Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T02:41:32.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-election: Different Skills for Different Roles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2013

Osnat Akirav
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The current research examines the ability of legislators to be re-elected through fulfilling their three roles: legislation, oversight and representation. This study also re-examines Mayhew's claim (1974) that most legislators are motivated by a desire to be re-elected, and that this desire drives their legislative activity through its utility in advertising, credit claiming and position taking. We argue that the skills required for selection and re-election are different from those required for enacting legislation. Thus, we distinguish between two types of legislators – those who are electable and those who are successful in the legislature.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 90 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2013.

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.)

Footnotes

*

Osnat Akirav is a Lecturer at Western Galilee College, Israel. Contact email: [email protected].

References

Adams, J. Merrill, S. III (2008), ‘Candidate and Party Strategies in Two-stage Elections Beginning with a Primary’, American Journal of Political Science, 52(2): 344–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akirav, O. (2010), ‘Candidate Selection and a Crowded Parliament: The Israeli Knesset 1988–2006’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 16(1): 96–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akirav, O. (2011), ‘The Use of Parliamentary Questions in the Israeli Parliament, 1992–1996’, Israel Affairs, 17(2): 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, J.H. (1995), Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, D. Chasquetti, D. (2005), ‘Re-Election and Political Career Path in the Uruguayan Congress, 1985–99’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(2): 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, W., Box-Steffensmeier, J. Sinclair-Chapman, V. (2003), ‘The Key of Legislative Success in the U.S. House of Representatives’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28(3): 357–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, S., Brady, D. Fiorina, M. (1992), ‘The Vanishing Marginals and Electoral Responsiveness’, British Journal of Political Science, 22(1): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arian, A. (1994), ‘Incumbency in Israel's Knesset’, in A. Somit, R. Wildenmann, B. Boll and A. Rommele (eds), The Victorious Incumbent: A Threat to Democracy? (Dartmouth: Dartmouth Publishing): 71–102.Google Scholar
Arnold, D.R. (1990), The Logic of Congressional Action (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Atkinson, M.M. Docherty, D.C. (2004), ‘Parliament and Political Success in Canada’, in M. Whittington and G. Williams (eds), Canadian Politics in the 21st Century (Toronto: Nelson Educational): 5–29.Google Scholar
Banks, J.S. Sundaram, R.K. (1998), ‘Optimal Retention in Agency Problem’, Journal of Economic Theory, 82: 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, W.D., Berkman, M.B. Schneiderman, S. (2000), ‘Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries’, American Political Science Review, 94(4): 859–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Beyme, K. (2000), Parliamentary Democracy: Democratization, Destabilization, Reconsolidation, 1789–1999 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S. Farrell, D. (1993), ‘Legislator Shirking and Voter Monitoring: Impacts of European Parliament Electoral Systems upon Legislator/Voter Relationships’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(1): 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., de Boef, S. Lin, T.M. (2004), ‘The Dynamics of Partisan Gender Gap’, American Political Science Review, 98(3): 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, D.W., Fiorina, M.F. Wilkins, A.S. (2011), ‘The 2010 Election: Why Did Political Science Forecasts Go Away?’, Political Science and Politics, 44: 247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, B.C. (2001), ‘The Polarizing Effects of Congressional Primaries’, in P.F. Galderisi, M. Erza and M. Lyons (eds), Congressional Primaries and the Politics of Representation (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield): 95–115.Google Scholar
Cain, B., Ferejohn, J. Fiorina, M. (1987), The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J.E. (1982), ‘Cosponsoring Legislation in the U.S. Congress’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 7(3): 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, J.M. Shugart, M.S. (1995), ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas’, Electoral Studies, 14(4): 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, S. (2008), Women and British Party Politics: Descriptive, Substantive and Symbolic Representation (London: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, J.D. Lapinski, J.S. (2006), ‘Measuring Legislative Accomplishment, 1877–1994’, American Journal of Political Science, 50(1): 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, M. (1999), ‘Accountability and Quasi-Government: The Role of Parliamentary Question’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 