pablo Micozzi [Opens in a new window] ,
Pablo M. Pinto Open the ORCID record for Pablo M. Pinto [Opens in a new window]  and
Sebastián Saiegh Open the ORCID record for Sebastián Saiegh [Opens in a new window]
Eduardo Alemán
Affiliation:
Eduardo Alemán is an associate professor of political science at the University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. [email protected].
Juan Pablo Micozzi
Affiliation:
Juan Pablo Micozzi is an associate professor of political science at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), Mexico City, Mexico. [email protected].
Pablo M. Pinto
Affiliation:
Pablo M. Pinto is an associate professor in the Hobby School of Public Affairs, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA. [email protected].
Sebastián Saiegh
Affiliation:
Sebastián Saiegh is a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA. [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to conventional wisdom, closed-list proportional representation (CLPR) electoral systems create incentives for legislators to favor the party line over their voters’ positions. However, electoral incentives may induce party leaders to tolerate “shirking” by some legislators, even under CLPR. This study argues that in considering whose deviations from the party line should be tolerated, party leaders exploit differences in voters’ relative electoral influence resulting from malapportionment. We expect defections in roll call votes to be more likely among legislators elected from overrepresented districts than among those from other districts. We empirically test this claim using data on Argentine legislators’ voting records and a unique dataset of estimates of voters’ and legislators’ placements in a common ideological space. Our findings suggest that even under electoral rules known for promoting unified parties, we should expect strategic defections to please voters, which can be advantageous for the party’s electoral fortunes.

Keywords

Closed-list proportional representationlegislative behaviorArgentina
Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , May 2021 , pp. 78 - 99
Copyright
© The Authors, 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the University of Miami

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.)

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: the authors declare none.

