Mixed-member systems have been characterized as encouraging politicians to balance the activities that enhance their personal reputations and those of their parties. Another literature challenges that legislators from one tier are not likely to behave differently from those of the other. After summarizing this debate, data from Venezuela are used to look for evidence supporting either side in a series of behaviors that span the entire legislative process—from bill initiation to committee consideration to final vote. The author concludes that the “best of both worlds” versus “contamination” debate has led to a focus on mixed-member institutions, to the exclusion of other incentive structures confronting legislators and that we need to engage in more careful theorizing about when and where they should expect the electoral tier to have an impact on legislator behavior.
Barker, F., Boston, J., Levine, S., McLeay, E., & Roberts, N. (2001). An initial assessment of the consequences of MMP in New Zealand. In M. S. Shugart & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Mixed member systems: The best of both worlds? (pp. 296-322). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
Bawn, K., & Thies, M. (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.
3.
Cain, B.E., Ferejohn, J., & Fiorina, M. (1984). The constituency service basis of the personal vote for U.S. representatives and British members of Parliament. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 110-125.
4.
Calvo, E., & Abal Medina, J.M. (2002). Institutional gamblers: Majoritarian representation, electoral uncertainty, and the coalitional costs of Mexico's hybrid electoral systems. Electoral Studies, 21(3), 453-471.
5.
Cox, K., & Schoppa, L. (2002). Interaction effects and mixed member electoral systems: Theory and evidence from Germany, Japan, and Italy. Comparative Political Studies, 35(9), 1027-1053.
6.
Crisp, B.F. (2000). Democratic institutional design: The powers and incentives of Venezuelan politicians and interest groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
Crisp, B.F., & Rey, J.C. (2001). The sources of electoral reform in Venezuela. In M. S. Shugart & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Mixed member systems: The best of both worlds? (pp. 173-193). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
Davidson, R.H., & Oleszek, W.J. (1994). Congress and its members (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
9.
Ferrara, F. (2004a). Electoral coordination and the strategic desertion of strong parties in compensatory mixed systems with negative vote transfers . Electoral Studies, 23(3), 391-413.
10.
Ferrara, F. (2004b). Frogs, mice and mixed member electoral institutions: Party discipline in the XIV Italian chamber of deputies. Journal ofLegislative Studies, 10(4), 10-31.
11.
Ferrara, F., & Herron, E.S. (2005). Going it alone? Strategic entry under mixed electoral rules. American Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 16-31 .
12.
Hall, R. (1996). Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
Haspel, M., Remington, T.F., & Smith, S.S. (1998). Electoral institutions and party cohesion in the Russian Duma. Journal of Politics, 60(2), 417-439.
14.
Herron, E.S., & Nishikawa, M. (2001). Contamination effects and the number of parties in mixed superposition electoral systems. Electoral Studies , 20(1), 63-86.
15.
Huber, J.D., & Powell, G.B. (1994). Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics, 46, 291-326.
16.
Katz, J.N., & Sala, B.R. (1996). Careerism, committee assignments, and the electoral connection. American Political Science Review, 90(1), 21-33.
17.
King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 341-355.
18.
Klingemann, H.D., & Wessels, B. (2001). The consequences of Germany's mixed-member system: Personalization at the grassroots? In M. S. Shugart & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Mixed member systems: The best of both worlds? (pp. 279-296). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
Moser, R.G., & Scheiner, E. (2004). Mixed electoral systems and electoral system effects: Controlled comparison and cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies, 23(4), 575-599.
21.
Powell, G.B. (1989). Constitutional design and citizen electoral control . Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1, 7-30.
22.
Powell, G.B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
Reed, S., & Thies, M. (2001). The consequences of electoral reform in Japan . In M. S. Shugart & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Mixed member systems: The best of both worlds? (pp. 152-172). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
Rohde, D.A. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Rohde, D.A., & Shepsle, K.A. (1973). Democratic Committee assignment in the House of Representatives: Strategic aspects of a social choice process. American Political Science Review, 67(3), 889-905.
26.
Shugart, M.S. (2001). “Extreme” electoral systems and the appeal of the mixed-member alternative. In M. S. Shugart & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Mixed member systems: The best of both worlds? (pp. 25-51). Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
Shugart, M.S., & Wattenberg, M.P. (2001). Mixed member electoral systems: A definition and typology. In M. S. Shugart & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Mixed member systems: The best of both worlds? (pp. 9-24). Oxford , UK: Oxford University Press.
28.
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.
29.
Thames, F.C. (2001). Legislative voting behavior in the Russian Duma: Understanding the effects of mandate. Europe-Asia Studies , 53(6), 869-894.
30.
Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J., & King, G. (2003). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results (Version 2.1). Available at http://gking.harvard.edu/stats.shtml