5(1): 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collie, M. (1981), ‘Incumbency, Electoral Safety, and Turnover in the House of Representatives, 1952–1976’, American Political Science Review, 75: 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T.E. (1986), ‘House Members as Newsmakers: The Effects of Televising Congress’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 11(2): 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T.E. (1996), ‘Afterword: Political Values and Production Values’, Political Communication, 13: 469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, G.W. Patterson, S.C. (1994) (eds), Parliaments in the Modern World: Changing Institutions (Madison: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, A.D. (1977), ‘One Good Term Deserves Another: The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Election’, American Journal of Political Science, 21: 523–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G.W. McCubbins, M.D. (2005), Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, R. (1971), ‘The Impact of the Local Candidate in Canadian Federal Election’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 4: 287–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, C. Elgie, R. (2008), ‘The Effect of Increased Women's Representation in Parliament: The Case of Rwanda’, Parliamentary Affairs, 61(2): 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doron, G. (2011), ‘Electro-Fabrica: The Information Revolution and its Consequences on the Political Sphere’, in E. Cohen and A. Lev-On (eds), Connected: Politics and Technology in Israel (Tel-Aviv: Israeli Political Science Association): 19–37.Google Scholar
Dror, Y. (2011), Be our Leader (Jerusalem: Miskal – Yedioth Ahronoth Books and Chemed Books).Google Scholar
Erikson, R.S. (1972), ‘Malapportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections’, American Political Science Review, 66: 1234–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, R.S. (1979), ‘Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data’, American Journal of Political Science, 22(3): 511–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, R.F. (1973), Congressmen in Committees (Boston, MA: Little, Brown).Google Scholar
Fenno, R.F. (1978), Home Style (Boston, MA: Little, Brown).Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J. (1986), ‘Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control’, Public Choice, 50: 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. (1974), Representative, Roll Call, and Constituencies (Boston, MA: D.C. Heath).Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. (1989), Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, 2nd edn (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. (2001), ‘Keystone Reconsidered’, in L. Dodd and B. Oppenheimer (eds), Congress Reconsidered, 7th edn (Washington, DC: CQ Press): 141–162.Google Scholar
Foot, K.A. Schneider, S.M. (2006), Web Campaigning (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, M. Norton, P. (1993) (eds), Parliamentary Questions (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Frantzich, S. (1979), ‘Who Makes our Laws? The Legislative Effectiveness of Members of the U.S. Congress’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 4: 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, B.J. (1998), ‘The Impersonal Vote? Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage in British Elections 1950–92’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(2): 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, M. (2005), ‘Conclusion’, in M. Gallagher and P. Mitchell (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 535–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, M. Marsh, M. (1988) (eds), Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics (London: Sage).Google Scholar
Gallagher, M. Mitchell, P. (2005), The Politics of Electoral Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garand, J.C. Burke, K.M. (2006), ‘Legislative Activity and the 1994 Republican Takeover: Exploring Changing Patterns of Sponsorship and Cosponsorship in the U.S. House’, American Politics Research, 34: 159–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R., Margolis, M., Resnick, D. Ward, S. (2003), ‘Election Campaigning on the WWW in the USA and UK: A Comparative Analysis’, Party Politics, 9(1): 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gladdish, K. (1990), ‘Parliamentary Activism and Legitimacy in the Netherlands’, West European Politics, 13: 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, J.T. Rudolph, J.R. (2004), ‘The Job of Representation in Congress: Public Expectations and Representatives Approval’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29(3): 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J.D. (2006), ‘Electoral Competitiveness and Democratic Responsiveness: A Defense of the Marginality Hypothesis’, Journal of Politics, 68(4): 911–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, J., Messing, S. Westwood, S.J. (2012), ‘How Words and Money Cultivate a Personal Vote: The Effect of Legislator Credit Claiming on Constituent Credit Allocation’, American Political Science Review, 106(4): 703–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, T. (2001), ‘A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate Has a Valence Advantage’, American Journal of Political Science, 45(4): 862–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R.L. (1996), Participation in Congress (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Hall, T.E. (2002), ‘Live Bureaucrats and Dead Public Servants: How People in Government Are Discussed on the Floor of the House’, Public Administration Review, 62(2): 242–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamm, K.E., Harmel, R. Thompson, R. (1983), ‘Ethnic and Partisan Minorities in Two South State Legislatures’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 8: 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, J. (2004), ‘Parliament and the French Government's Domination of the Legislative Process’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 10(2–3): 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, R.Y. (1999), ‘Constituency Interests without Constituencies: The Geographical Impact of Candidate Selection on Party Organization and Legislative Behavior in the 14th Israel Knesset, 1996–99’, Political Geography, 18: 791–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, R.Y. (2001), Reforming Parliamentary Committees: Israel in Comparative Perspective (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).Google Scholar
Hazan, R.Y. Rahat, G. (2010), Democracy within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and their Political Consequences (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitshusen, V., Young, G. Wood, D.M. (2005), ‘Electoral Context and MP Constituency Focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom’, American Journal of Political Science, 49(1): 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, J. (1991), Congressional Careers: Contours of Life in the U.S. House of Representatives (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press).Google Scholar
Howell, W., Alder, S., Cameron, C. Riemann, C. (2000), ‘Divided Government and Legislative Productivity of Congress, 1945–94’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(2): 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N. (2003), ‘MPs and Web Technologies: An Untapped Opportunity’, Journal of Public Affairs, 3(2): 124–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, G.C. (1996), ‘The 1994 House Election in Perspective’, Political Science Quarterly, 111(2): 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D.R. (2003), ‘Position Taking and Position Avoidance in the U.S. House Senate’, Journal of Politics, 65(3): 851–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R.S. (2001), ‘The Problem of Candidate Selection and Models of Party Democracy’, Party Politics, 7(3): 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G. (1991), ‘Constituency Service and the Incumbency Advantage’, British Journal of Political Science, 21: 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasa, S. Polborn, M. (2010), ‘Competition between Specialized Candidates’, American Political Science Review, 104(4): 745–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashinsky, M. Milne, W.J. (1986), ‘The Effect of Incumbency on the 1984 Federal and 1985 Ontario Elections’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 19: 337–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasno, J.S. (1994), Challengers, Competition, and Reelection: Comparing Senate and House Election (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Lancaster, T. (1986), ‘Electoral Structures and Pork Barrel Politics’, International Political Science Review, 7(1): 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, T. Petterson, D. (1990), ‘Comparative Pork Barrel Politics: Perceptions from the West German Bundestag’, Comparative Political Studies, 22(4): 458–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, M. Shepsle, K.A. (1996), Making and Breaking Governments: Cabinets and Legislatures in Parliamentary Democracies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leston-Bandeira, C. (2012), ‘Towards a Trustee Model? Parliamentary Representation in the Internet Era: The Portuguese Case’, Parliamentary Affairs, 65(2): 425–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lott, J.R. Jr (1987), ‘Political Cheating’, Public Choice, 52: 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lott, J.R. Jr Bronars, S.G. (1993), ‘Time Series Evidence on Shirking in the U.S. House of Representatives’, Public Choice, 74: 461–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luttbeg, N.R. (1992), ‘The Validity and Electoral Impact of Media Estimations of “Best” and “Worst” State Legislators’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17: 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, M.D. Schwartz, T. (1984), ‘Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms’, American Journal of Political Science, 28: 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltzman, F. Sigelman, L. (1996), ‘The Politics of Talk: Unconstrained Floor Time in the US House of Representatives’, Journal of Politics, 58: 819–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H. Marsh, D. (2002), ‘Tories in the Killing Fields? The Fate of Private Members’ Bills in the 1997–2001 Parliament’, Journal of Legislature Studies, 8(1): 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, M. (2007), ‘Candidates or Parties? Objects of Electoral Choice in