How does making electoral systems more candidate-centered affect party unity? Using a principal-agent perspective, this study makes three contributions to the literature on this topic. Conceptually, it suggests thinking about the incentives due to personalization as arising from a shift in electoral impact from party selectors to voters. Theoretically, it incorporates this notion into a spatial model of parliamentary voting that also considers principals’ monitoring capacities. From the resulting framework follows a rich set of observable implications, notably that candidate-centered electoral systems facilitate rather than undermine collective action within parliamentary parties under certain conditions. Empirically, this study then analyzes the 2010 reform of Sweden’s flexible-list proportional representation system, which changed the preference vote threshold. As expected, I find that when extreme (district-based) selectors disagree with the moderate bills supported by the party group leadership, personalized rules incentivize politicians to support these policies and vote in unison.
AlvarezR. MichaelSinclairBetsy. 2012. “Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes.” Political Research Quarterly65 (3): 544–57.
2.
AndréAudreyDepauwSamBeyensStefanie. 2015. “Party Loyalty and Electoral Dealignment.” Party Politics21 (6): 970–81.
3.
AndréAudreyDepauwSamShugartMatthew S.2014. “The Effect of Electoral Institutions on Legislative Behavior.” In The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies edited by MartinShaneSaalfeldThomasStrømKaare, 231–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
AscencioSergio J.KerevelYann P.2020. “Party Strategy, Candidate Selection, and Legislative Behavior in Mexico.” Legislative Studies Quarterly Published electronically July 13. doi: 10.1111/lsq.12300.
5.
AylottNicholas. 2013. “Parties and Party Systems in the North.” In The Madisonian Turn. Political Parties and Parliamentary Democracy in Nordic Europe, edited by BergmanTorbjörnStrømKaare, 297–328. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6.
AylottNicholas. 2016. “The Party System.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics, edited by PierreJon, 152–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
BäckHannaBergmanTorbjörn. 2016. “The Parties in Government Formation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics, edited by PierreJon, 206–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
BäckHannaDebusMarcMüllerJochen. 2014. “Who Takes the Parliamentary Floor? The Role of Gender in Speech-Making in the Swedish Riksdag.” Political Research Quarterly67 (3): 504–18.
BergmanTorbjörnMüllerWolfgang C.StrømKaareBlomgrenMarkus. 2006. “Democratic Delegation and Accountability: Cross-National Patterns.” In Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies, edited by StrømKaareMüllerWolfgang C.BergmanTorbjörn, 109–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
BowlerShaunFarrellDavid M.1993. “Legislator Shirking and Voter Monitoring: Impacts of European Parliament Electoral System Upon Legislator-Voter Relationships.” Journal of Common Market Studies31 (1): 45–69.
12.
BowlerShaunFarrellDavid M.KatzRichard S.1999. “Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and Parliaments.” In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, edited by BowlerShaunFarrellDavid M.KatzRichard S., 3–22. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
13.
BuisseretPeterPratoCarlo. 2020. “Competing Principals? Legislative Representation in List Proportional Representation Systems.” American Journal of Political Science Published electronically September 10. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12559.
14.
CampbellRosieCowleyPhilipVivyanNickWagnerMarkus. 2019. “Legislator Dissent as a Valence Signal.” British Journal of Political Science49 (1): 105–28.
15.
CareyJohn M.2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
CareyJohn M.ShugartMatthew Søberg. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote. A Rank-Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies14 (4): 417–39.
17.
CarrollRoyceNalepaMonika. 2020. “The Personal Vote and Party Cohesion: Modeling the Effects of Electoral Rules on Intraparty Politics.” Journal of Theoretical Politics32 (1): 36–69.
18.
CeronAndrea. 2015. “Brave Rebels Stay Home: Assessing the Effect of Intra-Party Ideological Heterogeneity and Party Whip on Roll-Call Votes.” Party Politics21 (2): 246–58.
19.
ClintonJoshuaJackmanSimonRiversDouglas. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.” American Political Science Review98 (2): 355–70.
20.
ComanEmanuel Emil. 2015. “Institutions and Vote Unity in Parliaments: Evidence from 33 National Chambers.” The Journal of Legislative Studies21 (3): 360–89.
CrispBrian F.OlivellaSantiagoMaleckiMichaelSherMindy. 2013. “Vote-Earning Strategies in Flexible List Systems: Seats at the Price of Unity.” Electoral Studies32 (4): 658–69.
23.
DaltonRussell J.WattenbergMartin P.2002. Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
DäublerThomasHixSimon. 2018. “Ballot Structure, List Flexibility and Policy Representation.” Journal of European Public Policy25 (12): 1798–1816.
25.
DavidssonLars. 2006. I Linje Med Partiet? Maktspel Och Lojalitet I Den Svenska Riksdagen (In Line with the Party? Power Game and Loyalty in the Swedish Riksdag). Stockholm: SNS Förlag.
26.
DepauwSamMartinShane. 2009. “Legislative Party Discipline and Cohesion in Comparative Perspective.” In Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments, edited by GiannettiDanielaBenoitKenneth, 103–20. London: Routledge.
27.
DesposatoScott W.2006. “The Impact of Electoral Rules on Legislative Parties: Lessons from the Brazilian Senate and Chamber of Deputies.” The Journal of Politics68 (4): 1018–30.
28.
EsaiassonPeterWängnerudLena. 2016. “Political Parties and Political Representation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics, edited by PierreJon, 188–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
FearonJames D.1999. “Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance.” In Democracy, Accountability, and Representation, edited by PrzeworskiAdamStokesSusan C.ManinBernard, 55–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
FerejohnJohn. 1986. “Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control.” Public Choice50 (1): 5–25.
31.
FranssonSara. 2018. Vinna Eller Försvinna? De Politiska Nätverkens Betydelse I Kampen Om En Plats I Riksdagen (Win or Disappear? The Importance of Political Networks in the Fight for a Seat in the Riksdag). Växjö: Linnaeus University Press.
32.
GagliarducciStefanoNanniciniTommaso. 2013. “Do Better Paid Politicians Perform Better? Disentangling Incentives from Selection.” Journal of the European Economic Association11 (2): 369–98.
33.
GailmardSeanJenkinsJeffery A.2009. “Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate.” American Journal of Political Science53 (2): 324–42.
34.
HermanssonJörgen. 2016. “The Election System.” In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics, edited by PierreJon, 103–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
HixSimon. 2002. “Parliamentary Behavior with Two Principals: Preferences, Parties, and Voting in the European Parliament.” American Journal of Political Science46 (3): 688–98.
36.
HixSimon. 2004. “Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting Defection in the European Parliament.” World Politics56 (2): 194–223.
37.
HolmbergSörenOscarssonHenrik. 2017. “Swedish National Election Study 2010.” University of Gothenburg, Department of Political Science. doi:10.5878/002904
38.
HugSimon. 2016. “Party Pressure in the European Parliament.” European Union Politics17 (2): 201–18.
39.
JesseeStephen. 2016. “(How) Can We Estimate the Ideology of Citizens and Political Elites on the Same Scale?”American Journal of Political Science60 (4): 1108–24.
40.
KamChristopher. 2009. Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
KatzRichard S.2001. “The Problem of Candidate Selection and Models of Party Democracy.” Party Politics7 (3): 277–96.
42.
KöllnAnn-KristinPolkJonathan. 2018. “The 2015 Swedish Party Membership Survey.” Version 1.0. Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg. doi:10.5878/8cq8-4b41
43.
KotakorpiKaisaPoutvaaraPanuTerviöMarko. 2017. “Returns to Office in National and Local Politics: A Bootstrap Method and Evidence from Finland.” The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization33 (3): 413–42.
44.
LevittSteven D.1996. “How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology.” The American Economic Review86 (3): 425–41.
45.
LindstädtRenéSlapinJonathan B.WielenRyan J. Vander. 2011. “Balancing Competing Demands: Position Taking and Election Proximity in the European Parliament.” Legislative Studies Quarterly36 (1): 37–70.
46.
MarshMichael. 1985. “The Voters Decide? Preferential Voting in European List Systems.” European Journal of Political Research13 (4): 365–78.
