Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:48:48.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turnover and Tenure in the Canadian House of Commons, 1867–1968*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Thomas W. Casstevens  and
William A. Denham III
Thomas W. Casstevens
Affiliation:
Oakland UniversityRochester, Michigan
William A. Denham III
Affiliation:
Oakland UniversityRochester, Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article presents a theoretical analysis of the turnover and tenure of the members of the Canadian House of Commons from 1867 through 1968. Previous studies of such turnover and tenure have been quantitative, but not theoretical, yielding precise measurements but no pattern. A statistical résumé is no substitute for a mathematical model. Both may be accurate, parsimonious, and elegant; but a mathematical theory is distinguished by its generality and its explanatory or predictive power. With the present model, for example, the members’ median and mean continuous service can be logically derived from the mathematical theory; but the converse is not true, that is, the mathematical theory cannot be deduced from the median and/or mean continuous service. Specifically, the theory implies that the median continuous service is approximately 0.693 times the mean continuous service. Despite a plethora of quantitative studies of legislative turnover and tenure, this equation (so far as we know) has not previously been discovered.

The process to be modeled can be abstractly characterized as follows: Consider the members of the House of Commons after some particular (zero) general election. These legislators are called the original members, for expository convenience. With the occurrence of deaths, resignations, political defeats, etc., only some of the original members will continue to be members of the House of Commons after the next (first) general election. These survivors are called the re-elected members.

Type
Notes de Recherche/Research Notes
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 1970 , pp. 655 - 661
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ward, Norman, The Canadian House of Commons: Representation (Toronto, 1950).Google Scholar

2 Since immediate re-election is legally proscribed for members of some legislative bodies, the present models do not encompass all legislative bodies. Professor Edward Heubel called the Mexican and other exceptional Latin American cases to our attention.

3 For an excellent presentation of the mathematics of the model and a discussion of the approximations involved in fitting discrete phenomena with a continuous model, see Stein, Sherman K., Calculus in the First First Three Dimensions (New York, 1967), 233–40.Google Scholar

4 A convenient formula for the relevant calculation is c = (AΣT 1 – ΣZ 1T 1)/ΣT 12 where A = natural logarithm of original membership, T 1, = the point in time of each observation, and Z 1 = natural logarithm of the observed members at the associated time T 1.

5 Sum the squares of the differences between the theoretically and empirically given logarithms and then divide that sum by the number of non-fixed but defined points. (The initial point, log M o, is fixed, and if zero is the last observed datum, log 0 is not defined.)

6 This algorithm aims to fit the logarithms of the observed values rather than the observed values themselves. Since the logarithms of natural numbers grow less rapidly than do natural numbers, this routine tends to emphasize or weight relatively small observed values. Alternative algorithms might be used, of course, but any reasonable routine will confirm the existence of an exponential pattern.

7 The following sources were used to ascertain the membership of the House of Commons since 1867: for Parliaments 1 to 7, Coté, N. Omer, Political Appointments, Parliaments, and the Judicial Bench in the Dominion of Canada, 1867–1895 (Ottawa, 1896), 181–275Google Scholar; for Parliaments 8 and 9, Coté, N. Omer, Political Appointments, Parliaments, and the Judicial Bench in the Dominion of Canada, 1896–1917 (Ottawa, 1918), 129–45Google Scholar; for Parliaments 10 to 12, Can. H. of C. Debates, relevant years; for Parliaments 13 to 28, Pierre G, Normandin, ed., Canadian Parliamentary Guide, relevant years as close to election date as possible. We are indebted to Mr Keith Ward, government documents librarian, University of Windsor, for facilitating our access to these sources.

8 Parliamentary Representation (London, 1948); see the graph on p. 36.

9 With the obvious exception of the first few Parliaments.

10 Murz, Lawrence C., “A Theory of Legislative Decay: The British Parliament, 1922–1970,” Oakland University, Department of Political Science, Senior Honors Paper, 1970.Google Scholar