Mixed-member electoral systems embrace two views of representation by electing some legislators in single-member district elections and others in a proportional representation election. This can potentially create a “mandate divide” in legislatures, because single-member district legislators have an incentive to embrace parochial issues and proportional representation legislators have an incentive to center on national issues. Previous studies of this question have only found limited evidence of its existence. The author argues that the level of party system institutionalization will fundamentally determine whether a mandate divide will exist in a mixed-member legislature. Using roll-call voting data from the Hungarian National Assembly, the Russian Duma, and the Ukrainian Rada, the author analyzes patterns of party discipline in each legislature. The empirical results show that a mandate divide only existed in the legislature with the most weakly institutionalized party system, the Russian Duma.
Agh, Attila. (1995). Partial consolidation of the east-central European parties: The case of the Hungarian Socialist party. Party Politics, 1, 491-514.
2.
Aldrich, John. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of party politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Bawn, Kathleen, and Thies, Michael. (2003). A comparative theory of electoral incentives: Representing the unorganized under PR, plurality, and mixed-member electoral systems. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15, 5-32.
4.
Bean, Clive. (1990). The personal vote in Australian federal elections. Political Studies, 38, 253-268.
5.
Bellin, Lauren, & Orttung, Robert (with Clem, Robert, & Craumer, Paul). (1997). The Russian parliamentary elections of 1995: The battle for the Duma. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
6.
Benoit, Kenneth. (2001). Evaluating Hungary’s mixed-member electoral system. In M. S. Shugart & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Mixed-member electoral systems (pp. 477-494). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
Bilous, Andre, & Wilson, Andrew. (1993). Political parties in Ukraine. Europe-Asia Studies, 45, 693-703.
8.
Birch, Sarah. (1998). Party system formation and voting behavior in the Ukrainian parliamentary elections of 1994. In T. Kuzio (Ed.), Contemporary Ukraine: Dynamics of post-Soviet transformation (pp. 139-160). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
9.
Birch, Sarah. (2000). Elections and democratization in Ukraine. New York: St. Martin’s.
10.
Bojcun, Marko. (1995). The Ukrainian parliamentary elections in March-April 1994. Europe-Asia Studies, 47, 229-249.
11.
Carey, J. (2000). Party unity in legislative voting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
12.
Carey, J. (2002). Parties, coalitions, and the Chilean Congress in the 1990s. In S. Morgenstern & B. Nacif (Eds.), Legislative politics in Latin America (pp. 222-253). New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Cox, Gary, & McCubbins, Matthew. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. Berkley: University of California Press.
14.
Craumer, P., & Clem, J. (1999). Ukraine’s emerging electoral geography: A regional analysis of the 1998 parliamentary elections. Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 40, 1-26.
15.
D’Anieri, Paul, Kravchuk, Robert, & Kuzio, Taras. (1999). Politics and society in Ukraine. Boulder, CO: Westview.
16.
Evans, Geoffrey, & Whitefield, Stephen. (1993). Identifying the bases of party competition in Eastern Europe. British Journal of Political Science, 23, 521-548.
17.
Fenno, Robert. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
18.
Fiorina, Morris. (1997). Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
Fish, M. Steven. (1995). Democracy from scratch. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
Gschwend, Thomas, Johnston, Ron, & Pattie, Charles. (2003). Split-ticket voting in mixed-member proportional election systems: Estimates and analyses of their spatial variation in the German federal election, 1998. British Journal of Political Science, 33, 109-128.
21.
Herron, Erik. (2002). Electoral influences on legislative behavior in mixed-member systems: Evidence from the Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 27, 361-381.
22.
Hibbing, Jonathan, & Patterson, Samuel. (1992). A democratic legislature in the making: The historic Hungarian elections of 1990. Comparative Political Studies, 24, 430-454.
23.
Ilonszki, Gabrielle. (1998). Representation deficient in a new democracy: Theoretical considerations and the Hungarian case. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 31, 157-170.
24.
Ishiyama, John. (1997). Transitional electoral systems in post-communist Eastern Europe. Political Science Quarterly, 112, 95-115.
25.
Ishiyama, John. (1999). Political parties and candidate recruitment in post-Soviet Russian politics. Journal of Communist Studies and Transitions, 15, 41-69.
26.
Ishiyama, John. (2000). Candidate recruitment, party organization and the communist successor parties: The cases of the MSzP, the KPRF, and the LDDP. Europe-Asia Studies52, 875-896.
27.
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, & McCubbins, Matthew. (1991). The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
King, Gary. (1990). Electoral responsiveness and partisan bias in multiparty democracies. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15, 159-181.
29.
Kubicek, Paul. (2000). Unbroken ties: The state, interest associations, and corporatism in post- Soviet Ukraine. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
30.
Lancaster, Thomas, & Patterson, William. (1990). Comparative pork barrel politics: Perceptions from the West German Bundestag. Comparative Political Studies, 22, 458-477.
31.
Mainwaring, Scott. (1997, August). Rethinking party systems theory in the third wave of democratization: The importance of party system institutionalization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
32.
Mainwaring, Scott. (1999). Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
Mayhew, David. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.
Morlang, Diana. (1998, August). Socialists building capitalism: Electoral laws and party discipline in Hungary. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
35.
Moser, Robert. (1999). Electoral systems and the number of parties in post-communist states. World Politics, 51, 359-384.
36.
Moser, R. (2001). Unexpected outcomes: Electoral systems, political parties, and representation in Russia. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.
37.
North, Philip. (1994). The growth of the constituency role of the MP. Parliamentary Affairs, 47, 705-720.
38.
Norton, Philip, & Wood, David. (1990). Constituency service by members of Parliament: Does it contribute to a personal vote?Parliamentary Affairs, 43, 196-208.
39.
Oltay, Edith. (1994). Hungarian socialists prepare for comeback. RFE/RL Research Report, 3, 21-26.
40.
Racz, Barnabas, & Kukorelli, Istvan. (1995). The “second generation”post-communist elections in Hungary in 1994. Europe-Asia Studies, 47, 251-279.
41.
Sakwa, Richard. (1993). Parties and the multiparty system in Russia. RFE/RL Research Report, 2, 12-16.
42.
Scholl, Eric. (1986). The electoral system and constituency-oriented activity in the European Parliament. International Studies Quarterly, 30, 315-332.
43.
Shugart, Matthew, & Wattenberg, Martin. (2001). Mixed-member electoral systems: A definition and typology. In Matthew Shugart & Martin Wattenberg (Eds.), Mixed-member electoral systems: The best of both worlds? (pp. 9-25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
Smith, Steven, & Remington, Thomas. (2001). The politics of institutional choice: The formation of the Russian State Duma. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Thames, Frank. (2001). Legislative voting behaviour in the Russian Duma: Understanding the effect of mandate. Europe-Asia Studies, 53, 869-884.
46.
Thames, Frank. (2003). Same system, different outcomes: Legislative behavior differences in Ukraine and Russia. Studies in Public Policy, 373, 2-28.
47.
Ward, Hugh, & John, Peter. (1999). Targeting benefits for electoral gain: Constituency marginality and the distribution of grants to English local authorities. Political Studies, 47, 32-52.
48.
White, Stephen, Wyman, Matthew, & Kryshtanovskaya, Olga. (1995). Parties and politics in post-communist Russia. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 25, 183-202.