47.
MartinShane. 2014. “Why Electoral Systems Don’t Always Matter: The Impact of ‘Mega-Seats’ on Legislative Behaviour in Ireland.” Party Politics20 (3): 467–79.
48.
MayJohn. 1973. “Opinion Structure in Political Parties: The Special Law of Curvilinear Disparity.” Political Studies21 (2): 135–51.
49.
McGheeEricMasketSethShorBorisRogersStevenMcCartyNolan. 2014. “A Primary Cause of Partisanship? Nomination Systems and Legislator Ideology.” American Journal of Political Science58 (2): 337–51.
OlivellaSantiagoTavitsMargit. 2014. “Legislative Effects of Electoral Mandates.” British Journal of Political Science44 (2): 301–321.
52.
PeskowitzZachary. 2018. “Selection and Incentives in the Electoral Security-Constituency Communication Relationship.” Legislative Studies Quarterly43 (2): 275–304.
PreeceJessica Robinson. 2014. “How the Party Can Win in Personal Vote Systems: The ‘Selectoral Connection’ and Legislative Voting in Lithuania.” Legislative Studies Quarterly39 (2): 147–67.
55.
RenwickAlanPiletJean-Benoit. 2016. Faces on the Ballot: The Personalization of Electoral Systems in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56.
RoddenJonathan. 2010. “The Geographic Distribution of Political Preferences.” Annual Review of Political Science13:321–40.
57.
RohrschneiderRobertWhitefieldStephen. 2012. The Strain of Representation: How Parties Represent Diverse Voters in Western and Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
RosasGuillermoShomerYaelHaptonstahlStephen R.2015. “No News Is News: Nonignorable Nonresponse in Roll-Call Data Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 511–28.
59.
SchofieldNormanSenedItai. 2005. “Modeling the Interaction of Parties, Activists and Voters: Why Is the Political Center So Empty?”European Journal of Political Research44 (3): 355–90.
60.
ShomerYael. 2014. “What Affects Candidate Selection Processes? A Cross-National Examination.” Party Politics20 (4): 533–46.
61.
ShomerYael. 2016. “The Electoral Environment and Legislator Dissent.” Comparative Politics48 (4): 557–78.
62.
ShugartMatthew S.2013. “Why Ballot Structure Matters.” In Political Science, Electoral Rules, and Democratic Governance. Report of the Task Force on Electoral Rules and Democratic Governance, edited by HtunMalaJr. PowellG. Bingham, 38–45. Washington: American Political Science Association.
63.
SiebererUlrich. 2006. “Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis.” The Journal of Legislative Studies12 (2): 150–78.
64.
SiebererUlrichOhmuraTamaki. 2019. “Mandate Type, Electoral Safety, and Defections from the Party Line: The Conditional Mandate Divide in the German Bundestag, 1949–2013.” Party Politics. Published electronically October21. doi:10.1177/1354068819881637.
65.
SlapinJonathan B.KirklandJustin H.LazzaroJoseph A.LesliePatrick A.O’GradyTom. 2018. “Ideology, Grandstanding, and Strategic Party Disloyalty in the British Parliament.” American Political Science Review112 (1): 15–30.
66.
SnyderJames M.GrosecloseTim. 2000. “Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science44 (2): 193–211.
StegmaierMaryMarcinkiewiczKamilJankowskiMichael. 2016. “The Effects of Electoral Rules on Parliamentary Behavior.” East European Politics and Societies30 (4): 885–906.
69.
TavitsMargit. 2009. “The Making of Mavericks: Local Loyalties and Party Defection.” Comparative Political Studies42 (6): 793–815.
70.
Van HolsteynJoop JMden RidderJosje M.KooleRuud A.2017. “From May’s Laws to May’s Legacy. On the Opinion Structure within Political Parties.” Party Politics23 (5): 471–86.
71.
WillumsenDavid. 2017. Acceptance of Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
WillumsenDavidÖhbergPatrik. 2017. “Toe the Line, Break the Whip: Explaining Floor Dissent in Parliamentary Democracies.” West European Politics40 (4): 688–716.
73.
WooldridgeJeffrey M.2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
