The conclusion to the special issue takes stock of both the first and the second generations of research on preferential proportional representation (PR) and electoral personalism. The article uses this appraisal in order to locate this project’s achievements within extant scholarship. It argues that the project not only reevaluates but also challenges the wisdom on preferential PR. In challenging the canon, the project enriches the study of electoral institutions, political parties, legislative politics, comparative politics, and political science more broadly.
AmesB (1995) Electoral strategy under open-list proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science39(2): 406–433.
2.
AmesB (2001) The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
3.
AndréADepauwSShugartMS, et al. (2017) Party nomination strategies in flexible-list systems: Do preference votes matter?Party Politics23(5): 589–600.
4.
BenoitK (2007) Electoral laws as political consequences: Explaining the origins and change of electoral institutions. Annual Review of Political Science10: 363–390.
5.
BoixC (2010) Electoral markets, party strategies, and proportional representation. American Political Science Review104(2): 404–413.
6.
BowlerSFarrellDMKatzRS (1999) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
7.
BuisseretPPratoC (2017) Legislative representation in flexible-list electoral systems. Revisiting electoral personalism conference, Chicago, December. Unpublished conference paper. European Union Center, Texas A&M University.
8.
BuisseretPPratoC (2020) Voting Behavior under Proportional Representation. Journal of Theoretical Politics32(1): 96–111.
9.
CanacheDMondakJJCabreraE (2000) Voters and the personal vote: A counterfactual simulation. Political Research Quarterly53(3): 663–676.
10.
CareyJM (2007) Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 92–107.
11.
CareyJM (2009) Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
13.
CarrollRNalepaM (2020) The personal vote and party cohesion: Modeling the effects of electoral rules on intraparty politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics32(1): 36–69.
14.
ChangECGoldenMA (2007) Electoral systems, district magnitude and corruption. British Journal of Political Science37(1): 115–137.
15.
CheibubJANalepaM (2017) The personal vote and electoral personalism: Revisiting the conventional wisdom about the effects of electoral rules. Unpublished paper. Texas A&M and University of Chicago, December.
16.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2001) The institutional determinants of economic policy outcomes. In: HaggardSMcCubbinsMD (eds) Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 266–290.
18.
CoxGWMcCubbinsMD (2005) Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
CrispBFEscobar-LemmonMCJonesBS, et al. (2004) Vote-seeking incentives and legislative representation in six presidential democracies. Journal of Politics66(3): 823–846.
20.
CrispBFJensenKMShomerY (2007). Magnitude and vote seeking. Electoral Studies26(4): 727–734.
21.
CrispBFOlivellaSMaleckiM, et al. (2013). Vote-earning strategies in flexible list systems: Seats at the price of unity. Electoral Studies32(4): 658–669.
22.
CusackTTorbenISoskiceD (2010) Coevolution of capitalism and political representation: The choice of electoral systems. American Political Science Review104(2): 393–403.
23.
de DiósMS (1999) Parliamentary party discipline in Spain. In: BowlerSFarrellDMKatzRS (eds) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, pp. 141–167.
24.
DesposatoSW (2006) The impact of electoral rules on legislative parties: Lessons from the Brazilian Senate and Chamber of Deputies. Journal of Politics68(4): 1018–1030.
25.
DuvergerM (1954) Political Parties. London: Methuen.
26.
FigueiredoACLimongiF (2000) Presidential power, legislative organization, and party behavior in Brazil. Comparative Politics32(2): 151–170.
27.
FolkeOPerssonTRickneJ (2016). The primary effect: Preference votes and political promotions. American Political Science Review110(3): 559–578.
28.
FolkeORickneJ (2020) Preference votes: Accountability at the price of cohesion?. Journal of Theoretical Politics32(1): 11–35.
29.
GoldenMAChangEC (2001) Competitive corruption: Factional conflict and political malfeasance in postwar Italian Christian Democracy. World Politics53(4): 588–622.
30.
HagopianFGervasoniCMoraesJA (2009) From patronage to program: The emergence of party-oriented legislators in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies42(3): 360–391.
31.
HellerWBMershonC (2008) Dealing in discipline: Party switching and legislative voting in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1988–2000. American Journal of Political Science52(4): 910–925.
32.
HellerWBMershonC (2009a) Integrating theoretical and empirical models of party switching. In: HellerWBMershonC (eds) Political Parties and Legislative Party Switching. New York: Palgrave, pp. 29–51.
33.
HellerWBMershonC (2009b) Legislator preferences, party desires: The impact of party switching on legislative party positions. In: HellerWBMershonC (eds) Political Parties and Legislative Party Switching. New York: Palgrave, pp. 173–199.
34.
KamCJ (2001) Do ideological preferences explain parliamentary behaviour? Evidence from Great Britain and Canada. Journal of Legislative Studies7(4): 89–126.
35.
KamCJ (2009) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
KatzRS (1980) A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
37.
KatzRS (1986) Intraparty preference voting. In: GrofmanBLijphartA (eds) Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 85–103.
38.
KatzRSBardiL (1980) Preference voting and turnover in Italian parliamentary elections. American Journal of Political Science24(1): 97–114.
