Why can voters anticipate post-election coalition formation likelihoods?

Electoral Studies

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 308-315

  Armstrong, David A ^a   Duch, Raymond M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^b NUFFIELD COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Coalition governments; Government formation; Spatial voting; Strategic voting; Voting behaviour

Indexed keywords

ELECTION; ELECTORAL GEOGRAPHY; GOVERNMENT; PARTY POLITICS; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

EID: 77954638266     PISSN: 02613794     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2010.03.007     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Adams J., Bishin B.G., Dow J.K. Representation in congressional campaigns: evidence for discounting/directional voting in U.S. senate elections. Journal of Politics 2004, 66:348-373.
2. Adams J., Clark M., Ezrow L., Glasgow G. Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?. British Journal of Political Science 2004, 34:589-610.
3. Adams J., Merrill S., Grofman B. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: a Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioural Factors 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. Alesina A., Rosenthal H. Partisan Politics, Divided Government and the Economy 1995, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
5. Austen-Smith D., Banks J. Elections, coalitions and legislative outcomes. American Political Science Review 1988, 82:405-422.
6. Bargsted M., Kedar O. Coalition-targeted Duvergerian voting: how expectations affect voter choice under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science 2009, 53:307-323.
7. Blais A., Blake D., Dion S. Do Parties make a difference? Parties and the size of government in liberal democracies. American Journal of Political Science 1993, 37:40-62.
8. Blais A., Nadeau R., Gidengil E., Nevitte N. Measuring strategic voting in multiparty plurality elections. Electoral Studies 2001, 20:343-352.
9. Budge I., Robertson D. Do parties differ, and how? comparative discriminant and factor analyses. Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-War Election Programmes in 19 Democracies 1987, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. I. Budge, D. Robertson, D. Hearl (Eds.).
10. Budge I., Klingemann H.-D., Volkens A., Bara J., Tanenabarn E. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments, 1945-1998 2001, Oxford University Press, New York.
11. De Sinopoli F., Iannantuoni G. A spatial voting model where proportional rule leads to two-party equilibria. International Journal of Game Theory 2007, 35:267-287.
12. Downs A. An Economic Theory of Democracy 1957, Harper and Row, New York.
13. Duch, R.M., May J., Armstrong D.A. II, 2010. A Strategic Ideological Vote. Unpublished Manuscript.
14. Duch R.M., Stevenson R. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results 2008, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15. Enelow J.M., Hinich M.J. A test of the predictive dimensions model in spatial voting theory. Public Choice 1994, 78:155-169.
16. Huber J., Inglehart R. Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics 1995, 1:73-111.
17. Indridason, I.H., 2007. Modeling Proportional Representation in Majoritarian Legislatures. Unpublished Manuscript.
18. Inglehart R., Klingemann H.-D. Party identification, ideological preference and the left-right dimension among Western mass publics. Party Identification and Beyond: Representations of Voting and Party Competition 1976, John Wiley, Chapter.
19. Irwin, G.A., van Holsteyn, J.J.M., 2003. They Say it Can't be Done? Strategic Voting in Multi-Party Proportional Systems: The Case of The Netherlands. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
20. Kedar O. When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review 2005, 99(2):185-199.
21. Kedar, O., 2006. Policy Balancing in Presidential Elections: the Effect of Presidential Powers. Unpublished Manuscript.
22. Kedar O. Voting for Policy, Not Parties: How Voter Compensate for Power Sharing 2009, Cambridge University Press.
23. Klingemann H.-D., Volkens A., Bara J., Budge I. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe and OECD 1990-2003 2007, Oxford UniversityPress.
24. Knutsen O. Expert judgements of the left-right location of political parties: a comparative longitudinal study. West European Politics 1998, 21:63-94.
25. Laasko M., Taagepara R. Effective number of parties: a measure with applications to Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 1979, 12:3-27.
26. Laver M., Budge I. The policy basis of government coalitions: a comparative investigation. British Journal of Political Science 1993, 23:499-519.
27. Meffert M.F., Gschwend T. Strategic coalition voting: evidence from Austria. Electoral Studies 2010, 29.
28. Merrill S., Groffman B. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models 1999, Cambridge UniversityPress.
29. Ortuno-Ortin I. A spatial model of political competition and proportional representation. Social Choice and Welfare 1997, 14:427-438.
30. Persson T., Tabellini G. Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy 2000, MIT Press, Cambridge.
31. Poole K.T., Rosenthal H. Congress: a Political-Economic History of Roll-Cal l Voting 1997, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
32. Powell G.B. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions 2000, Yale UniversityPress.
33. Schofield N., Laver M. Bargain theory and portfolio payoffs in European coalition governments 1945-83. British Journal of Political Science 1985, 15:143-164.
34. Warwick P. Ideological diversity and government survival in western European parliamentary democracies. Comparative Political Studies 1992, 25:332-361.
35. Warwick P. Do policy horizons structure the formation of parliamentary governments: the evidence from an expert survey. American Journal of Political Science 2005, 49:373-387.
36. Westholm A. Distance versus direction: the illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review 1997, 91(4):865-885.