References

Alcántara, Manuel (dir.). 2018. Proyecto Elites Latinoamericanas (PELA-USAL). Universidad de Salamanca (1994–2018)Google Scholar
Alemán, Eduardo, and Calvo, Ernesto. 2013. Explaining Policy ties in Presidential Congresses: A Network Analysis of Bill Initiation Data. Political Studies 61, 2: 356–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alemán, Eduardo, Calvo, Ernesto, Jones, Mark P., and Noah, Kaplan. 2009. Comparing Cosponsorship and Roll-Call Ideal Points. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34: 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alemán, Eduardo, Micozzi, Juan Pablo, Pinto, Pablo M., and Saieigh, Sebastian. 2018. Disentangling the Role of Ideology and Partisanship in Legislative Voting: Evidence from Argentina. Legislative Studies Quarterly 43, 2: 245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardanaz, Martín, Leiras, Marcelo, and Tommasi, Mariano. 2014. The Politics of Federalism in Argentina and Its Implications for Governance and Accountability. World Development 53: 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, David A. II, Bakker, Ryan, Carroll, Royce, Hare, Christopher, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2014. Analyzing Spatial Models of Choice and Judgment with R. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagashka, Tanya. 2014. Representation in Hybrid Regimes. Social Science Quarterly 95, 2: 486–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battista, James Coleman, Michael, Peress, and Richman, Jesse. 2013. Common-Space Ideal Points, Committee Assignments, and Financial Interests in the State Legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 13: 70–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, Allyson L. 2009. What Makes Strong Federalism Seem Weak? Publius 39, 4: 651–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhavnani, Rikhil. 2018. The Effects of Malapportionment on Cabinet Inclusion: Subnational Evidence from India. British Journal of Political Science 48, 1: 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonvecchi, Alejandro and Lodola, Germán. 2011. The Dual Logic of Intergovernmental Transfers. Publius 41, 2: 179–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buisseret, Peter E., and Prato, Carlo. 2020. Competing Principals? Legislative Representation in List Proportional Representation Systems. Unpublished mss. Department of Political Science, Columbia University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buisseret, Peter E., Folke, Olle, Prato, Carlo, and Rickne, Johanna Karin. 2019. Party Nomination Strategies in List Proportional Representation Systems. SSRN, July 8. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3425692 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3425692 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Richard, Kirkland, Justin H., and Slapin, Jonathan. 2020. Party Competition, Personal Votes, and Strategic Disloyalty in the U.S. States. Political Research Quarterly, September 2. DOI 10.1177/1065912920953210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto. 2014. Legislator Success in Fragmented Congresses in Argentina. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Victoria Murillo, M.. 2004. Who Delivers? Partisan Clients in the Argentine Electoral Market. American Journal of Political Science 48, 4: 742–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51: 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John, and Shugart, Matthew S.. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14, 4: 417–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catalinac, Amy. 2018. Positioning Under Alternative Electoral Systems. American Political Science Review 112, 1: 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherny, Nicolás, Figueroa, Valentín, and Scherlis, Gerardo. 2018. ¿Quién nomina a los legisladores? Revista SAAP: Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Político 12, 2: 215–48.Google Scholar
Clerici, Paula. 2020. Minorities at the Gate: The Legislative Contribution of Opposition Minorities and the Committee System: Evidence from Argentina. Journal of Legislative Studies 26, 2: 180–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua. 2006. Representation in Congress: Constituents and Roll Calls in the 106th House. Journal of Politics 68, 2: 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The Statistical Analysis of Legislative Behavior: A Unified Approach. American Political Science Review 98, 2: 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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
Crain, W. Mark, Leavens, Donald R., and Tollison, Robert D.. 1986. Final Voting in Legislatures. American Economic Review 76: 833–41.Google Scholar
Crisp, Brian F., Santiago, Olivella, Michael, Malecki, and Mindi, Sher. 2013. Vote-Earning Strategies in Flexible List Systems: Seats at the Price of Unity. Electoral Studies 32, 4: 658–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depauw, Sam, and Shane, Martin. 2009. Legislative Party Discipline and Cohesion in Comparative Perspective. In Intra-party Politics and Coalition Governments, ed. Giannetti, Daniela and Benoit, Kenneth. New York: Routledge. 103–20.Google Scholar
Fiva, Jon H., and Halse, Askill H.. 2016. Local Favoritism in At-Large Proportional Representation Systems. Journal of Public Economics 143: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galasso, Vincenzo, and Tommaso, Nannicini. 2015. So Closed: Political Selection in Proportional Systems. European Journal of Political Economy 40: 260–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galiani, Sebastian, Torre, Iván, and Torrens, Gustavo. 2016. Fiscal Federalism and Legislative Malapportionment. Economics & Politics 28: 133–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garofalo, Pablo, Lema, Daniel, and Streb, Jorge M.. 2020. Political Budget Cycles and Voting Within a Federal Country. Economics & Politics 32: 305–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method? Comparative Political Studies 40, 3: 231–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervasoni, Carlos. 2010. A Rentier Theory of Subnational Regimes: Fiscal Federalism, Democracy, and Authoritarianism in the Argentine Provinces. World Politics 62, 2: 302–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gervasoni, Carlos, and Nazareno, Marcelo. 2017. La relación entre gobernadores y legisladores nacionales: repensando la conexión subnacional del federalismo político argentino. Política y Gobierno 24, 1: 9–44.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, and Calvo, Ernesto. 2000. Federalism and Low-Maintenace Constituencies. Studies in Comparative International Development 35: 32–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward L., Calvo, Ernesto F., and Falleti, Tulia G.. 2004. Reallocative Federalism. In Federalism and Democracy in Latin America, ed. Gibson, . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 173–96.Google Scholar
González, Lucas. 2012. The Redistributive Effects of Centralization and Decentralization Across Subnational Units. Latin American Research Review 47, 3: 109–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, Christopher, Armstrong, David A., Bakker, Ryan, Carroll, Royce, and Poole, Keith T.. 2015. Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens’ Ideological Preferences and Perceptions. American Journal of Political Science 59: 759–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, Reuven Y. 2014. Candidate Selection: Implications and Challenges for Legislative Behavior. In The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, ed. Martin, Shane, Saalfeld, Thomas, and Kaare, W. Strom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 213–30.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2004. Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting Defection in the European Parliament. World Politics 56, 2: 194–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon, and Abdul, Noury. 2016. Government-Opposition or Left-Right? The Institutional Determinants of Voting in Legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods 4: 249–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Mark P., and Hwang, Wonjae. 2005. Party Government in Presidential Democracies: Extending Cartel Theory Beyond the U.S. Congress. American Journal of Political Science 49, 2: 267–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Mark P., Wonjae, Hwang, and Micozzi, Juan P.. 2009. Government and Opposition in the Argentine Congress, 1989–2007: Understanding Inter-Party Dynamics Through Roll Call Vote Analysis. Journal of Politics in Latin America 1, 1: 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalt, Joseph P., and Zupan, Mark A.. 1990. Apparent Ideological Behavior of Legislators: Testing for Principal-Agent Slack in Political Institutions. Journal of Law & Economics 33: 103–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kikuchi, Hirokazu. 2018. Presidents versus Federalism in the National Legislative Process: The Argentine Senate in Comparative Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, Justin H., and Slapin, Jonathan B.. 2018. Roll Call Rebels: Strategic Dissent in the United States and United Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J., McGlynn, Adam J., and Koger, Gregory, 2007. Strategic Party Government. American Journal of Political Science 51: 464–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeff, and Linzer, Drew. 2005. Estimating Regression Models in which the Dependent Variable Is Based on Estimates. Political Analysis 13, 4: 345–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lott, John R., Jr., and Bronars, Stephen G.. 1993. Time Series Evidence on Shirking in the U.S. House of Representatives. Public Choice 76: 125–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Micozzi, Juan Pablo. 2014. Alliance for Progress? Multilevel Ambition and Patterns of Cosponsorship in the Argentine House. Comparative Political Studies 47, 8: 1186–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murillo, M. Victoria, and Pinto, Pablo M.. Forthcoming. Heeding to the Losers: Legislators’Trade Policy Preferences and Legislative Behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2004. Electoral Engineering: Voting Rules and Political Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patty, John W. 2008. Equilibrium Party Government. American Journal of Political Science 52, 3: 636–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitlik, Hans, Schneider, Friedrich, and Strotmann, Harald. 2006. Legislative Malapportionment and the Politicization of Germany’s Intergovernmental Transfer System. Public Finance Review 34: 637–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2005. Models of Parliamentary Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serra, Gilles. 2011. Why Primaries? The Party’s Tradeoff Between Policy and Valence. Journal of Theoretical Politics 23, 1: 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, Boris, and Jon, Rogowski. 2018. Ideology and the U.S. Congressional Vote. Political Science Research and Methods 6: 323–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S., Valdini, Melody E., 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 29, 2: 437–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Richard, and Samuels, David. 2004. Legislative Malapportionment in Latin America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. In Federalism and Democracy in Latin America, ed. Edward, L. Gibson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 131–72.Google Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T., and Tommasi, Mariano. 2007. The Institutional Foundations of Public Policy in Argentina. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Christopher, Warshaw. 2013. Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities. Journal of Politics 75: 330–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucco, Cesar, Jr., and Lauderdale, Benjamin E.. 2011. Distinguishing Between Influences on Brazilian Legislative Behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36, 3: 363–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar