Kontaminationseffekte bei Wahlfunktionen in Mischwahlsystemen

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of book: Informationsflüsse, Wahlen und Demokratie
Open Access Full access

Informationsflüsse, Wahlen und Demokratie

Festschrift für Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck

Authors:
Series
Studien zur Wahl- und Einstellungsforschung
Volume
35
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright year
2023
ISBN-Print
978-3-7560-0800-1
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-1555-3

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Kontaminationseffekte bei Wahlfunktionen in Mischwahlsystemen

Authors:
ISBN-Print
978-3-7560-0800-1
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-1555-3
Preview:

Bibliography

  1. Referenzen Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  2. Alvarez, R. M., und J. Nagler (2004). Party system compactness: Measurement and consequences. Political Analysis 12(1), 46–62. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  3. Ansolabehere, S., und J. M. Snyder (2000). Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial election models. Public Choice 103(3/4), 327–336. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  4. Bawn, K. (1993). The logic of institutional preferences: German electoral law as a social choice outcome. American Journal of Political Science 37(4), 965–989. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  5. Bawn, K., und Z. Somer-Topcu (2012). Government versus opposition at the polls: how governing status affects the impact of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science 56(2), 433–446. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  6. Brady, H. E. (1990). Traits versus issues: Factor versus ideal-point analysis of candidate thermometer ratings. Political Analysis 2(1), 97–129. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  7. Brennan, G., und L. E. Lomasky (2008). Democracy and decision: the pure theory of electoral preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  8. Brennan, G. H., und A. P. Hamlin (1998). Expressive voting and electoral equilibrium. Public Choice 95(1), 149–175. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  9. Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller und D. E. Stokes (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  10. Campbell, A., G. Gurin und W. E. Miller (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  11. Coombs, C. H. (1964). A theory of data. New York: Wiley. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  12. Cox, G. W. (1997). Making votes count: strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  13. Cox, K. E., und L. J. Schoppa (2002). Interaction effects in mixed-member electoral systems: theory and evidence from Germany, Japan, and Italy. Comparative Political Studies 35(9): 1027-1053. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  14. Debreu, G. (1959). Theory of value: An axiomatic analysis of economic equilibrium. New York: Wiley. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  15. Duch, R. M., J. May und D. Armstrong (2010). Coalition-directed voting in multi-party democracies. American Political Science Review 104(4), 698–719. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  16. Duverger, M. (1954). Political parties: their organization and activity in the modern state. London: Methuen. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  17. Enelow, J. M., und M. J. Hinich (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  18. Ferrara, F., und E. S. Herron (2005). Going it alone? Strategic entry under mixed electoral rules. American Journal of Political Science 49(1), 16–31. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  19. Ferrara, F., E. S. Herron und M. Nishikawa (2005). Mixed electoral systems: Contamination and its consequences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  20. Gelman, A., und D. B. Rubin (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Sciences 7, 457–511. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  21. Groseclose, T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science 45(4), 862–886. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  22. Gschwend, T. (2007). Ticket-splitting and strategic voting under mixed electoral rules: Evidence from Germany. European Journal of Political Research 46(1), 1–23. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  23. Gschwend, T., und T. Zittel (2012). Machen Wahlkreiskandidaten einen Unterschied? Die Persönlichkeitswahl als interaktiver Prozess. In R. Schmitt-Beck (Hrsg.), Wählen in Deutschland, S. 371–392. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  24. Hainmueller, J., H. Kern und M. Bechtel (2006). Wahlkreisarbeit zahlt sich doppelt aus. Zur Wirkung des Amtsinhaberstatus einer Partei auf ihren Zweitstimmenanteil bei den Bundestagswahlen 1949 bis 1998. In T. Bräuninger und J. Behnke (Hrsg.), Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie, S. 11–45. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  25. Hamlin, A., und C. Jennings (2011). Expressive political behaviour: Foundations, scope and implications. British Journal of Political Science 41, 645–670. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  26. Herrmann, M. (2012). Voter uncertainty and failure of Duverger’s law: An empirical analysis. Public Choice 151(1), 63–90. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  27. Herrmann, M., und F. U. Pappi (2008). Strategic voting in German constituencies. Electoral Studies 27(2), 228–244. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  28. Herron, E. S., und M. Nishikawa (2001). Contamination effects and the number of parties in mixed superposition electoral systems. Electoral Studies 20(1), 63–86. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  29. Huber, Sascha (2012). Strukturen des politischen Kontexts und die demokratische Kompetenz der Wähler. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  30. King, G. (1990). Electoral responsiveness and partisan bias in multiparty democracies. Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(2), 159–181. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  31. Kreps, D. M. (2013). Microeconomic foundations. 1. Choice and competitive markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  32. Kurella, A.-S. (2016). Hätten Direktkandidaten der AfD über die 5%-Hürde verholfen? Eine Untersuchung des Kontaminationseffekts im Mischwahlsystem. In H. Schoen und B. Weßels (Hrsg.), Wahlen und Wähler: Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2013, S. 202–222. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  33. Käppner, K., und S. Shikano (2015). A polytomous IRT unfolding model for the extraction of ideological space and valence factors from feeling thermometer ratings. Paper prepared for the MPSA conference, Chicago 2015. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  34. Luce, R. D., und J. W. Tuckey (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1(1), 1–27. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  35. Manow, P. (2010). Dimensionen der Disproportionalität – Erststimmen und Direktmandate in den Bundestagswahlen von 1953 bis 2009. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 51(3), 433–455. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  36. Markus, G. B., und P. E. Converse (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. The American Political Science Review 73(4), 1055–1070. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  37. Moser, R. G., und E. Scheiner (2004). Mixed electoral systems and electoral system effects: controlled comparison and cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies 23(4), 575–599. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  38. Pappi, F. U. (2011). Party identification. In B. Badie, D. Berg-Schlosser und L. Morlino (Hrsg.), International encyclopedia of political science, Bd. 6, S. 1806–1811. Los Angeles: Sage. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  39. Pappi, F. U., und P. W. Thurner (2002). Electoral behaviour in a two-vote system: Incentives for ticket splitting in German Bundestag elections. European Journal of Political Research 41(2), 207–232. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  40. Plummer, M. (2003). Jags: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net/. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  41. Rheault, L, A. Blais, J. Aldrich und T. Gschwend (2020). Understanding people’s choice when they have two votes. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 30(4), 466–483. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  42. Riker, W. H., und P. C. Ordeshook (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. The American Political Science Review 62(1), 25–42. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  43. Schoen, H. (1999). Split-ticket voting in German federal elections, 1953-90: An example of sophisticated balloting? Electoral Studies 18(4), 473–496. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  44. Schofield, N., und I. Sened (2006). Multiparty democracy: Elections and legislative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  45. Schuessler, A. A. (2000). A logic of expressive choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  46. Schüttemeyer, S. S., und R. Sturm (2005). Der Kandidat – das (fast) unbekannte Wesen: Befunde und Überlegungen zur Aufstellung der Bewerber zum Deutschen Bundestag. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 36(3), 539–553. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  47. Shikano, S. (2009). Simulating party competition and vote decision under mixed member electoral systems. Czech Economic Review 3(3), 270–291. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  48. Stokes, D. E. (1992). Valence politics. In D. Kavanagh (Hrsg.), Electoral Politics, S. 161–164. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  49. Stratmann, T., und M. 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. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  50. Theil, H. (1969). The desired political entropy. American Political Science Review 63(2), 521–525. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379
  51. pagebreak Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748915553-379

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF) Download complete (PDF)

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.

Share via email

Media