Previous research has found mixed evidence regarding the change of parliamentary voting behaviour following electoral reforms. But scholars have not analysed whether the mechanisms by which voting loyalty is elicited matter differently in such cases. Our article fills this gap by investigating the individual variation in voting loyalty across two legislative terms, using a sample of 26 high-stakes roll-call votes. Romania constitutes an ideal setting for such a study due to its recent shift from closed-list proportional representation to single-member districts. Multivariate ordinary least squares models (including all Members of Parliament and including only incumbents) test for the effect of parliamentary experience, party membership duration, parliamentary office, party hopping and district magnitude, while also accounting for demotion and a number of socio-demographic controls. Results indicate that socialisation is less important for Members of Parliament’s voting behaviour after reform, whereas signalling through voting dissent prior to party switching becomes more relevant.
AmesBarry (1995) Electoral strategy under open-list proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science39(2): 406–433.
2.
AndewegRudy B.ThomassenJacques (2011) Pathways to party unity: Sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of labour in the Dutch parliament. Party Politics17(5): 655–672.
3.
AndréAudreyDepauwSamDeschouwerKris (2011) Institutional constraints and conceptions of political representation. American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, 1–4 September.
4.
BirchSarah (2005) Single-member district electoral systems and democratic transition. Electoral Studies24(2): 281–301.
5.
BowlerShaunFarrellDavid M.KatzRichard S. (1999) Party cohesion, party discipline, and parliaments. In: BowlerS.FarrellD.M.KatzR.S. (eds) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, pp. 3–22.
6.
CainBruceFerejohnJohnFiorinaMorris (1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
CareyJohn M. (2002) Parties, coalitions, and the Chilean Congress in the 1990s. In: MorgensternS.NacifB. (eds) Legislative Politics in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 222–253.
8.
CareyJohn M. (2003) Discipline, accountability, and legislative voting in Latin America. Comparative Politics35(2): 191–211.
9.
CareyJohn M. (2009) Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CareyJohnShugartMatthew S. (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
11.
CareyJohnReynoldsAndrew (2007) Parties and Accountable Government in New Democracies. Party Politics13(2): 255–274.
12.
CarrubbaCliffordCloughRyanMontgomeryElizabeth. (2004) Selection bias in the use of roll call votes to study legislative behaviour. EPGR Working paper, No. 11.
13.
CarrubbaCliffordGabelMatthewHugSimon (2008) Legislative voting behavior, seen and unseen: A theory of roll-call votes selection. Legislative Studies Quarterly33(4): 543–572.
14.
Chamber of Deputies (no date) Homepage. Available at: www.cdep.ro (accessed 21 January 2011).
15.
ChiruMihail (2010) Legislative recruitment and electoral system change: The case of Romania. Master of Arts dissertation, Central European University, Budapest.
16.
ChiruMihail (2011) The institutionalization of the Romanian Parliament: An unfinished process?CEU ADC Conference, Budapest, April.
17.
ChiruMihailCiobanuIonut (2009) Legislative recruitment and electoral system change: The case of Romania. CEU Political Science Journal4(2): 192–231.
18.
ComanEmanuel Emil (2012) Legislative behavior in Romania: The effect of the 2008 Romanian electoral reform. Legislative Studies Quarterly37(2): 199–224.
19.
CoxGary W. (1987) The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
CoxGary W.McCubbinsMatthew (1993) Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
21.
CroweEdward (1986) The web of authority: Party loyalty and social control in the British House of Commons. Legislative Studies Quarterly11(20): 161–185.
22.
Davidson-SchmichLouise K. (2003) The development of party discipline in new parliaments: Eastern German State Legislatures 1990–2000. The Journal of Legislative Studies9(4): 88–101.
23.
DepauwSam (2003) Part 2: Discipline. The Journal of Legislative Studies9(4): 130–146.
24.
DepauwSamMartinShane (2009) Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective. In: GianettiDanielaBenoitKenneth (eds) Intra-party Politics and Coalition Governments. London: Routledge, pp. 103–120.
25.
DesposatoScott W. (2006) Parties for rent? Ambition, ideology, and party switching in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies. American Journal of Political Science50(1): 62–80.
26.
ElgieRobertMoestrupSophie (2008) Semi-Presidentialism in Central and Eastern Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
27.
GherghinaSergiuChiruMihail (2010) Practice and payment: Determinants of candidate list position in European Parliament elections. European Union Politics17(4): 533–552.
28.
GherghinaSergiuJiglauGeorge (2012) Where does the mechanism collapse?Representation48(4): 445–459.
29.
GherghinaSergiuChiruMihail (2013) Taking the short route: political parties, funding regulations and state resources in Romania. East European Politics and Societies27(1): 108–128.
30.
GiannettiDanielaLaverMichael (2009) Party cohesion, party discipline, and party factions in Italy. In: GianettiDanielaBenoitKenneth (eds) Intra-party Politics and Coalition Governments. London: Routledge, pp. 146–168.
31.
HellerWilliam B.MershonCarroll (2009) Integrating theoretical and empirical models of party switching: Party switching and representation. In: HellerW.B.MershonC. (eds) Political Parties and Legislative Party Switching. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 29–54.
32.
HickenAllenSimmonsJoel W. (2008) The personal vote and the efficacy of education spending. American Journal of Political Science52(1): 109–124.
33.
HixSimon (2004) Electoral institutions and legislative behavior: Explaining voting defection in the European Parliament. World Politics56(1): 194–223.
34.
HixSimonNouryAbdul (2008) Government–opposition or Left–Right? The institutional determinants of voting in fourteen parliaments. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
35.
HixSimonNouryAbdulRolandGerard (2005) Power to the parties: Cohesion and competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001. British Journal of Political Science35(2): 209–234.
36.
KamCristopher J. (2009) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
KiewietD. RoderickMcCubbinsMathew (1991) The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
KornbergAllan (1967) Canadian Legislative Behavior: A Study of the 25th Parliament. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
39.
KrehbielKeith (1993) Where’s the party?British Journal of Political Science23(2): 235–266.
40.
KrehbielKeith (1999) Paradoxes of parties in Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly14(1): 31–64.
41.
KreuzerMarcusPettaiVello (2003) Patterns of political instability: Affiliation patterns of politicians and voters in post-communist Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Studies in Comparative International Development38(2): 76–98.
42.
LijphartArend (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
LongleyLawrence D.HazanReuven Y. (1999) On the uneasy, delicate, yet necessary relationships between parliamentary members and leaders. The Journal of Legislative Studies5(3): 1–22.
44.
MainwaringScottLinanAnibal Perez (1997) Party discipline in the Brazilian Constitutional Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly22(4): 453–483.
45.
OzbudunErgun (1970) Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
46.
PooleKeith T.RosenthalHoward (1997) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll-Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
Pop-ElechesGrigore (1999) Separated at birth or separated by birth? Communist successor parties in Romania and Hungary. East European Politics and Societies13(1): 117–147.
48.
ProtsykOlehMatichescuMarius Lupsa (2011) Clientelism and political recruitment in democratic transition: Evidence from Romania. Comparative Politics43(2): 207–224.
49.
PrzeworskiAdam (2007) Is the science of comparative politics possible? In: BoixC.StokesS.C. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–171.
RiceStuart A. (1928) Quantitative Methods in Politics. New York, NY: Knopf.
52.
SmilovDanielToplakJurij (eds) (2007) Political Finance and Corruption in Eastern Europe. The Transition Period. Aldershot: Ashgate.
53.
StefanLaurentiu (2004) Patterns of Political Elite Recruitment in Post-Communist Romania. Bucharest: Ziua Publishing House.
54.
StefanLaurentiu (2009) Pathways to cabinet: Selecting ministers in post-communist Romania. Jena University: Sonderforschungsbereich580.
55.
TavitsMargit (2008) On the linkage between electoral volatility and party system instability in Central and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Political Research47(5): 537–555.
56.
ThamesFranck C. (2007) Discipline and party institutionalization in Post-Soviet legislatures. Party Politics13(4): 456–477.
57.
Van BiezenIngrid (2003) Political Parties in New Democracies. Party Organization in Southern and East-Central Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
