Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Parliamentary Representation of Citizens’ Preferences

Explaining the Differences Between Parliamentarians’ Votes and Popular Referendum Results
Authors:
Publisher:
 11.07.2014

Summary

Representation — the linkage between citizens and members of parliament — is of paramount interest as legislation affects all areas of citizens’ lives. However, “representation” is an elusive concept. How should “representation” be measured? How do institutions shape the relationship between members of parliament and citizens?

This study offers a novel approach and dataset to conceptualize and analyze the representation of citizen preferences by parliamentary members. Drawing on the fact that Swiss citizens regularly cast referenda on the same policy proposals that members of parliament vote on, various determinants and consequences of higher or lower congruence between citizen preferences and politicians’ votes are analyzed. While the focus is on the design of electoral systems (e.g., majoritarian vs. proportional representation and district magnitude), further analyses include, among others, the relationship between representation and electoral success.

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2014
Publication date
11.07.2014
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-1288-5
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-5386-2
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Neue Studien zur Politischen Ökonomie
Volume
15
Language
English
Pages
230
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 14
  2. Thesis Overview No access 15 - 24
  3. Using Referenda and Roll Call Votes as a Measure for Representation: Methodological Principles No access 25 - 78
  4. Evaluating the Median Voter Model’s Explanatory Power No access 79 - 85
  5. Voters Elect Politicians Who Closely Matched Their Preference No access 86 - 95
  6. Quantifying Parliamentary Representation of Constituents’ Preferences and Explaining Divergence No access 96 - 114
  7. District Magnitude and Representation of the Majority’s Preferences: Evidence from Popular and Parliamentary Votes No access 115 - 144
  8. A Refined View on the Relationship Between District Magnitude and Representation No access 145 - 159
  9. Representatives’ Majority Decisions: The law of Large Numbers No access 160 - 180
  10. A Comparative Analysis of the Voting Behavior of Constituents and Their Representatives for Public Debts No access 181 - 194
  11. Conclusion and Research Perspective No access 195 - 206
  12. Appendix No access 207 - 216
  13. Bibliography No access 217 - 230

Bibliography (226)

  1. Achen, Christopher H. 1977. “Measuring Representation: Perils of the Correlation Coefficient.” American Journal of Political Science, 21(4): 805–15. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2110737
  2. Ågren, Hanna, Matz Dahlberg, and Eva Mörk. 2006. “Do politicians’ preferences correspond to those of the voters? An investigation of political representation.” Public Choice, 130(1–2): 137–62. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9077-1
  3. Ai, Chunrong and Edward C. Norton. 2003. “Interaction Terms in logit and probit Models.” Economics Letters, 80(1): 123–29. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00032-6
  4. Albouy, David. 2011. “Do voters affect or elect policies? A new perspective, with evidence from the U.S. Senate.” Electoral Studies, 30(1): 162–73. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.11.016
  5. Alesina, Alberto and Alex Cukierman. 1990. “The Politics of Ambiguity.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105(4): 829–50. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2937875
  6. Alesina, Alberto and Allan Drazen. 1991. “Why Are Stabilizations Delayed?” American Economic Review, 81(5): 1170–88. Open Google Scholar
  7. Alesina, Alberto and Roberto Perotti. 1995. “The Political Economy of Budget Deficits.” Staff Papers – International Monetary Fund, 42(1): 1–31. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/3867338
  8. Americans for Democratic Action. 2012. Voting Records. http://www.adaction.org/pages/publications/voting-records.php (accessed January 18, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  9. Amtliches Bulletin. 2013. Parlamentarische Initiative Jenny This. Transparentes Abstimmungsverhalten (March 7, 2013). http://www.parlament.ch/ab/frameset/d/s/4907/399930/d_s_4907_399930_400013.htm (accessed April 1, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  10. Amtliches Bulletin. 2012. Parlamentarische Initiative Jenny This. Transparentes Abstimmungsverhalten (June 11, 2012). http://www.parlament.ch/ab/frameset/f/s/4904/383503/f_s_4904_383503_383749.htm (accessed April 3, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  11. Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, Jr., and Charles Stewart, III. 2001a. “Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections.” American Journal of Political Science, 45(1): 136–59. Open Google Scholar
  12. Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, Jr., and Charles Stewart, III. 2001b. “The Effects of Party and Preferences on Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(4): 533–72. Open Google Scholar
  13. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Open Google Scholar
  14. Austen-Smith, David and Jeffrey S. Banks. 1996. “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” American Political Science Review, 90(1): 34–45. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2082796
  15. Austen-Smith, David and John R. Wright. 1992. “Competitive lobbying for a legislator’s vote.” Social Choice and Welfare, 9(3): 229–57. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF00192880
  16. Baddeley, Alan. 1994. “The Magical Number Seven: Still Magic After All These Years?” Psychological Review, 101(2): 353–56. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.353
  17. Bafumi, Joseph and Michael C. Herron. 2007. “Preference aggregation, representation, and elected American political institutions.” Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Open Google Scholar
  18. Bailer, Stefanie, Sarah Bütikofer, Simon Hug, and Tobias Schulz. 2008. “Preferences, Party Discipline and Constituency Pressure in Swiss parliamentary Decisions.” Annual Meeting of the Swiss Political Science Association. Open Google Scholar
