Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:57:21.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Election Reform on Legislator Perceptions: The Case of Taiwan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2012

TIMOTHY S. RICH
TIMOTHY S. RICH*
Affiliation:
Indiana [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mixed member legislative systems have proliferated in the last twenty years, and while our knowledge of the institutional impacts has grown, we have had difficulty in separating institutional and contextual (namely party) influences. Through an analysis of Taiwan before and after the implementation of a mixed member majoritarian (MMM) system, the level of contamination between tiers and variance between parties becomes clearer. Survey results show a marked shift in constituency focus for district candidates, moving from multimember to single-member districts, while party list seats focus on district factors at higher rates post-reform. Variance between the two major parties further suggests differing levels of party pressure.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 317 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Bawn, Kathleen and Thies, Michael F. (2003), ‘A Comparative Theory of Electoral Incentives: Representing the Unorganized Under PR, Plurality, and Mixed-Member Electoral Systems’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15 (1): 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batto, Nathan (2008), ‘Strategic Defection from Strong Candidates in the 2004 Legislative Election’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 9 (1): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun and Farrell, David M. (1993), ‘Legislator Shirking and Voter Monitoring: Impacts of European Parliament Electoral System upon Legislator-Voter Relationships’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 31 (1): 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris (1987), The Personal Vote. Constituency Service and Electoral Independence, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto and Abal Medina, Juan Manuel (2002), ‘Institutional Gamblers: Majoritarian Representation, Electoral Uncertainty, and The Coalitional Costs of Mexico's Hybrid Electoral System’, Electoral Studies, 21: 453–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M. (2007), ‘Competing Principals, Political Instututions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting’, American Journal of Political Science, 51 (1): 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John and Hix, Simon (2009), ‘The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems’, Unpublished paper. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Carey_Hix-Electoral_Sweet_Spot-19June09.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. (1997), Marking Votes Count: Strategic Co-ordination in the World's Electoral Systems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and Rosenbluth, Frances (1993), ‘The Electoral Fortunes of Legislative Factions in Japan’, American Political Science Review, 87: 577–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Karen E. and Schoppa, Leonard J. (2002), ‘Interaction Effects in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems’, Comparative Political Studies, 35 (9): 1027–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Anieri, Paul (2007), Understanding Ukrainian Politics: Power, Politics, and Institutional Design, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice (1954), Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, London: Methuen & Company.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. (1973), Congressmen in Committees, Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Federico (2004), ‘Electoral Coordination and the Strategic Desertion of Strong Parties in Compensatory Mixed Systems with Negative Vote Transfers’, Electoral Studies, 23: 391–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Federico and Herron, Erik S. (2005), ‘Going it Alone? Strategic Entry Under Mixed Electoral Rules’, American Journal of Political Science, 49: 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Federico, Herron, Erik S., and Nishikawa, Misa (2005), Mixed Electoral Systems: Combination and its Consequences, New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris (1976), Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Golder, Sona Nadenichek (2006), ‘Pre-Electoral Coalition Formation in Parliamentary Democracies’, British Journal of Political Science, 36 (2): 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosolov, Grigoriy (2003), ‘Electoral Systems and Party Formation in Russia: A Cross-Regional Approach’, Comparative Political Studies, 36 (8): 912–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspel, Moshe, Remington, Thomas F. and Smith, Steven S. (1998), ‘Electoral Institutions and Party Cohesion in the Russian Duma’, Journal of Politics, 60 (2): 417–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitshusen, Valerie, Young, Garry, and Wood, David 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
Herron, Erik S. (2002), ‘Electoral Influences on Legislative Behavior in Mixed-Member Systems: Evidence from Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 27 (3): 361–82.Google Scholar
Herron, Erik S. and Nishikawa, Misa (2001), ‘Contamination Effects and the Number of Parties in Mixed Superposition Electoral Systems’, Electoral Studies, 20: 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon (2004), ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting Defection in the European Parliament’, World Politics, 56 (1): 194–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, David and Illonski, Gabriella (1995), ‘Member-Constituency Linkages in the Hungarian Parliament’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20 (2): 161–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Hae-won and Hix, Simon (2009), ‘Party Behaviour in the Parliamentary Arena: The Case of the Korean National Assmebly’, Party Politics, 15 (6): 667–94.Google Scholar
King, Gary (1990), ‘Electoral Responsiveness and Partisan Bias in Multiparty Democracies’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15 (2): 159–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter and Wessels, Bernhard (2001), ‘The Political Consequences of Germany's Mixed-Member System: Personalization at the Grass-Roots?’, in Soberg Shugart, Matthew and Wattenberg, Martin P. (eds.), Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 279–96.Google Scholar
Kunicova, Jana and Remington, Thomas F. (2008), ‘Mandates, Parties, and Dissent: Effect of Electoral Rules on Parliamentary Party Cohesion in the Russian State Duma, 1994–2003’, Party Politics, 14 (5): 555–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, Thomas D. and Patterson, W. David (1990), ‘Comparative Pork Barrel Politics: Perceptions from the West German Bundestag’, Comparative Political Studies, 22 (4): 458–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. (1974), Congress: The Electoral Connection, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Moser, Robert G. and Scheiner, Ethan (2005), ‘Strategic Ticket Splitting and the Personal Vote in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30: 259–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekkanen, Robert, Nyblade, Benjamin, and Krauss, Ellis S. (2006), ‘Electoral Incentives in Mixed-Member Systems: Party, Posts, and Zombie Politicians in Japan’, American Political Science Review, 100 (2): 183–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel (1967), The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, Steven R. (1999), ‘Strategic Voting in the 1996 Japanese General Election’, Comparative Political Studies, 32 (2): 257–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rokkan, Stein (1970), Citizens, Elections, Parties, Oslo: Universiteteforlaget.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew S. (2008), ‘Comparative Electoral System Research: The Maturation of a Field and New Challenges Ahead’, in Gallagher, Michael and Mitchell, Paul (eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–55.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew and Wattenberg, Martin P. (eds.) (2001), Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven S. and Remington, Thomas F. (2001), The Politics of Institutional Choice: Formation of the Russian State Duma, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockton, Hans. (2010), ‘How Rules Matter: Electoral Reform in Taiwan’, Social Science Quarterly, 91 (1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas and Baur, Martin (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): 506–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taagepera, Rein and Shugart, Matthew (1989), Seats and Votes, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thames, Frank (2001), ‘Legislative Voting Behavior in the Russian Duma: Understanding the Effect of Mandate’, Europe–Asia Studies, 53 (6): 869–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thames, Frank (2005), ‘A House Divided: Party Strength and the Mandate Divide in Hungary, Russia, and Ukraine’, Comparative Political Studies, 38 (3): 282–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Chia-hung (2005), ‘Policy Making, Local Factions and Candidate Coordination in SNTV: A Case Study in Taiwan’, Party Politics, 11 (1): 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Leigh J. (1998), ‘Second Class MPs? New Zealand's Adaptation to Mixed-Member Parliamentary Representation’, Political Science, 49: 125–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry, Shepsle, Kenneth, and Johnsen, Christopher (1981), ‘The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics’, Journal of Political Economy, 89: 642–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar