Although it is theoretically relevant, the effect of pre-electoral coalitions on vote choice remains a largely unexplored area in the field of party strategy. The article addresses this gap by focusing on the Italian regional elections, where the electoral rules allow parties to run alone and, at the same time, to present pre-electoral coalitions on the ballot paper. This setting allows us to investigate under what conditions citizens vote for their preferred party and the coalition that this party indicated to coalesce with. The results suggest that ideological congruence and the size of the parties entering a pre-electoral agreement are decisive factors. Findings also reveal that the time elapsed since the establishment of a coalition has no effect on vote choice.
AdolphCKingGHerronMC. (2003) A Consensus on Second-Stage Analyses in Ecological Inference Models. Political Analysis11 (1): 86–94.
2.
AgnewJA (2002) Place and Politics in Modern Italy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BawnK (1999) Voter responses to Electoral Complexity: Ticket Splitting, Rational Voters and Representation in the Federal Republic of Germany. British Journal of Political Science29 (3): 487–505.
4.
BellucciPSegattiP (2011) Votare in Italia. Dall’appartenenza alla scelta. Bologna: Il Mulino.
5.
BenoitKGiannettiDLaverM (2006) Voter Strategies with Restricted Choice Menus. British Journal of Political Science36 (3): 459–485.
6.
BowlerSKarpJADonovanT (2010) Strategic Coalition Voting: Evidence from New Zealand. Electoral Studies29 (3): 350–357.
7.
BurdenBKimballD (1998) A New Approach to the Study of Ticket Splitting. American Political Science Review92 (3): 533–544.
8.
BurdenBC (2009) Candidate-Driven Ticket Splitting in the 2000 Japanese Elections. Electoral Studies28 (1): 33–40.
9.
CampbellAMillerWE (1957) The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split Ticket Voting. American Political Science Review51 (2): 293–312.
10.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
D’AlimonteR (2001) Mixed Electoral Rules Partisan Realignment and Party System Change in Italy. In: ShugartMSWattenbergMP (eds) Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.323–350.
12.
D’AlimonteR (2005) Italy: A Case of Fragmented Bipolarism. In: GallagherMMitchellP (eds) The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.253–276.
13.
D’AlimonteRBartoliniS (1998) How to Lose a Majority: The Competition in Single-Member Districts. European Journal of Political Research34 (1): 63–106.
14.
DebusMMüllerJ (2013) Do Voters’ Coalition Preferences Affect Government Formation?West European Politics36 (5): 1007–1028.
15.
DebusMMüllerJ (2014) Expected Utility or Learned Familiarity? The Formation of Voters’ Coalition Preferences. Electoral Studies34 (1): 54–67.
16.
Di GiovineAPizzettiF (1996) Osservazioni sulla nuova legge elettorale per i Consigli regionali. Le Regioni1: 411–423.
17.
Di VirgilioA (2002) L’offerta elettorale: la politica delle alleanze si istituzionalizza. In: D’AlimonteRBartoliniS (eds) Maggioritario finalmente? La transizione elettorale 1994–2001. Bologna: Il Mulino, pp.79–129.
18.
Di VirgilioA (2005) The Italian Regional Elections of April 2005: Does the Triumph of the Union Signal the End of the Berlusconi Era?South European Society and Politics10 (3): 477–490.
19.
Di VirgilioA (2007) La costruzione dell’offerta politica: progettazione nazionale, realizzazione regionale. In: ChiaramonteATarli-BarbieriG (eds) Riforme istituzionali e rappresentanza politica nelle Regioni italiane. Bologna: Il Mulino, pp.117–144.
20.
DuvergerM (1954) Political Parties. New York: Wiley.
21.
FerraraFHerronES (2005) Going It Alone? Strategic Entry under Mixed Electoral Rules. American Journal of Political Science49 (1): 16–31.
22.
FisherSD (2004) Definition and Measurement of Tactical Voting: The Role of Rational Choice. British Journal of Political Science34 (1): 152–166.
23.
GolderSN (2005) Pre-Electoral Coalitions in Comparative Perspective: A Test of Existing Hypotheses. Electoral Studies24 (4): 643–664.
24.
GolderSN (2006) Pre-Electoral Coalition Formation in Parliamentary Democracies. British Journal of Political Science36 (2): 193–212.
25.
GschwendT (2007) Ticket-Splitting and Strategic Voting under Mixed Electoral Rules: Evidence from Germany. European Journal of Political Research46 (1): 1–23.
26.
GschwendTHoogheM (2008) Should I Stay or Should I Go? An Experimental Study on Voter Responses to Pre-Electoral Coalitions. European Journal of Political Research47 (5): 556–577.
27.
HoboltSBKarpJA (2010) Voters and Coalition Governments. Electoral Studies29 (3): 299–307.
28.
KabashimaIReedSR (2000) Voter Reactions to Strange Bedfellows: The Japanese Voter Faces a Kaleidoscope of Changing Coalitions. Japanese Journal of Political Science1 (2): 229–248.
29.
KingG (1997) A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
LaverM (1998) Models of Government Formation. Annual Review of Political Science1 (1): 1–25.
31.
MartinLWStevensonRT (2001) Government Formation in Parliamentary Democracies. American Journal of Political Science45 (1): 33–50.
32.
MartinLWVanbergG (2003) Wasting Time? The Impact of Ideology and Size on Delay in Coalition Formation. British Journal of Political Science33 (2): 323–332.
33.
MoserRGScheinerE (2005) Strategic Ticket Splitting and the Personal Vote in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. Legislative Studies Quarterly30 (2): 259–276.
34.
NiemiRGWrittenGFranklinMN (1992) Constituency Characteristics, Individual Characteristics and Tactical Voting in the 1987 British General Election. British Journal of Political Science22 (2): 229–240.
35.
PappiFUThurnerPW (2002) Electoral Behaviour in a Two-Vote System: Incentives for Ticket Splitting in German Bundestag Elections. European Journal of Political Research41 (2): 207–232.
36.
PowellGB (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
37.
RenwickAHanrettyCHineD (2009) Partisan Self-Interest and Electoral Reform: The New Italian Electoral Law of 2005. Electoral Studies28 (3): 437–447.
38.
RobinsonWS (1950) Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals. American Sociological Review15 (3): 351–367.
39.
RosenOJiangWKingG. (2001) Bayesian and Frequentist Inference for Ecological Inference: The RXC Case. Statistica Neerlandica55 (2): 134–156.
40.
ShugartMSValdiniMESuominenK (2005) Looking for Locals: Voter Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators under Proportional Representation. American Journal of Political Science49 (2): 437–449.
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.