  19. 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. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0951692803151001
  20. Bender, Bruce and John R. Lott, Jr. 1996. “Legislator Voting and Shirking: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Public Choice, 87(1–2): 67–100. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF00151730
  21. Benesch, Christine. 2010. “Local TV Markets and Elections.” Mimeo, University of Zurich. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2119
  22. Bennedsen, Morten and Sven E. Feldmann. 2002. “Lobbying Legislatures.” Journal of Political Economy, 110(4): 919–46. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/340775
  23. Benoit, Kenneth. 2001. “District Magnitude, Electoral Formula, and the Number of Parties.” European Journal of Political Research, 39(2): 203–22. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00575
  24. Benz, Matthias and Alois Stutzer. 2004. “Are Voters Better Informed When They Have a Larger Say in Politics? – Evidence for the European Union and Switzerland.” Public Choice, 119(1–2): 31–59. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1023/B:PUCH.0000024161.44798.ef
  25. Berry, Christopher R. and William G. Howell. 2007. “Accountability and Local Elections: Rethinking Retrospective Voting.” Journal of Politics, 69(03): 844–58. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00579.x
  26. Berry, William D., Evan J. Ringquist, Richard C. Fording, and Russell L. Hanson. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93.” American Journal of Political Science, 42(1): 327–48. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2991759
  27. Besley, Timothy and Stephen Coate. 1997. “An Economic Model of Representative Democracy.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(1): 85–114. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1162/003355397555136
  28. Besley, Timothy and Stephen Coate. 2001. “Lobbying and Welfare in a Representative Democracy.” Review of Economic Studies, 68(1): 67–82. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00160
  29. Besley, Timothy and Stephen Coate. 2008. “Issue Unbundling via Citizens' Initiatives.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3(4): 379–97. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1561/100.00008059
  30. Besley, Timothy and Anne Case. 2003. “Political Institutions and Policy Choices: Evidence from the United States.” Journal of Economic Literature, 41(1): 7–73. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/.41.1.7
  31. Black, Duncan. 1948. “On the Rationale of Group Decision-making.” Journal of Political Economy, 56(1): 23–34. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/256633
  32. Blais, Andre and Marc A. Bodet. 2006. “Does Proportional Representation Foster Closer Congruence Between Citizens and Policy Makers?” Comparative Political Studies, 39(10): 1243–62. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0010414005284374
  33. Blume, Lorenz, Jens Müller, Stefan Voigt, and Carsten Wolf. 2009. “The Economic Effects of Constitutions: Replicating and Extending Persson and Tabellini.” Public Choice, 139(1): 197–225. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9389-4
  34. Blume, Lorenz, Jens Müller, and Stefan Voigt. 2009. “The Economic Effects of Direct Democracy – A First Global Assessment.” Public Choice, 140(3): 431–61. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9429-8
  35. Blumkin, Tomer and Volker Grossmann. 2010. “May increased partisanship lead to convergence of parties’ policy platforms?” Public Choice, 145(3-4): 547–69. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9579-8
  36. Boehmke, Frederick J. 2008. “The Initiative Process and the Dynamics of State Interest Group Populations.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 8(4): 362–83. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/153244000800800402
  37. Boehmke, Frederick J. and Daniel C. Bowen. 2010. “Direct Democracy and Individual Interest Group Membership.” Journal of Politics, 72(3): 659–71. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000083
  38. Bohnet, Iris and Bruno S. Frey. 1994. “Direct-Democratic Rules: The Role of Discussion.” Kyklos, 47(3): 341–54. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1994.tb02742.x
  39. Bordignon, Massimo and Guido Tabellini. 2010. “Moderating Political Extremism: Single Round vs Runoff Elections under Plurality Rule.” CESifo Group Munich. CESifo Working Paper Series 2600. Open Google Scholar
  40. Bowler, Shaun and Todd Donovan. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting, and Direct Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  41. Brändle, Thomas and Alois Stutzer. 2010. “Public servants in parliament: theory and evidence on its determinants in Germany.” Public Choice, 145(1): 223–52. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9563-3
  42. Brändle, Thomas and Alois Stutzer. 2013. “Political Selection of Public Servants and Parliamentary Oversight.” Economics of Governance, 14(1): 45–76. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s10101-012-0120-z
  43. Brennan, Geoffrey. 2012. “The Political Economy of Public Debt.” Constitutional Political Economy, 23(3): 182–98. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s10602-012-9124-5
  44. Brunner, Eric J., Stephen L. Ross, and Ebonya L. Washington. 2013. “Does Less Income Mean Less Representation?” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2): 53–76. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/pol.5.2.53
  45. Buchanan, James M. and Gordon Tullock. 1962. The calculus of consent: logical foundations of constitutional democracy. 1st ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.3998/mpub.7687
  46. Buchanan, James M. and Richard E. Wagner. 1976. Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of Lord Keynes. New York: Academic Press. Open Google Scholar
  47. Burke, Edmund. 1775. Mr. Edmund Burke’s Speech to the Electors of Bristol: On His Being Declared by the Sheriffs, Duly Elected One of the Representatives in Parliament for That City on Thursday the 3d of November, 1774: J. Dodsley. Open Google Scholar
  48. Calvert, Randall L. 1985. “Robustness of the Multidimensional Voting Model: Candidate Motivations, Uncertainty, and Convergence.” American Journal of Political Science, 29(1): 69–95. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111212
