This article analyses the impact of government alternation on ideological congruence, going beyond the traditional distinction between the majoritarian and proportional visions of democracy that characterises the literature. I postulate that the effects of alternation on congruence differ according to the concept of alternation adopted and the time frame considered. While the possibility of alternation has no significant effect on congruence, the actual levels of alternation do play an ambivalent role. Higher levels of alternation increase the distance between the median voter’s and the government’s preferences at the time of the election. However, in the long run, the level of alternation accumulated over time reduces the average level of ideological distance, compensating for gaps in one direction with opposing gaps in the other direction. Empirical analysis conducted on a sample of 32 democracies confirms all of the hypotheses advanced.
BartoliniStefano (2000) Collusion, competition and democracy: Part II. Journal of Theoretical Politics12(1): 33–65.
2.
BestRobertBudgeIanMcDonaldMichael (2012) Representation as a median mandate: Taking cross-national differences seriously. European Journal of Political Research51(1): 1–23.
3.
BlaisAndrèBodetMarc A (2006) Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policy makers?Comparative Political Studies39(10): 1243–1262.
4.
BudgeIanKlingemannHans DieterVolkensAndrea. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, 1945–1998. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
BudgeIanKemanHansMcDonaldMichael. (2012) Organizing Democratic Choice. Party Representation over Time. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
DownsAnthony (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
7.
GallagherMichael (1991) Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems. Electoral Studies10(1): 33–51.
8.
GolderMattStramskiJacek (2010) Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 90–106.
9.
HorowitzShaleHoffKarlaMilanovicBranko (2009) Government turnover: Concepts, measures and applications. European Journal of Political Research48(1): 107–129.
10.
HuberJohn DPowellG Bingham (1994) Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics46(3): 291–326.
11.
KaiserAndrèLenhertMatthiasMillerBernhard. (2002) The democratic quality of institutional regimes: A conceptual framework. Political Studies50(2): 313–331.
12.
KimHeeminFordingRichard C (1998) Voter ideology in western democracies, 1946–1989. European Journal of Political Research33(1): 73–97.
13.
KimHeeminFordingRichard C (2003) Voter ideology in western democracies: An update. European Journal of Political Research42(1): 95–105.
14.
KimHeeminFordingRichard C (2012) Do voter preferences matter between elections? Democratic performance in western democracies. International Area Studies Review15(2): 122–140.
15.
KimHeeminPowellG BinghamFordingRichard C (2010) Electoral systems, party systems and ideological representation: An analysis of distortion in western democracies. Comparative Politics42(2): 167–185.
16.
KlingemannHand DieterVolkensAndreaBudgeIan. (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, 1990–2003. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
LaaksoMarkkuTaageperaRein (1979) Effective number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
18.
LijphartArendt (1999) Patterns of Democracy. Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
MairPeter (1996) Party systems and structures of competition. In: LeDucLawrenceNiemiRichard GNorrisPippa (eds) Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.83–106.
20.
MairPeter (2006) Sistemi partitici e alternanza al governo, 1950–1999. In: BardiLuciano (ed.) Partiti e Sistemi di Partito. Bologna: Il Mulino, pp.245–264.
21.
McDonaldMichael DBudgeIan (2005) Elections, parties, democracy: conferring the median mandate. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
McDonaldMichael DMendesSilvia MBudgeIan (2004) What are elections for? Conferring the median mandate. British Journal of Political Science34(1): 1–26.
23.
PellegataAlessandro (2012) L’Alternanza Dove non te l’Aspetti. L’Impatto dell’Alternanza di Governo sul Controllo della Corruzione Politica nelle Democrazie Consensuali. Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica42(1): 93–114.
24.
PowellG Bingham (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
PowellG Bingham (2006) Election laws and representative governments: Beyond votes and seats. British Journal of Political Science36(2): 291–315.
26.
PowellG Bingham (2009) The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative measures, data, and time periods on the effects of election rules. Comparative Political Studies42(12): 1475–1497.
27.
PowellG BinghamVanbergGeorg S (2000) Election laws, disproportionality and median correspondence: Implications for two visions of democracy. British Journal of Political Science30(3): 383–411.
28.
PrzeworskiAdam (1991) Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
PrzeworskiAdam (2010) Democracy and the Limits of Self-Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
RikerWilliam H (1982) Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman & Co.
31.
SartoriGiovanni (1976) Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
SchmittHermannScholzEvi (2005) The Mannheim Eurobarometer Trend File, 1970–2002. Mannheim: Mannheimer Zentrum fur Europaische Sozialforschung.
33.
StimsonJames AMackuenMichael BEriksonRobert S (1995) Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review89(3): 543–565.
34.
StrømKaare (1989) Party competition and the politics of economic openness and growth. European Journal of Political Research17(1): 1–16.
35.
TsebelisGeorge (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
WarwickPaul (2010) Bilateralism or the median mandate? An examination of rival perspectives on democratic governance. European Journal of Political Research49(1): 1–24.
37.
WarwickPaul (2011) Government intensions and citizens preferences in dynamic perspective. British Journal of Political Science41(3): 599–619.
38.
WarwickPaulZakharovaMaria (2013) Measuring the median: The risks of inferring beliefs from votes. British Journal of Political Science43(1): 157–175.
39.
ZucchiniFrancesco (2011) Government alternation and legislative agenda setting. European Journal of Political Research50(6): 749–774.
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.