Ireland’, Party Politics, 13(4): 500–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matland, R.E. Studlar, D.T. (2004), ‘Determinants of Legislative Turnover: A Cross-National Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, 34: 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D.R. (1974), Congress: The Electoral Connection (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Mayhew, D.R. (1991), Divided we Govern (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Mayhew, D.R. (2000), America's Congress (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Mazzoleni, G. Schulz, W. (1999), ‘“Mediatization” of Politics: A Challenge for Democracy?’, Political Communication, 16(3): 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miquel, G.P. Snyder, J.M. Jr (2006), ‘Legislative Effectiveness and Legislative Careers’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 31(3): 347–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M.K. Thomas, S. (1991), ‘Explaining Legislative Success in the U.S. Senate: The Role of the Majority and Minority Parties’, Western Political Quarterly, 44: 959–970.Google Scholar
Morris, J.S. (2001), ‘Reexamining the Politics of Talk: Partisan Rhetoric in the 104th House’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(1): 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrander, B. (1989), ‘Ideological Representativeness of Presidential Primary Voters’, American Journal of Political Science, 33: 570–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (2001), ‘The Twilight of Westminister? Electoral Reform and its Consequences’, Political Studies, 49: 877–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, P. Wood, D.M. (1990), ‘Constituency Service by Members of Parliament: Does it Contribute to a Personal Vote?’, Parliamentary Affairs, 43: 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D.M. (1994), Democratic Legislative Institutions (New York: M.E. Sharpe).Google Scholar
Ornstein, N.J. (1983), ‘The Open Congress Meets the President’, in A. King (ed.), Both Ends of the Avenue (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute): 185–211.Google Scholar
Parker, G.R. (1986), Homeward Bound: Explaining Changes in Congressional Behavior (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press).Google Scholar
Patterson, S.C. (1961), ‘The Role of the Deviant in the State Legislative System: The Wisconsin Assembly’, Western Political Quarterly, 14(3): 460–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, E., Blidook, K. Soroka, S. (2006), ‘Legislative Priorities and Public Opinion: Representation of Partisan Agendas in the Canadian House of Commons’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13(7): 1006–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennings, P. Hazan, R.Y. (2001), ‘Democratizing Candidate Selection’, Party Politics, 7(3): 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, T. Tabellini, G. (2000), Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
Polletta, F. (1998), ‘Legacies and Liabilities of an Insurgent Past’, Social Science History, 22(4): 479–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, K.T. Rosenthal, H. (1997), Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Prior, M. (2006), ‘The Incumbent in the Living Room: The Rise of Television and the Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House Elections’, Journal of Politics, 68: 657–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranney, A. (1983), Channels of Power: The Impact of Television on American Politics (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
Rasch, E.B. (1994), ‘Question Time in the Norwegian Storting’, in M. Wiberg (ed.), Parliamentary Control in the Nordic Countries (Helsinki: Finnish Political Science Association): 247–275.Google Scholar
Rasch, E.B. (2000), ‘Parliamentary Floor Voting Procedure and Agenda Setting in Europe’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25: 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocca, M.S. (2007), ‘Nonlegislative Debate in the U.S House of Representatives’, American Politics Research, 35(4): 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocca, M.S. Gordon, S.B. (2010), ‘The Position-taking Value of Bill Sponsorship in Congress’, Political Research Quarterly, 63(2): 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothenberg, L.S. Sanders, M.S. (2000), ‘Serving the Electoral Connection: Shirking in the Contemporary Congress’, American Journal of Political Science, 44(2): 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothental, A. (1996), ‘State Legislative Development: Observations from Three Perspectives’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21: 169–198.Google Scholar
