Proportional representation and attitudes about politics: Results from New Zealand

Electoral Studies

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 533-555

  Banducci, Susan A ^a   Donovan, Todd ^b   Karp, Jeffrey A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

^b WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Electoral systems; New Zealand politics; Proportional representation

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; NATIONAL POLITICS; POLITICAL SYSTEM;

NEW ZEALAND;

EID: 0033485563     PISSN: 02613794     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0261-3794(99)00019-0     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aimer, P., 1997. The future of the party system. In: Miller, R. (Ed.), New Zealand Politics in Transition. Oxford University Press, Auckland.
2. Amy, D., 1993. Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for PR Elections in the United States. Colombia University Press, New York.
3. Anderson C.J., Guillory C.A. Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review. 91:1997;66-81.
4. Banducci, S., Karp, J., 1998. Representation under a proportional system. In: Vowles, J., Aimer, P., Banducci, S., Karp, J. (Eds), Voters' Victory? New Zealand's First Election Under Proportional Representation. Auckland University Press, Auckland.
5. Barber, B., 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. University of California Press, Berkeley.
6. Blais A., Carty R.K. Does proportional representation foster voter turnout? European Journal of Political Research. 18:1990;167-181.
7. Bobo L., Gilliam F. Race, sociopolitical participation, and black empowerment. American Political Science Review. 84(2):1990;377-397.
8. Bowler S., Lanoue D. Strategic and protest voting for third parties: the case of the Canadian NDP. Western Political Quarterly. 45:1992;485-499.
9. Bowler S., Lanoue D., Savoie P. Electoral systems, party competition, and strength of partisan attachment: evidence from three countries. Journal of Politics. 56(4):1994;991-1012.
10. Campbell, D.T., Stanley, J.C., 1963. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally, Chicago.
11. Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E., Stokes, D.F., 1960. 1980. The American Voter. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
12. Cox, G., 1997. Making Votes Count. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
13. Craig, S.C., 1993. The Malevolent Leaders. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
14. Dalton R.J. Political parties and political representation: party supports and party elites in nine nations. Comparative Political Studies. 18:1985;267-299.
15. Dolbare, K., Hubbell, J., 1996. USA 2012: After the Middle Class Revolution. Chatham House, Chatham, NJ.
16. Duverger, M., 1954. Political Parties. Wiley, New York.
17. Electoral Reform Society, 1998. Electoral Reform Society of Great Britain and Ireland WWW Pages. Accessed February, 1998. http://www.gn.apc.org/ers/mission.htm. 6 Chancel Street, Blackfriars, London SE1 0UU.
18. Fiorina, M., 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. Yale University Press, New Haven.
19. Guinier L. The triumph of tokenism: the voting rights act and the theory of black electoral success. Michigan Law Review. 89(5):1991;1077.
20. Guinier, L., 1994. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. Free Press, New York.
21. Held, D., 1987. Models of Democracy. Polity Press, Cambridge, MA.
22. Hoover, K., Donovan, T., 1995. The Elements of Social Scientific Thinking, 6th ed. St. Martin's Press, New York.
23. Iverson T. Political leadership and representation in West European democracies: a test of three models of voting. American Journal of Political Science. 38:1994;45-74.
24. Lawson, K., 1997. The case for a multiparty system. In: Herrnson, P.S., Green, J.C. (Eds.), Multiparty Politics in America (People, Passions and Power). Rowman and Littlefield, New York.
25. Lijphart, A., 1984. Democracies. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
26. Lijphart, A., 1995. Testimony Before the California State Legislature. California State Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Sacramento, CA. March 8.
27. Loenen, N., 1997. Citizenship and Democracy: A Case for Proportional Representation. Dundrun Press, Toronto.
28. Markus, G., 1979. Analyzing panel data. Sage University Paper Series, Quantitative Applications in the Social Science. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
29. McRobie, A., 1994. Final and Binding: 1993 Electoral Reform. In: Vowles, J., Aimer, P. (Eds.), Double Decision: The 1993 Election and Referendum in New Zealand. Victoria University, Wellington.
30. Miller A. Political issues and trust in government. American Political Science Review. 68:1974;951-972.
31. Miller, R., Catt, H., 1993. Season of Discontent: By-elections and the Bolger Government. Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, N.Z., 1993.
32. Miller A.H., Listhaug O. Political parties and confidence in government: a comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science. 29:1990;357-386.
33. Neimi R., Whitten G., Franklin M. Constituency characteristics, individual characteristics and tactical voting in the 1987 British General Elections. British Journal of Political Science. 23:1992;131-137.
34. New Zealand Royal Commission on the Electoral System, 1986. Report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System: Towards a Better Democracy. Government Printer, Wellington, N.Z.
35. Pateman, C., 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
36. Powell G.B. Constitutional design and citizen electoral control. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 1:1989;107-130.
37. Rabinowitz G., Macdonald S.E., Listhaug O. New players in and old game: party strategy in multiparty systems. Comparative Political Studies. 24:1991;147-185.
38. Rae, D., 1971. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. Yale University Press, New Haven.
39. Riker W. The two-party system and Duverger's law: an essay on the history of political science. American Political Science Review. 76:1982;753-766.
40. Ritchie R., Hill S. The case for proportional representation. Social Policy. 26(4):1996;25-30.
41. Sartori, G., 1968. Political development and political engineering. In: Montgomery, J., Hirschman, A. (Eds.), Public Policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42. Thorndike E.L. The influence of chance imperfections on measures upon the relationship of initial score to gain or loss. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 7:1924;225-232.
43. Vowles, J., Aimer, P., Banducci, S. and Karp, J., 1998. Voters' Victory? New Zealand's First Election Under Proportional Representation. Auckland University Press, Auckland.
44. Vowles J. The politics of electoral reform in New Zealand. International Political Science Review. 16:1995;95-115.
45. Vowles, J., Aimer, P., Catt, H., Lamare, J., Miller, R., 1995. Towards consensus? The 1993 Election in New Zealand and the Transition to Proportional Representation. Auckland University Press, Auckland.
46. Walker P. The Maori war. Granta. 58:1997;197-228.
47. Wattenberg, M.P., 1998. The decline of party mobilization. Paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Japanese Political Science Association, Kyoto.
48. Weatherford M.S. Economic stagflation and public support for the political system. British Journal of Political Science. 14:1984;187-205.
49. Weatherford M.S. Measuring political legitimacy. American Political Science Review. 86:1992;149-166.
50. Will, G., 1992. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy. Free Press, New York.