  49. Calvert, Randall L. 1992. “Leadership and Its Basis in Problems of Social Coordination.” International Political Science Review, 13(1): 7–24. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/019251219201300102
  50. Carey, John M. 2007. “Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting.” American Journal of Political Science, 51(1): 92–107. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00239.x
  51. Carey, John M. and Simon Hix. 2011. “The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science, 55(2): 383–97. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00495.x
  52. Carey, John M. and Simon Hix. 2013. “District magnitude and representation of the majority’s preferences: a comment and reinterpretation.” Public Choice, 154(1–2): 139–48. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-012-0023-0
  53. Carey, John M. and Matthew S. Shugart. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies, 14(4): 417–39. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(94)00035-2
  54. Clinton, Joshua D. 2012. “Using Roll Call Estimates to Test Models of Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, 15(1): 79–99. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-043010-095836
  55. Clinton, Joshua D. and John Lapinski. 2008. “Laws and Roll Calls in the U.S. Congress, 1891–1994.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33(4): 511–41. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.3162/036298008786403097
  56. Coate, Stephen. 2004. “Pareto-Improving Campaign Finance Policy.” American Economic Review, 94(3): p 628–655. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/0002828041464443
  57. Condorcet, Jean A. N. de. 1785. Essai sur l' application de l' analyse à la probabilité des décisions. Rendues à la pluralité des voix. Open Google Scholar
  58. Congleton, Roger. 2007. “Informational Limits to Democratic Public Policy: The Jury Theorem, Yardstick Competition, and Ignorance.” Public Choice, 132(3): 333–52. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9155-z
  59. Constitutional Court of the Free State of Bavaria. 2008. Betreffend den Antrag auf Zulassung eines Volksbegehrens über den “Entwurf eines Gesetzes über eine Nichtbeteiligung des Freistaates Bayern an der Finanzierung der Transrapid-Magnetschwebebahn in München.” http://www.bayern.verfassungsgerichtshof.de/8-IX-08-Entscheidung.htm (accessed April 22, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  60. Cooper, Alexandra and Michael C. Munger. 2000. “The (un)predictability of primaries with many candidates: Simulation evidence.” Public Choice, 103(3–4): 337–55. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1023/A:1005150101110
  61. Coppedge, M. 1997. “District Magnitude, Economic Performance, and Party-System Fragmentation in Five Latin American Countries.” Comparative Political Studies, 30(2): 156–85. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0010414097030002002
  62. Cox, Gary W. 1987. “Electoral Equilibria under Alternative Voting Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science, 31(1): 82–108. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111325
  63. Cox, Gary W. 1990. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science, 34(4): 903–35. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111465
  64. Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral System. New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174954
  65. Crane, Wilder W., Jr. 1960. “Do Representatives Represent?” Journal of Politics, 22(2): 295–99. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2127360
  66. Crisp, Brian F., Maria C. Escobar-Lemmon, Bradford S. Jones, Mark P. Jones, and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2004. “Vote-Seeking Incentives and Legislative Representation in Six Presidential Democracies.” Journal of Politics, 66(3): 23–846. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00278.x
  67. DeBacker, Jason. 2012. “Political parties and political shirking.” Public Choice, 150(3–4): 651–70. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9722-6
  68. Delli Carpini, Michael X. and Scott Keeter. 1997. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar
  69. Denzau, Arthur T., Amoz Kats, and Steven Slutsky. 1985. “Multi-Agent Equilibria with Market Share and Ranking Objectives.” Social Choice and Welfare, 2(2): 95–117. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF00437311
  70. Denzau, Arthur T. and Michael C. Munger. 1986. “Legislators and Interest Groups: How Unorganized Interests Get Represented.” American Political Science Review, 80(1): 89–106. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1957085
  71. Dovi, Suzanne. 2011. “Political Representation.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/political-representation (accessed April 22, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  72. Dow, Jay K. 2001. “A comparative spatial analysis of majoritarian and proportional elections.” Electoral Studies, 20(1): 109–25. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(99)00041-4
  73. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/257897
  74. Drazen, Allan and Vittorio Grilli. 1993. “The Benefit of Crises for Economic Reforms.” American Economic Review, 83(3): 598–607. Open Google Scholar
  75. Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Wiley. Open Google Scholar
  76. Dykstra, Robert R. and Harlan Hahn. 1968. “Northern Voters and Negro Suffrage: The Case of Iowa, 1868.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 32(2): 202–15. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/267599
  77. Egger, Peter and Marko Koethenbuerger. 2010. “Government Spending and Legislative Organization: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Germany.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(4): 200–12. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/app.2.4.200
  78. Eichenberger, Reiner. 1999. “Mit direkter Demokratie zu besserer Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik: Theorie und Empirie.” In Schriftenreihe der Hochschule Speyer, Adäquate Institutionen. Voraussetzungen für "gute" und bürgernahe Politik?: Vorträge auf dem 2. Speyerer Demokratie-Forum vom 14. bis 16. Oktober 1998 an der Deutschen Hochschule für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer, ed. Hans-Herbert von Arnim, 259–88. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  79. Eichenberger, Reiner, David Stadelmann, and Marco Portmann. 2011a. “Dunkelkammer mit Videoüberwachung.” Weltwoche. October 20, 2011: 44. Open Google Scholar
  80. Eichenberger, Reiner, David Stadelmann, and Marco Portmann. 2011b. “Ständerat am Puls des Volks.” NZZ am Sonntag. August 28, 2011: 15. Open Google Scholar
  81. Eichenberger, Reiner, David Stadelmann, and Marco Portmann. 2012. “A comparative analysis of the voting behavior of constituents and their representatives for public debts.” Constitutional Political Economy, 23(3): 244–60. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s10602-012-9122-7
  82. Eichenberger, Reiner, David Stadelmann, and Marco Portmann. 2013. “Voting against the separation of powers between legislature and administration.” Mimeo, University of Fribourg. Open Google Scholar
  83. Enelow, James M. and Michael C. Munger. 1993. “The elements of candidate reputation: The effect of record and credibility on optimal spatial location.” Public Choice, 77(4): 757–72. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF01047993
  84. Erikson, Robert S. and Gerald C. Wright, Jr. 1980. “Policy Representation of Constituency Interests.” Political Behavior, 2(1): 91–106. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF00989757
  85. Feddersen, Timothy J. and Wolfgang Pesendorfer. 1996. “The Swing Voter’s Curse.” American Economic Review, 86(3): 408–24. Open Google Scholar
  86. Federal Chancellery. 2006. Die politischen Rechte im Bund. http://www.bk.admin.ch/themen/pore/01514/index.html?lang=de&unterseite=yes# (accessed April 21, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  87. Federal Chancellery. 2012. Volksinitiativen. http://www.bk.admin.ch/themen/pore/vi/index.html?lang=de# (accessed April 21, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  88. Feld, Lars P., Christoph A. Schaltegger, and Jan Schnellenbach. 2008. “On government centralization and fiscal referendums.” European Economic Review, 52(4): 611–45. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2007.05.005
  89. Feld, Scott L. and Bernard Grofman. 2003. “Stuck in Space: The Neglected Importance of Issue Salience for Political Competition.” European Public Choice Society annual meeting. Open Google Scholar
  90. Fernandez, Carmen, Eduardo Ley, and Mark F. Steel. 2001. “Model Uncertainty in Cross-Country Growth Regressions.” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(5): 563–76. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1002/jae.623
  91. Fiorina, Morris P. 1978. “Economic Retrospective Voting in American National Elections: A Micro-Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science, 22(2): 426–43. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2110623
  92. Frey, Bruno S. 1994. “Direct Democracy: Politico-Economic Lessons from Swiss Experience.” American Economic Review, 84(2): 338–42. Open Google Scholar
  93. Frey, Bruno S. and Alois Stutzer. 2000. “Happiness, Economy and Institutions.” Economic Journal, 110(466): 918–38. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00570
  94. Funk, Patricia and Christina Gathmann. 2011. “Does Direct Democracy Reduce the Size of Government? New Evidence from Historical Data, 1890–2000.” Economic Journal, 121(557): 1252–80. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02451.x
  95. Gagliarducci, Stefano, Tommaso Nannicini, and Paolo Naticchioni. 2011. “Electoral Rules and Politicians’ Behavior: A Micro Test.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(3): 144–74. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/pol.3.3.144
  96. Galasso, Vincenzo and Tommaso Nannicini. 2011. “Competing on Good Politicians.” American Political Science Review, 105(01): 79–99. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000535
  97. Gallup. 2013. Presidential Job Approval Center. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-approval-center.aspx (accessed April 1, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  98. Garrett, Thomas A. 1999. “A Test of Shirking under Legislative and Citizen Vote: The Case of State Lottery Adoption.” Journal of Law and Economics, 42(1): 189–208. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/467422
  99. Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science, 40(1): 99–128. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111696
  100. Gerber, Elisabeth R. 1999. The Populist Paradox. Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  101. Gerber, Elisabeth R. and Jeffrey B. Lewis. 2004. “Beyond the Median: Voter Preferences, District Heterogeneity, and Political Representation.” Journal of Political Economy, 112(6): 1364–83. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/424737
  102. Gilligan, Thomas W. and John G. Matsusaka. 1995. “Deviations from Constituent Interests: The Role of Legislative Structure and Political Parties in the States.” Economic Inquiry, 33(3): 383–401. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1995.tb01870.x
  103. Goff, Brian L. and Kevin B. Grier. 1993. “On the (mis)measurement of legislator ideology and shirking.” Public Choice, 76(1–2): 5–20. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF01049340
  104. Golder, Matt and Jacek Stramski. 2010. “Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science, 54(1): 90–106. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00420.x
  105. Gouveia, Miguel and Neal. A. Masia. 1998. “Does the median voter model explain the size of government?: Evidence from the states.” Public Choice, 97(1-2): 159–77. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1023/A:1004973610506
  106. Graf, Martin. “Bundesversammlung.” In Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz. http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/d/D10081.php (accessed April 22, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  107. Greene, William H. 2012. Econometric Analysis. 7th ed. Boston & London: Pearson. Open Google Scholar
  108. Grofman, Bernard. 2004. “Downs and Two-Party Convergence.” Annual Review of Political Science, 7: 25–46. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104711
  109. Grofman, Bernard. 2008. “A taxonomy of runoff methods.” Electoral Studies, 27(3): 395–99. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2008.04.007
