This article examines the extent to which legislators use legislative debates to engage in localism activities to cater to the interests of their selectorate in nonpreferential electoral systems. We define localism activities as the delivery of tangible and intangible benefits to a geographically confined constituency that is instrumental to legislators’ re-selection. Our primary argument is that legislators whose selectorate operates at the local level make more speeches with parochial references. Results show strong support for this assertion. Furthermore, we find that high district magnitude leads to higher levels of localism. We use a mixed-methods research design, combining an original data set of 60,000 debates in Portugal with qualitative evidence from elite interviews. We make a methodological innovation in the field of representation and legislative studies by using a Named Entity Recognition tool to analyze the debates.
AndréA.DepauwS.DeschouwerK. (2014). Legislators’ local roots: Disentangling the effect of district magnitude. Party Politics, 20, 904-917.
2.
BenedettoG.HixS. (2007). The rejected, the ejected, and the dejected: Explaining government rebels in the 2001-2005 British house of commons. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 755-781.
3.
BishinB. (2009). Tyranny of the minority: The subconstituency politics theory of representation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
4.
BowlerS. (2017). Trustees, delegates, and responsiveness in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 766-793.
5.
BowlerS.FarrellD. M. (1993). Legislator shirking and voter monitoring: Impacts of European Parliament electoral systems upon legislator-voter relationships. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31, 45-70.
6.
BräuningerT.BrunnerM.DäublerT. (2012). Personal vote-seeking in flexible list systems: How electoral incentives shape Belgian MPs’ bill initiation behaviour. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 607-645.
7.
CareyJ. M. (2007). Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 92-107.
8.
CareyJ. M.HixS. (2011). The electoral sweet spot: Low-magnitude proportional electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 383-397.
9.
CareyJ. M.ShugartM. S. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies, 14, 417-439.
10.
CoelhoM. (2014). Os partidos politícos e o recrutamento do pessoal dirigente em Portugal: o caso do PS e do PPD-PSD [Political parties and candidate selection in Portugal: The case of PS and PPD-PSD]. Lisbon, Portugal: Europress.
11.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CoxG. W.ThiesM. F. (1998). The cost of intraparty competition: The single, nontransferable vote and money politics in Japan. Comparative Political Studies, 31, 267-291.
13.
CrispB. F. (2007). Incentives in mixed-member electoral systems: General election laws, candidate selection procedures, and cameral rules. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 1460-1485.
14.
CrispB. F.Escobar-LemmonM. C.JonesB. S.JonesM. P.Taylor-RobinsonM. M. (2004). Vote-seeking incentives and legislative representation in six presidential democracies. The Journal of Politics, 66, 823-846.
CrispB. F.SimoneauW. M. (2018). Electoral systems and constituency service. In HerronE. S.PekkanenR. J.ShugartM. S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of electoral systems (pp. 346-365). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
CunhaC. (2008). Few but pure and good members are preferred to a mass party–the Portuguese communist party’s continued orthodoxy. In BackesU.MoureauP. (Eds.), Communist and post-communist parties in Europe (pp. 193-201). Berlin, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
18.
DahlR. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
DuvergerM. (1954). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. London, England: Methuen.
20.
Espírito-SantoA.SanchesE. R. (2018). Looking for locals under a closed-list proportional representation system: The case of Portugal. Electoral Studies, 52, 117-127.
21.
FennoR. (1978). Home style. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
22.
FennoR. F. (1977). US house members in their constituencies: An exploration. American Political Science Review, 71, 883-917.
23.
FernandesJ. M.GeeseL.SchwemmerC. (2019). The impact of candidate selection rules and electoral vulnerability on legislative behaviour in comparative perspective. European Journal of Political Research, 58, 270-291.
24.
ForneyG. D. (1973). The viterbi algorithm. Proceedings of the IEEE, 61, 268-278.
25.
FranklinJ. (2005). The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference and prediction. The Mathematical Intelligencer, 27, 83-85.
26.
FreireA.TeixeiraC. P. (2011). A escolha antes da escolha: A seleção dos candidatos a deputados—Parte II: Teoria e prática [The choice before the choice: Candidate selection—Part II: Theory and Practice]. Revista de Ciências Sociais e Políticas, 2, 31-47.
27.
GallagherM. (1980). Candidate selection in Ireland: The impact of localism and the electoral system. British Journal of Political Science, 10, 489-503.
28.
GerringJ. (2007). Is there a (viable) crucial-case method?Comparative Political Studies, 40, 231-253.
29.
GrimmerJ. (2013). Appropriators not position takers: The distorting effects of electoral incentives on congressional representation. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 624-642.
30.
GrofmanB. (2005). Comparisons among electoral systems: Distinguishing between localism and candidate-centered politics. Electoral Studies, 24, 735-740.
31.
GschwendT. (2007). Institutional incentives for strategic voting and party system change in Portugal. Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 6, 15-31.
32.
HagemannS.HoboltS. B.WratilC. (2017). Government responsiveness in the European Union: Evidence from council voting. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 850-876.
33.
HazanR. Y. (1999). Constituency interests without constituencies: The geographical impact of candidate selection on party organization and legislative behavior in the 14th Israeli Knesset, 1996–99. Political Geography, 18, 791-811.
34.
