Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:27:05.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Mixed-member Districts on Legislators' Behavior: The Case of Bolivia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Margarita Corral ,
Francisco Sánchez  and
Cristina Rivas Pérez
Margarita Corral
Affiliation:
Brandeis University. [email protected]
Francisco Sánchez
Affiliation:
Universidad de Salamanca. [email protected]
Cristina Rivas Pérez
Affiliation:
Universidad de Salamanca. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many studies suggest that mixed-member electoral systems produce different attitudes and behaviors among representatives. This article assesses how this type of electoral system shapes Bolivian legislators' perceptions of their roles as representatives, their district activities, and their relationships with their political parties. It examines these dimensions using elite survey data and interviews with legislators and their personal assistants. The results show that the electoral system does not produce a uniform impact. It shapes how legislators perceive their role as representatives and the nature of the relationship they build with their political parties, but it does not produce differences in the kinds of activities that both types of legislators carry out in their districts.

Type
Research
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , Spring 2016 , pp. 29 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2016

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

Alcántara, Manuel. 2013. Sistemas políticos de América Latina. Vol. 1. Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
Araníbar, Antonio. 2009. Bolivia: de la crisis y la inflexión a la gestión del cambio. In Crisis y cambio en América Latina, ed. UNDP. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI. 117–49.Google Scholar
Ardaya, Gloria. 2003. Diputados uninominales. Otra forma de representación. La Paz: ILDIS.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Blanes Jiménez, José. 2012. El territorio y las instituciones democráticas: gobernabilidad local en Bolivia. In Dinámica política-económica de los países andinos, ed. Murakami, Y.. Lima: CIAS-IEP. 175–206.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., and Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 1995. Incentive to Cultivate a Personal Vote: a Rank-Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14, 4: 417–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centellas, Miguel. 2009. Electoral Reform, Regional Cleavages, and Party System Stability. Journal of Politics in Latin America 1, 2: 115–31.Google Scholar
Colomer, Josep M., and Negretto, Gabriel L.. 2005. Can Presidentialism Work like Parliamentarism? Government and Opposition 40, 1: 60–89.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Karen, and Schoppa, Len. 2002. Interaction Effects and Mixed-Member Systems: Theory and Evidence from Germany, Japan, and Italy. Comparative Political Studies 35, 9: 1027–53.Google Scholar
Crisp, Brian. 2007. Incentives in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: General Election Laws, Candidate Selection Procedures, and Cameral Rules. Comparative Political Studies 40, 12: 1460–85.Google Scholar
Domingo, Pilar. 2005. Democracy and New Social Forces in Bolivia. Social Forces 83, 4: 1727–43.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice., 1950. L'influence des systèmes électoraux sur la vie politique. Cahiers de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques 16. Paris: Armand Colin. 177.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. Trans. Barbara and Robert North. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. F. Jr. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Federico, Herron, Erik S., and Nishikawa, Misa. 2005. Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifi, Albert. 1990. Nonlinear Multivariate Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Haro González, Ana. 2011. Bolivia: las elecciones de 2009. Tomando posiciones para el desarrollo de la Constitución. In América Latina: política y elecciones del bicentenario (2009–2010), ed. Alcántara, Manuel and Laura Tagina, María. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales (CEPC). 241–77.Google 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.Google Scholar
Heitshusen, Valerie, Young, Garry, and Wood, David. 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.Google Scholar
Herron, Erik. 2002a. Electoral Influences on Legislative Behavior in Mixed-Member Systems: Evidence from the Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada. Legislative Studies Quarterly 27, 3: 361–81.Google Scholar
Herron, Erik. 2002b. Mixed Electoral Rules and Party Strategies: Responses to Incentives by Ukraine's Rukh and Russia's Yabloko. Party Politics 8, 6: 719–33.Google Scholar
Herron, Erik, and Nishikawa, Misa. 2001. Contamination Effects and the Number of Parties in Mixed Superposition Electoral Systems. Electoral Studies 20, 1: 63–86.Google Scholar
Kerevel, Yann. 2010. The Legislative Consequences of Mexico's Mixed-Member Electoral System, 2000–2009. Electoral Studies 29, 4: 691–703.Google Scholar
Lancaster, Thomas, and Patterson, David W.. 1990. Comparative Pork Barrel Politics: Perceptions from the West German Bundestag. Comparative Political Studies 22, 4: 458–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarte, Jorge. 2008. Bolivia: la fractura histórica de las elecciones de diciembre 2005. In Elecciones y política en América Latina, ed. Alcántara, Manuel y García, Fátima. Madrid: CEPC-Fundación. 75–102.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. R., 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayorga, Rene Antonio. 2001a. Electoral Reform in Bolivia: Origins of the Mixed-Member Proportional System. In Shugart and Wattenberg 2001. 194–208.Google Scholar
Mayorga, Rene Antonio,. 2001b. The Mixed-Member Proportional System and Its Consequences in Bolivia. In Shugart and Wattenberg 2001. 432–42.Google Scholar
Moser, Robert. 2001. Unexpected Outcomes: Electoral Systems, Political Parties, and Representation in Russia. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Moser, Robert G., and Scheiner, Ethan. 2004. Mixed Electoral Systems and Electoral System Effects: Controlled Comparison and Cross-National Analysis. Electoral Studies 23, 4: 575–99.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1997. Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian, and Mixed Systems. International Political Science Review 18, 3: 297–312.Google Scholar
North, Douglass C. 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 1: 97–112.Google Scholar
Parliamentary Elites of Latin America (PELA). 2010. Elite Surveys. Project Salamanca. Dir. Manuel Alcántara Sáez. Salamanca: University of Salamanca. http://americo.usal.es/oir/elites Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas. 1971. Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz, Leticia. 2012. La actividad de los diputados en sus circunscripciones (actividad distrital): el papel de los partidos políticos. Lima: JNE-Perú.Google Scholar
Searing, Donald. 1985. The Role of the Good Constituency Member and the Practice of Representation in Great Britain. Journal of Politics 47, 2: 348–81.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Soberg, and Wattenberg, Martin, eds. 2001. Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Soberg, Valdini, Melody E., and Suominen, Kati. 2005. Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under Proportional Representation. American Journal of Political Science 49, 2: 437–49.Google Scholar
Smith, Steven, and Remington, Thomas. 2001. The Politics of Institutional Choice: The Formation of the Russian State Duma. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google 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.Google Scholar
Studlar, Donley, and McAllister, Ian. 1996. Constituency Activity and Representational Roles among Australian Legislators. Journal of Politics 58, 1: 69–90.Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Vallés, Josep, and Bosch, Agusti. 1997. Sistemas electorales y gobierno representativo. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Vergara, Alberto. 2011. United by Discord, Divided by Consensus: National and Subnational Articulation in Bolivia and Peru, 2000–2010. Journal of Politics in Latin America 3, 3: 65–93.Google Scholar
Los vínculos entre electores y partidos: la actividad distrital de los diputados de Chile, 2011. Perú y Bolivia. Research project. CSO2011-24344. Dir. Leticia M. Rodríguez Ruiz. Madrid: Complutense University.Google Scholar