  110. Groseclose, Tim, Steven D. Levitt, and James M. Snyder, Jr. 1999. “Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress.” American Political Science Review, 93(1): 33–50. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2585759
  111. Grossman, Gene M. and Elhanan Helpman. 1994. “Protection for Sale.” American Economic Review, 84(4): 833–50. Open Google Scholar
  112. Grossman, Gene M. and Elhanan Helpman. 1996. “Electoral Competition and Special Interest Politics.” Review of Economic Studies, 63(2): 265–86. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2297852
  113. Grossman, Gene M. and Elhanan Helpman. 2001. Special Interest Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Open Google Scholar
  114. Harsanyi, John C. 1955. “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.” Journal of Political Economy, 63(4): 309–21. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/257678
  115. Hayo, Bernd and Florian Neumeier. 2012. “Leaders’ Impact on Public Spending Priorities: The Case of the German Laender.” Kyklos, 65(4): 480–511. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12003
  116. Hedlund, Ronald D. and H. Paul Friesema. 1972. “Representatives’ Perceptions of Constituency Opinion.” Journal of Politics, 34(3): p 730–752. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2129280
  117. Hermann, Michael and Heiri Leuthold. 2007. “Zwischen Konsens und Polarisierung Volksabstimmungen und Parlamentsentscheide im direkten Vergleich.” In Direkte Demokratie: Bestandsaufnahmen und Wirkungen im internationalen Vergleich, ed. Markus Freitag and Uwe Wagschal, 277–302. Münster: LIT Verlag. Open Google Scholar
  118. Herrera, Cheryl L., Richard Herrera, and Eric R. A. N. Smith. 1992. “Public Opinion and Congressional Representation.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(2): 185–205. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/269310
  119. Hersch, Philip L. and Gerald S. McDougall. 1988. “Voting for ‘Sin’ in Kansas.” Public Choice, 57(2): 127–39. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF00052401
  120. Hoeting, Jennifer A., David Madigan, Adrian E. Raftery, and Chris T. Volinsky. 1999. “Bayesian Model Averaging: A Tutorial (with Discussion).” Statistical Science, 14(4): 382–417. Open Google Scholar
  121. Hotelling, Harold. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal, 39(153): 41–57. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2224214
  122. Hug, Simon. 2010. “Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes.” British Journal of Political Science, 40(1): 225–35. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123409990160
  123. Hug, Simon. 2011. “Policy consequences of direct legislation theory, empirical models and evidence.” Quality & Quantity, 45(3): 559–78. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11135-010-9313-0
  124. Kalt, Joseph P. and Mark A. Zupan. 1984. “Capture and Ideology in the Economic Theory of Politics.” American Economic Review, 74(3): 279–300. Open Google Scholar
  125. Kau, James B., Donald Keenan, and Paul H. Rubin. 1982. “A General Equilibrium Model of Congressional Voting.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(2): 271–93. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1880758
  126. Kau, James B. and Paul H. Rubin. 1978. “Voting on Minimum Wages: A Time-Series Analysis.” Journal of Political Economy, 86(2): 337–42. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/260673
  127. Kau, James B. and Paul H. Rubin. 1979. “Self-Interest, Ideology, and Logrolling in Congressional Voting.” Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2): 365–84. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/466947
  128. Kau, James B. and Paul H. Rubin. 1993. “Ideology, Voting, and Shirking.” Public Choice, 76(1–2): 151–72. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF01049347
  129. Keane, Michael P. and Antonio M. Merlo. 2010. “Money, Political Ambition, and the Career Decisions of Politicians.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(3): 186–215. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/mic.2.3.186
  130. Kenny, Lawrence W. and Babak Lotfinia. 2005. “Evidence on the importance of spatial voting models in presidential nominations and elections.” Public Choice, 123(3–4): 439–62. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-005-7170-5
  131. Kirchgässner, Gebhard. 2000. “Probabilistic voting and equilibrium: An impossibility result.” Public Choice, 103(1-2): 35–48. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1023/A:1005033011215
  132. Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Constituency characteristics and legislative preferences.” Public Choice, 76(1): 21–37. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF01049341
  133. Lancaster, Thomas D. 1986. “Electoral Structures and Pork Barrel Politics.” International Political Science Review, 7(1): 67–81. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/019251218600700107
  134. Lancaster, Tony. 2000. “The incidental parameter problem since 1948.” Journal of Econometrics, 95(2): 391–413. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(99)00044-5
  135. Lancaster, Thomas D. and David W. Paterson. 1990. “Comparative Pork Barrel Politics: Perceptions from the West German Bundestag.” Comparative Political Studies, 22(4): 458–77. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/0010414090022004004
  136. Larcinese, Valentino. 2007. “Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election.” Public Choice, 131(3): 387–411. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9122-0
  137. Lassen, David D. 2005. “The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science, 49(1): 103–18. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00113.x
  138. Le Maux, Benoît. 2009. “Governmental behavior in representative democracy: a synthesis of the theoretical literature.” Public Choice, 141(3): 447–65. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9463-6
  139. Lee, David S., Enrico Moretti, and Matthew J. Butler. 2004. “Do Voters Affect or Elect Policies? Evidence from the U.S. House.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3): 807–59. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1162/0033553041502153
  140. Levitt, Steven D. 1996. “How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology.” American Economic Review, 86(3): 425–41. Open Google Scholar
  141. Lijphart, Arend. 1990. “The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, 1945–85.” American Political Science Review, 84(2): 481–96. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1963530
  142. Lizzeri, Alessandro and Nicola Persico. 2001. “The Provision of Public Goods under alternative electoral Incentives.” American Economic Review, 91(1): 225–39. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.1.225
  143. Lott, John R., Jr. and Michael L. Davis. 1992. “A Critical Review and an Extension of the Political Shirking Literature.” Public Choice, 74(4): 461–84. Open Google Scholar
  144. Lupia, Arthur and John G. Matsusaka. 2004. “Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions.” Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1): 463–82. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.012003.104730
  145. Majumdar, Sumon and Sharun W. Mukand. 2004. “Policy Gambles.” American Economic Review, 94(4): 1207–22. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002624
  146. Matsusaka, John G. 1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” Journal of Political Economy, 103(3): 587–623. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/261996
  147. Matsusaka, John G. 2001. “Problems with a Methodology Used to Evaluate the Voter Initiative.” Journal of Politics, 63(4): 1250–56. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00109
  148. Matsusaka, John G. 2005. “Direct Democracy Works.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2): 185–206. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/0895330054048713
  149. Matsusaka, John G. 2010. “Popular Control of Public Policy: A Quantitative Approach.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5(2): 133–67. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1561/100.00009055
  150. Matsusaka, John G. and Nolan M. McCarty. 2001. “Political Resource Allocation: Benefits and Costs of Voter Initiatives.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 17(2): 413–48. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/jleo/17.2.413
  151. May, Kenneth O. 1952. “A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision.” Econometrica, 20(4): 680–84. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1907651
  152. McCrone, Donald J. and James H. Kuklinski. 1979. “The Delegate Theory of Representation.” American Journal of Political Science, 23(2): 278–300. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111003
  153. McDonagh, Eileen L. 1993. “Constituency Influence on House Roll-Call Votes in the Progressive Era, 1913–1915.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 18(2): 185–210. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/439990
  154. McGrath, Robert J. 2011. “Electoral Competition and the Frequency of Initiative Use in the U.S. States.” American Politics Research, 39(3): 611–38. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/1532673X10388143
  155. McKelvey, Richard D. 1986. “Covering, Dominance, and Institution-Free Properties of Social Choice.” American Journal of Political Science, 30(2): 283–314. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111098
  156. Meltzer, Allan H. and Scott F. Richard. 1981. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government.” Journal of Political Economy, 89(5): 914–27. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/261013
  157. Milesi-Ferretti, Gian M., Roberto Perotti, and Massimo Rostagno. 2002. “Electoral Systems and Public Spending.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(2): 609–57. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1162/003355302753650346
  158. Miller, George A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.” Psychological Review, 63(2): 81–97. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
  159. Miller, Warren E. and Donald E. Stokes. 1963. “Constituency Influence in Congress.” American Political Science Review, 57(1): 45–56. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1952717
  160. Milligan, Kevin and Michael Smart. “Regional Grants as Pork Barrel Politics.” CESifo Group Munich. CESifo Working Paper Series 1453. Open Google Scholar
  161. Mueller, Dennis C. 2003. Public Choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  162. Müller, Reinhard. 2011. Wie demokratisch ist direkte Demokratie? http://www.faz.net/aktuell/volksentscheide-wie-demokratisch-ist-direkte-demokratie-11520785.html (accessed April 16, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  163. Nannestad, Peter and Martin Paldam. 1994. “The VP-Function: A Survey of the Literature on Vote and Popularity Functions after 25 Years.” Public Choice, 79(3-4): 213–45. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF01047771
  164. Neto, Octavio A. and Gary W. Cox. 1997. “Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science, 41(1): 149–74. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111712
  165. Noam, Eli M. 1980. “The Efficiency of Direct Democracy.” Journal of Political Economy, 88(4): 803–10. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/260903
  166. Nordhaus, William D. 1975. “The Political Business Cycle.” Review of Economic Studies, 42(2): 169–90. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2296528
  167. Ordeshook, Peter C. and Olga V. Shvetsova. 1994. “Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science, 38(1): 100–23. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111337
  168. Osborne, Martin J. and Al Slivinksi. 1995. “A Model of Political Competition with Citizen-Candidates.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(1995–01): 65–96. Open Google Scholar
  169. Osborne, Martin J. and Matthew A. Turner. 2010. “Cost Benefit Analyses versus Referenda.” Journal of Political Economy, 118(1): 156–87. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/650305
  170. Padovano, Fabio. 2013. “Are we witnessing a paradigm shift in the analysis of political competition?” Public Choice, 156(3–4): 631–51. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-012-9920-5
  171. Peltzman, Sam. 1984. “Constituent Interest and Congressional Voting.” Journal of Law and Economics, 27(1): 181–210. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1086/467062