HixS. (2004). Electoral institutions and legislative behavior: Explaining voting defection in the European Parliament. World Politics, 56, 194-223.
35.
HopkinJ. (2001). Bringing the members back in? Democratizing candidate selection in Britain and Spain. Party Politics, 7, 343-361.
36.
JalaliC. (2007). Partidos e Democracia em Portugal: 1974-2005: da revoluçao ao bipartidarismo [Parties and democracy in Portugal 1974-2005: From the revolution to Bipartisanship]. Lisbon, Portugal: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.
37.
JunH.-W.HixS. (2010). Electoral systems, political career paths and legislative behavior: Evidence from South Korea’s mixed-member system. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 11, 153-171.
38.
KamC. J. (2009). Party discipline and parliamentary politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
KedarO.HarsgorL.SheinermanR. A. (2016). Are voters equal under proportional representation?American Journal of Political Science, 60, 676-691.
40.
KristjánssonS. (2004). Iceland: Searching for democracy along three dimensions of citizen control. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27, 153-174.
41.
LatnerM.McGannA. (2005). Geographical representation under proportional representation: The cases of Israel and the Netherlands. Electoral Studies, 24, 709-734.
42.
LeeS. J.LiuH.WardM. D. (2018). Lost in space: Geolocation in event data. In KellstedtP. (Ed.), Political science research and methods (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
LeidnerJ. L. (2007). Toponym resolution in text: Annotation, evaluation and applications of spatial grounding. In ACM SIGIR Forum (Vol. 41, pp. 124-126). ACM.
44.
Leston-BandeiraC. (2009). Dissent in a party-based parliament: The Portuguese case. Party Politics, 15, 695-713.
45.
Leston-BandeiraC. (2011). Towards a trustee model? Parliamentary representation in the internet era: The Portuguese case. Parliamentary Affairs, 65, 425-447.
46.
LundellK. (2004). Determinants of candidate selection: The degree of centralization in comparative perspective. Party Politics, 10, 25-47.
47.
MairP. (2013). Ruling the void: The hollowing of Western democracy. London, England: Verso Books.
48.
MaloufR. (2002). A comparison of algorithms for maximum entropy parameter estimation. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Natural Language Learning (Volume 20), Association for Computational Linguistics, Washington, DC, pp. 1-7.
49.
MartinS. (2011). Using parliamentary questions to measure constituency focus: An application to the Irish case. Political Studies, 59, 472-488.
50.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51.
MorgensternS.SwindleS. M. (2005). Are politics local? An analysis of voting patterns in 23 democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 143-170.
52.
NardulliP. F.AlthausS. L.HayesM. (2015). A progressive supervised-learning approach to generating rich civil strife data. Sociological Methodology, 45, 148-183.
53.
PapkeL. E.WooldridgeJ. M. (1996). Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401 (k) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11, 619-632.
54.
PequitoM. C. T. (2009). O povo semi-soberano: Partidos pol’ıticos e recrutamento parlamentar em Portugal (1990-2003) [The semi-sovereign people: Political parties and candidate selection in Portugal (1990-2003)]. Coimbra, Portugal: Almedina.
55.
PiletJ.-B.FreireA.CostaO. (2012). Ballot structure, district magnitude and constituency-orientation of MPs in proportional representation and majority electoral systems. Representation, 48, 359-372.
56.
PreeceJ. R. (2014). How the party can win in personal vote systems: The “selectoral connection” and legislative voting in Lithuania. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39, 147-167.
57.
ProkschS.-O.SlapinJ. B. (2012). Institutional foundations of legislative speech. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 520-537.
58.
ProkschS.-O.SlapinJ. B. (2014). The politics of parliamentary debate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
RahatG.HazanR. Y. (2001). Candidate selection methods: An analytical framework. Party Politics, 7, 297-322.
60.
RichT. S. (2014). Party voting cohesion in mixed member legislative systems: Evidence from Korea and Taiwan. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39, 113-135.
61.
SamuelsD. J. (1999). Incentives to cultivate a party vote in candidate-centric electoral systems: Evidence from Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 32, 487-518.
62.
ScarrowS. (2014). Beyond party members: Changing approaches to partisan mobilization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
63.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1942). Party government: American government in action. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
64.
ShomerY. (2014). What affects candidate selection processes? Across-national examination. Party Politics, 20, 533-546.
65.
ShomerY. (2017). The conditional effect of electoral systems and intraparty candidate selection processes on parties’ behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 42, 163-196.
66.
ShugartM. S. (2005). Comparative electoral systems research: The maturation of a field and new challenges ahead. In GallagherM.MitchellP. (Eds.), The politics of electoral systems (pp. 25-56). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67.
ShugartM. S.ValdiniM. E.SuominenK. (2005). Looking for locals: Voter information demands and personal vote-earning attributes of legislators under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 437-449.
68.
SiebererU. (2006). Party unity in parliamentary democracies: A comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 12, 150-178.
69.
SlapinJ. B.ProkschS.-O. (2010). Look who’s talking: Parliamentary debate in the European Union. European Union Politics, 11, 333-357.
70.
StrømK. (1990). A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 565-598.
71.
StrømK. (1997). Rules, reasons and routines: Legislative roles in parliamentary democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3, 155-174.
72.
TavitsM. (2009). The making of mavericks: Local loyalties and party defection. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 793-815.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