KitscheltH (2000) Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies33(6–7): 845–879.
41.
KitscheltH (2011) Do institutions matter for parties’ electoral linkage strategies? Conference paper. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle.
42.
KitscheltHSmythR (2002) Programmatic party cohesion in emerging postcommunist democracies: Russia in comparative context. Comparative Political Studies35(10): 1228–1256.
43.
KreuzerM (2010) Historical knowledge and quantitative analysis: The case of the origins of proportional representation. American Political Science Review104(2): 369–392.
44.
KselmanDM (2011) Electoral institutions and political corruption: Ballot structure, electoral formula, and graft. In: SchofieldNCaballeroG (eds) Political Economy of Institutions, Democracy and Voting. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 327–371.
45.
KselmanDM (2020) Public goods equilibria under closed- and open-list proportional representation. Journal of Theoretical Politics32(1): 112–142.
46.
KunicovàJRose-AckermanS (2005) Electoral rules and constitutional structures as constraints on corruption. British Journal of Political Science35(4): 573–606.
47.
LijphartA (1994) Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-seven Democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
MainwaringS (1999) Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
49.
MainwaringSPérez LiñánA (1997) Party discipline in the Brazilian constitutional congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly22(4): 453–483.
50.
MairPVan BiezenI (2001) Party membership in twenty European democracies, 1980–2000. Party Politics7(1): 5–21.
51.
MaresI (2015) From Open Secrets to Secret Voting: Democratic Electoral Reforms and Voter Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
MarshM (1985) The voters decide? Preferential voting in European list systems. European Journal of Political Research13(4): 365–378.
53.
MartinSDepauwS (2008) Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective. In: GiannettiDBenoitK (eds) Intra-party Politics and Coalition Governments. London: Routledge, 119–136.
54.
MeriläinenJTukiainenJ (2018) Rank effects in political promotions. Public Choice177(1–2): 87–109.
55.
MershonC (1994) Expectations and informal rules in coalition formation. Comparative Political Studies, 27(1): 40–79.
56.
MershonC (2002) The Costs of Coalition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
57.
MershonC (2016) Party systems in post-World War II Italy. In: JonesEPasquinoG (eds) Oxford Handbook of Italian Politics. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 144–158.
58.
MustilloTPolga-HecimovichJ (2018) Measures and votes: Party performance under free list proportional representation with evidence from Ecuador. Electoral Studies56: 124–135.
59.
MustilloTPolga-HecimovichJ (2020) Party, candidate, and voter incentivesunder free list proportional representation. Journal of Theoretical Politics32(1): 143–167.
60.
MyersonRB (1993) Incentives to cultivate favored minorities under alternative electoral systems. American Political Science Review87(4): 856–869.
61.
OrdeshookPCShvetsovaO (1994) Ethnic heterogeneity, district magnitude, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science38(1): 100–123.
62.
PanebiancoA (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
63.
PerssonTTabelliniGTrebbiF (2003) Electoral rules and corruption. Journal of the European Economic Association1(4): 958–989.
64.
PoguntkeTScarrowSEWebbPD, et al. (2016) Party rules, party resources and the politics of parliamentary democracies: How parties organize in the 21st century. Party Politics22(6): 661–678.
65.
PustettoMB (1991) Il manuale del candidato politico. Milan: Bridge.
66.
RaeDW (1967) The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
67.
RaunioT (2007) Open list, open mandate? Links between MEPs and parties in Finland. Perspectives on European Politics and Society8(2): 131–146.
68.
RikerWH (1982) The two-party system and Duverger’s law: An essay on the history of political science. American Political Science Review76(4): 753–766.
69.
SaieghSM (2009) Recovering a basic space from elite surveys: Evidence from Latin America. Legislative Studies Quarterly34(1): 117–145.
70.
SantosAMD (2007). Regras eleitorais importam? Modelos de listas eleitorais e seus efeitos sobre a competição partidária e o desempenho institucional [Do electoral rules matter? Electoral list models and their effects on party competition and institutional performance]. Dados49(4): 721–749.
71.
ShugartMS (2005) Comparative electoral systems research: The maturation of a field and new challenges ahead. In: GallagherMMitchellP (eds) The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–56.
72.
SiebererU (2006) Party unity in parliamentary democracies: A comparative analysis. Journal of Legislative Studies12(2): 150–178.
73.
SlapinJBKirklandJHLazzaroJA, et al. (2018) Ideology, grandstanding, and strategic party disloyalty in the British Parliament. American Political Science Review112(1): 15–30.
74.
TaageperaRShugartMS (1989) Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
75.
TavitsM (2009) The making of mavericks: Local loyalties and party defection. Comparative Political Studies42(6): 793–815.
Van BiezenIMairPPoguntkeT (2012) Going, going, … gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary Europe. European Journal of Political Research51(1): 24–56.
78.
WertmanDA (1977) The Italian electoral process: The elections of June 1976. In: PennimanHR (ed) Italy at the Polls: The Parliamentary Elections of1976. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, pp. 41–79.