  172. Persson, Torsten, Gerard Roland, and Guido Tabellini. 2007. “Electoral Rules and Government Spending in Parliamentary Democracies.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(2): 155–88. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1561/100.00006019
  173. Persson, Torsten and Guido Tabellini. 1999. “The Size and Scope of Government: Comparative Politics with Rational Politicians.” European Economic Review, 43(4–6): 699–735. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00131-7
  174. Persson, Torsten and Guido Tabellini. 2000. Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge: MIT Press. Open Google Scholar
  175. Pettersson-Lidbom, Per. 2012. “Does the size of the legislature affect the size of government? Evidence from two natural experiments.” Journal of Public Economics, 96(3): 269–78. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.07.004
  176. Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Open Google Scholar
  177. Pommerehne, Werner W. 1983. “Private versus öffentliche Müllabfuhr – nochmals betrachtet.” Finanzarchiv, 41(3): 466–75. Open Google Scholar
  178. Poole, Keith T. 2005. Analytical Methods for Social Research (Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614644.005
  179. Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal. 1984. “The Polarization of American Politics.” Journal of Politics, 46(4): 1061–79. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2131242
  180. Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal. 1985. “A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science, 29(2): 357–84. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2111172
  181. Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  182. Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal. 2007. Ideology & Congress. 2nd ed. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1162/daed.2007.136.3.104
  183. Portmann, Marco and David Stadelmann. 2013. “Testing the Median Voter Model and Moving Beyond its Limits: Do Characteristics of Politicians Matter?” Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts. CREMA Working Paper Series 2013–05. Open Google Scholar
  184. Portmann, Marco, David Stadelmann, and Reiner Eichenberger. 2012. “District magnitude and representation of the majority's preferences: Evidence from popular and parliamentary votes.” Public Choice, 151(3–4): 585–610. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-010-9760-0
  185. Portmann, Marco, David Stadelmann, and Reiner Eichenberger. 2013. “District magnitude and representation of the majority’s preferences – a reply and new perspectives.” Public Choice, 154(1–2): 149–51. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11127-012-0038-6
  186. Powell, G. Bingham, Jr. and Georg S. Vanberg. 2000. “Election Laws, Disproportionality and Median Correspondence: Implications for Two Visions of Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science, 30(3): 383–411. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400000168
  187. Rae, Douglas W. 1971. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar
  188. Raftery, Adrian E. 1995. “Bayesian Model Selection in social Research.” Sociological Methodology, 25: 111–63. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/271063
  189. Raftery, Adrian E., Jennifer Hoeting, Chris Volinsky, Ian Painter, and Ka Yee Yeung. 2011. “BMA: Bayesian Model Averaging.” R package version 3.14.1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BMA (accessed January 16, 2012). Open Google Scholar
  190. Raftery, Adrian E., David Madigan, and Jennifer A. Hoeting. 1997. “Bayesian Model Averaging for Linear Regression Models.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92(437): 179–91. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1997.10473615
  191. Rawls, John A. 1971. Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Open Google Scholar
  192. Romer, Thomas. 1975. “Individual welfare, majority voting, and the properties of a linear income tax.” Journal of Public Economics, 4(2): 163–85. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(75)90016-X
  193. Romer, Thomas and Howard Rosenthal. 1978. “Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo.” Public Choice, 33(4): 27–43. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF03187594
  194. Sala-I-Martin, Xavier, Gernot Doppelhofer, and Ronald I. Miller. 2004. “Determinants of Long-Term Growth: A Bayesian Averaging of Classical Estimates (BACE) Approach.” American Economic Review, 94(4): 813–35. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002570
  195. Scervini, Francesco. 2012. “Empirics of the median voter: democracy, redistribution and the role of the middle class.” Journal of Economic Inequality, 10(4): 529–50. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s10888-011-9183-2
  196. Schneider, Friedrich, Werner W. Pommerehne, and Bruno S. Frey. 1981. “Politico-Economic Interdependence in a Direct Democracy: The Case of Switzerland.” In Contemporary Political Economy, ed. Douglas A. Hibbs and Heino Fassbender, 231–48. Amsterdam: North Holland. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2232839
  197. Schwarz, Daniel. 2005. “How representative are published votes for legislative voting behaviour?” ECPR General Conference. Open Google Scholar
  198. Schwarz, Hans-Rudolf and Norbert Köckler. 2004. Numerische Mathematik. Wiesbaden: Teubner Verlag. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-96814-2
  199. Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review, 66(2): 555–68. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1957799
  200. Snyder, James M., Jr. 1992. “Artificial Extremism in Interest Group Ratings.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17(3): 319–45. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/439733
  201. Stadelmann, David, Reiner Eichenberger, and Marco Portmann. 2011. “Parliaments as Condorcet Juries: Quasi-Experimental Evidence on the Representation of Majority Preferences.” Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts. CREMA Working Paper Series 2011–14. Open Google Scholar
  202. Stadelmann, David, Marco Portmann, and Reiner Eichenberger. 2012a. “Evaluating the Median Voter Model’s Explanatory Power.” Economics Letters, 114(3): 312–14. Open Google Scholar