Saalfeld, T. (2011), ‘Parliamentary Questions as Instruments of Substantive Representation: Visible Minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005–2010’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(3): 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmond, R. (2006), ‘Proportional Representation and Female Parliamentarian’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 31(2): 175–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiller, W.J. (1995), ‘Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative Agenda’, American Journal of Political Science, 39: 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searing, D. (1993), ‘Roles, Rules and Rationality in the New Institutionalism’, American Political Science Review, 85: 1239–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheafer, T. (2001), ‘Charismatic Skill and Media Legitimacy: An Actor-Centered Approach to Understanding the Political Communication Competition’, Communication Research, 28: 711–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheafer, T. Tzionit, S. (2006), ‘Media-Political Skills, Candidate Selection Method and Electoral Success’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 12(2): 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheafer, T. Wolfsfeld, G. (2004), ‘Production Assets, News Opportunities, and Publicity for Legislators: A Study of Israeli Knesset Members’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29(4): 611–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, K.A. (1979), ‘Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models’, American Journal of Political Science, 23: 27–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shomer, Y. (2009), ‘Candidate Selection Procedures, Seniority, and Voting-seeking Behavior’, Comparative Political Studies, 42(7): 945–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, B. (1986), ‘Senate Styles and Senate Decision Making, 1955–1980’, Journal of Politics, 28: 877–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, S., Penner, E. Blidook, K. (2009), ‘Constituency Influence in Parliament’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 42(3): 563–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, P. (1988a), ‘Member Career Opportunities and the Internal Organization of Legislatures’, Journal of Politics, 50: 726–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, P. (1988b), ‘Who Gets National News Coverage in the U.S. Senate?’, American Politics Quarterly, 16: 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, W. (1979), ‘Measuring Constituency–Representation Linkages: Problems and Prospects’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 4(4): 623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, T. (2000), ‘Congressional Voting over Legislative Careers: Shifting Positions and Changing Constraints’, American Political Science Review, 94(3): 665–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, T. Baur, M. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulkin, T. (2009), ‘Campaign Appeals and Legislative Action’, Journal of Politics, 71(3): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, E. (1973), ‘The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems’, American Political Science Review, 67: 540–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wangnerud, L. (2009), ‘Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation’, Annual Review of Political Science, 12: 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, S. Lusoli, W. (2005), ‘“From Weird to Wired”: MPs, the Internet and Representative Politics in the UK’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, S., Gibson, R. Lusoli, W. (2008), ‘The United Kingdom: Parties and the 2005 Virtual Election Campaign – Not Quite Normal?’, in S. Ward, D. Owen, R. Davis and D. Taras (eds), Making a Difference: A Comparative View of the Role of the Internet in Election Politics (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books): 133–160.Google Scholar
Ward, S., Lusoli, W. Gibson, R. (2007), ‘Australian MPs and the Internet: Avoiding the Digital Age?’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(2): 210–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wawro, G. (2000), Legislative Entrepreneurship in the U.S. House of Representatives (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiberg, M. (1994), ‘To Keep the Government on its Toes: Behavioral Trends in Parliamentary Questioning in Finland, 1945–1990’, in M. Wiberg (ed.), Parliamentary Control in the Nordic Countries (Helsinki: Finnish Political Science Association): 103–200.Google Scholar
Wiberg, M. Koura, A. (1994), ‘The Logic of Parliamentary Questioning’, in M. Wiberg (ed.), Parliamentary Control in the Nordic Countries (Helsinki: Finnish Political Science Association): 19–43.Google Scholar
Williams, B. Gulati, G. (2008), ‘The Political Impact of Facebook: Evidence from the 2006 Midterm Elections and 2008 Nomination Contest’, Politics and Technology Review, 1: 11–21.Google Scholar
Williamson, A. (2009), MPs Online: Connecting with Constituents (London: Hansard Society).Google Scholar
Wittman, D. (1983), ‘Candidate Motivation: A Synthesis of Alternative Theories’, American Political Science Review, 77: 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D.M. Norton, P. (1992), ‘Do Candidates Matter? Constituency-Specific Vote Changes for Incumbent MPs, 1983–1987’, Political Studies, 42: 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xenos, M.A. Foot, K.A. (2005), ‘Politics as Usual or Politics Unusual? Position Taking and Dialogue on Campaign Web Sites in the 2002 U.S. Elections’, Journal of Communication, 55(1): 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zittel, T. (2008), ‘Parliaments and the Internet: A Perspective on the State of the Research’, in C. Leston-Banderia and S. Ward (eds), Parliaments in the Digital Age, Forum Discussion Paper 13 (Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute): 11–15.Google Scholar