The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effects of election rules

Comparative Political Studies

Volumn 42, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1475-1497

  Powell Jr , G Bingham ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Congruence; Ideology; Measurement; Median voter; Proportional representation; Representation; Single member districts

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350660728     PISSN: 00104140     EISSN: 15523829     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0010414009332147     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Achen, C.H. (1977). Measuring representation: Perils of the correlation coefficient. American Journal of Political Science, 21, 805-815.
2. Achen, C.H. (1978). Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 475-510.
3. Benoit, K., & Laver, M. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.
4. Benoit, K., & Laver, M. (2007). Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies, 26, 90-107.
5. Blais, A., & Bodet, M.A. (2006). Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policymakers? Comparative Political Studies, 39, 1243-1263.
6. Budge, I. (2000). Expert judgments of party policy positions: Uses and limitations in political research. European Journal of Political Research, 37, 103-113.
7. Budge, I., Klingemann, H.D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., & Tanenbaum, E. (2001). Mapping policy preferences. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Cox, G.W. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives under alternative voting institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 903-935.
9. Cox, G.W. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world's electoral systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
11. Duverger, M. (1954). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state (B. North & R. North, Trans). New York: John Wiley.
12. Gabel, M.J., & Huber, J.D. (2000). Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left-right ideological positions from manifestos data. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 94-103.
13. Golder, S.N. (2006). The logic of pre-electoral coalition formation. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
14. Golder, M., & Stramski, J. (2007, August). Ideological congruence and two visions of democracy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
15. Grofman, B. (2004). Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 25-46.
16. Huber, J.D., & Powell, G.B. (1994). Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics, 46, 291-326.
17. Keman, H. (2007). Experts and manifestos: Different sources-Same results for comparative research? Electoral Studies, 26, 76-89.
18. Kim, H.M., & Fording, R.C. (1998). Voter ideology in Western democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 33, 73-97.
19. Kim, H.M., & Fording, R.C. (2002). Government partisanship in Western democracies, 1945-1998. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 187-206.
20. Kim, H.M., & Fording, R.C. (2003). Voter ideology in Western democracies: An update. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 95-105.
21. Kitschelt, H. (1989). The internal politics of parties. Political Studies, 37, 400-421.
22. Kitschelt, H. (1994). The transformation of European social democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Klingemann, H-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J., Budge, I., & McDonald, M. (2006). Mapping policy preferences II. New York: Oxford University Press.
24. Laver, M., & Budge, I. (Eds.). (1993). Party policy and coalition government in Western Europe. New York: Macmillan.
25. Laver, M., & Schofield, N. (1990). Multiparty government: The politics of coalition in Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26. Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27. Martin, L., & Stevenson, R. (2001). Government formation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 33-50.
28. May, J.D. (1973). Opinion structure of political parties: The special law of curvilinear disparity. Political Studies, 21, 136-151.
29. McDonald, M.D., & Budge, I. (2005). Elections, parties, democracy: Conferring the median mandate. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. McDonald, M.D., Mendes, S., & Budge, I. (2004). What are elections for? Conferring the median mandate. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 1-26.
31. McDonald, M.D., Mendes, S., & Kim, M. (2006). Cross-temporal and cross-national comparisons of party left-right positions. Electoral Studies, 26, 62-75.
32. Merrill, S., Grofman, B., & Adams, J. (2001). Assimilation and contrast effects in voter projections of party locations: Evidence from Norway, France and the USA. European Journal of Political Research, 40, 199-221.
33. Norris, P. (1995). May's Law of curvilinear disparity revisited. Party Politics, 1, 29-47.
34. Pinto-Duschinsky, M. (1999, September 25). Send the rascals packing: Defects of proportional representation and the virtues of the Westminster model. Times Literary Supplement, pp. 10-12.
35. Pinto-Duschinsky, M., Powell, G.B., Lijphart, A., Vowles, J., & Shugart, M.S. (1999). Send the rascals packing! Representation, 36, 117-155.
36. Powell, G.B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37. Powell, G.B. (2006). Election laws and representative government. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 291-315.
38. Powell, G.B., & Vanberg, G. (2000). Election laws, disproportionality and the left-right dimension. British Journal of Political Science, 30, 383-411.
39. Rae, D. (1967). The political consequences of electoral laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.