  203. Stadelmann, David, Marco Portmann, and Reiner Eichenberger. 2012b. “Do Female Representatives Adhere More Closely to Citizens’ Preferences Than Male Representatives?” Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts. CREMA Working Paper Series 2012–02. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2116116
  204. Stadelmann, David, Marco Portmann, and Reiner Eichenberger. 2012c. “Preference Representation and the Influence of Political Parties in Majoritarian vs. Proportional Systems: An Empirical Test.” Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts. CREMA Working Paper Series. Open Google Scholar
  205. Stadelmann, David, Marco Portmann, and Reiner Eichenberger. 2013a. “Quantifying parliamentary representation of constituents’ preferences with quasi-experimental data.” Journal of Comparative Economics, 41(1): 170–80. Open Google Scholar
  206. Stadelmann, David, Marco Portmann, and Reiner Eichenberger. 2013b. “Voters elect politicians who closely matched their preferences.” Economics Bulletin, 33(2): 1001–09. Open Google Scholar
  207. Stadelmann, David, Marco Portmann, and Reiner Eichenberger. 2013c. “How Do Female Preferences Influence Political Decisions by Female and Male Representatives?” Mimeo, University of Bayreuth. Open Google Scholar
  208. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle and Adrian Vatter. 2012. “Does Satisfaction with Democracy Really Increase Happiness? Direct Democracy and Individual Satisfaction in Switzerland.” Political Behavior, 34(3): 535–59. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9164-y
  209. Stratmann, Thomas. 2005. “Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature.” In Policy Challenges and Political Responses, ed. William F. Shughart and Robert D. Tollison, 135–56. Boston: Springer. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28038-3_8
  210. 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. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/3088395
  211. Svaleryd, Helena. 2009. “Women’s representation and public spending.” European Journal of Political Economy, 25(2): 186–98. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2008.12.004
  212. Swiss Parliamentary Services. 2004. Bundesgesetz über die Änderung von Erlassen im Bereich der Ehe- und Familienbesteuerung, der Wohneigentumsbesteuerung und der Stempelabgaben. http://www.parlament.ch/d/dokumentation/dossiers/dossiers-archiv/steuerpaket/seiten/steuerpaket-referendum.aspx (accessed April 21, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  213. Swiss Parliamentary Services. 2013a. Namentliche Abstimmungen – das Abstimmungsverhalten der Ratsmitglieder. http://parlament.ch/D/WAHLEN-ABSTIMMUNGEN/ABSTIMMUNGEN-IM-PARLAMENT/NAMENTLICHE-ABSTIMMUNGEN/Seiten/default.aspx (accessed March 6, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  214. Swiss Parliamentary Services. 2013b. Parliamentary procedure. http://parlament.ch/E/WISSEN/TAETIGKEITEN/PARLVERFAHREN/Pages/default.aspx (accessed March 6, 2013). Open Google Scholar
  215. Taagepra, Rein and Matthew S. Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes. The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar
  216. Tideman, Nicholaus. 1976. “The capabilities of voting rules in the absence of coalitions.” Policy and Politics, 4(4): 23–44. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1332/030557376783015640
  217. Tien, Charles. 2001. “Representation, Voluntary Retirement, and Shirking in the Last Term.” Public Choice, 106(1): 117–30. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1023/A:1005235603078
  218. Torgler, Benno, David Stadelmann, and Marco Portmann. 2013. “Religious preferences matter for voting decisions.” Mimeo, Queensland University of Technology. Open Google Scholar
  219. Tullock, Gordon. 1981. “Why so much stability.” Public Choice, 37(2): 189–204. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1007/BF00138239
  220. Vatter, Adrian. 2003. “Legislative Party Fragmentation in Swiss Cantons: A Function of Cleavage Structures or electoral Institutions?” Party Politics, 9(4): 445–61. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1177/135406880394002
  221. Vatter, Adrian. 2007. “Lijphart goes regional: Different patterns of consensus in Swiss democracies.” West European Politics, 30(1): 148–71. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1080/01402380601019746
  222. Wahlke, John C., Heinz Eulau, William Buchanan, and LeRoy C. Ferguson. 1962. The Legislative System. New York: John Willey. Open Google Scholar
  223. Washington, Ebonya L. 2008. “Female Socialization: How Daughters Affect Their Legislator Fathers’ Voting on Women's Issues.” American Economic Review, 98(1): 311–32. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.1.311
  224. Weissberg, Robert. 1978. “Collective vs. Dyadic Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review, 72(2): 535–47. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1954109
  225. Wittman, Donald. 1983. “Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories.” American Political Science Review, 77(1): 142–57. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/1956016
  226. Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Steven J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? (Yale Fastback Series) New Haven: Yale University Press. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "Economics", "Competition Policy & Economic Order Policy & Economic Policy", "Party Research & Electoral Research"
Cover of book: Kapital als Medium
Book Titles No access
Michael Mayer
Kapital als Medium
Cover of book: Le sanzioni dell’UE nei confronti della Russia tra sicurezza internazionale e diritti umani
Edited Book No access
Antonino Alì
Le sanzioni dell’UE nei confronti della Russia tra sicurezza internazionale e diritti umani
Cover of book: Jahrbuch Extremismus & Demokratie (E & D)
Edited Book No access
Uwe Backes, Alexander Gallus, Eckhard Jesse, Tom Thieme
Jahrbuch Extremismus & Demokratie (E & D)
Cover of book: Siedlungsbausteine für bestehende Wohnquartiere
Edited Book No access
Anette von Ahsen, Jens Schneider, Stephan Rinderknecht, Dirk Schiereck
Siedlungsbausteine für bestehende Wohnquartiere
Cover of book: Relations between the EU and East Africa in a changing world order
Book Titles No access
Lukas Einkemmer, Camilla Magis, Andreas Maurer, Jimi Tammelleo, Kalkidan Tappeiner
Relations between the EU and East Africa in a changing world order

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex