Are parties “high discipline, low cohesion” in Westminster legislatures? This study applies network analysis to voting behavior among members of parliament (MPs), a novel approach that measures not deviation from party-line voting, but rather whether MPs with similar voting patterns are co-partisans. We study the Canadian Parliament from 2006 to 2015, during which time the governing party under Prime Minister Stephen Harper maintained tight central control and discipline, a likely source of elevated cohesion. We find that “low cohesion” generally holds, and parties do not always conform to commonsense expectations about how cohesively they “should” behave in various parliamentary situations, though they show themselves capable of learning over time. Moreover, we find that party cohesion stems less from shared voting behaviors and more from simple partisan identity. Further research should consider to what extent parliamentary behavior is based mainly on party alignment.
AbramowitzAIWebsterS (2016) The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of US elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies41: 12–22.
2.
AldrichJH (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
AucoinPBakvisHJarvisMD (2013) Constraining executive power in the era of new political governance. In: BickertonJPetersBG (eds) Governing: Essays in Honour of Donald J. Savoie. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP, p. 32.
4.
BakvisH (2001) Prime minister and cabinet in Canada: An autocracy in need of reform?Journal of Canadian Studies35(4): 60–79.
5.
BrownDM (2003) Getting things done in the federation: Do we need new rules for an old game? In: Constructive and Co-operative Federalism? A Series of Commentaries on the Council of Federation. IIGR, Queen’s University and IRPP, Montreal. http://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2003/10/brown.pdf
6.
CaruanaNJMcGregorRMStephensonLB (2015) The power of the dark side: negative partisanship and political behaviour in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science48(04): 771–789.
7.
CherepnalkoskiDKarpfAMozetičI, et al. (2016) Cohesion and coalition formation in the European parliament: roll-call votes and twitter activities. PLoS ONE11(11): e0166586.
8.
ClarkeHDJensonJLeDucL, et al. (1996) Absent Mandate: Canadian Electoral Politics in an Era of Restructuring. Palm Coast: Gage.
9.
CochraneC (2015) Left and Right: The Small World of Political Ideas. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
10.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination In The World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Dal MasoCPompaGPuligaM, et al. (2014) Voting behavior, coalitions and government strength through a complex network analysis. PLoS ONE9(12): e116046.
12.
DepauwSMartinS (2008) Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective. In: GiannettiDBenoitK (eds) Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments. Abingdon: Routledge. 103–120.
13.
DewanTSpirlingA (2011) Strategic opposition and government cohesion in Westminster democracies. American Political Science Review105(02): 337–358.
GiannettiDLaverM (2005) Party cohesion, party factions and legislative party discipline in Italy. In: European Consortium for Political Research: Granada, 13–19 April 2005.
18.
GodboutJFHøylandB (2011) Legislative voting in the Canadian parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science44(02): 367–388.
19.
GodboutJFHøylandB (2013) Parties and voting in parliament. Princeton, NJ: Center for Study of Democratic Politics Workshop, Princeton University.
20.
GodboutJFHøylandB (2017) Unity in diversity? The development of political parties in the parliament of Canada, 1867–2011. British Journal of Political Science47(3): 545–569.
HazanRY (2003) Does cohesion equal discipline? Towards a conceptual delineation. The Journal of Legislative Studies9(4): 1–11.
23.
InwoodGJO’ReillyPJohnsC (2011) Intergovernmental Policy Capacity in Canada: Inside the Worlds of Finance, Environment, Trade, and Health. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
24.
JacomyMVenturiniTHeymannS, et al. (2014) Forceatlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS ONE9(6): e98679.
25.
JeffreyB (2015) Dismantling Canada: Stephen Harper’s New Conservative Agenda. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.
26.
KamC (2001) Do ideological preferences explain parliamentary behaviour? Evidence from Great Britain and Canada. Journal of Legislative Studies7(4): 89–126.
27.
KamCJ (2009) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KevinsASorokaSN (2018) Growing apart? Partisan sorting in Canada, 1992–2015. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique51(1): 103–133.
29.
LemcoJ (1988) The fusion of powers, party discipline, and the Canadian parliament: a critical assessment. Presidential Studies Quarterly18(2): 283–302.
LongleyN (2003) Modeling the legislator as an agent for the party: the effects of strict party discipline on legislator voting behavior. Contemporary Economic Policy21(4): 490–499.
32.
MalloyJ (2003) High discipline, low cohesion? The uncertain patterns of Canadian parliamentary party groups. The Journal of Legislative Studies9(4): 116–129.
33.
MalloyJ (2004) The executive and parliament in Canada. The Journal of Legislative Studies10(2-3): 206–217.
34.
MarlandAGiassonT (2015) Canadian Election Analysis: Communication, Strategy and Democracy. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
MayerSJ (2017) How negative partisanship affects voting behavior in Europe: evidence from an analysis of 17 European multi-party systems with proportional voting. Research and Politics4(1): 1–7. DOI: 2053168016686636.
37.
McGregorMRCaruanaNJStephensonLB (2015) Negative partisanship in a multi-party system: the case of Canada. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties25(3): 300–316.
38.
McHenryDE (1949) The impact of the CCF on Canadian parties and groups. The Journal of Politics11(2): 365–395.
39.
NadeauCChodosBHamovitchE, et al. (2011) Rogue in Power: Why Stephen Harper is Remaking Canada by Stealth. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company Ltd.
40.
NewmanM (2010) Networks: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
SavoieDJ (1999) Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
42.
SavoieDJ (2008) Court Government and the Collapse of Accountability in Canada and the United Kingdom. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
43.
SiebererU (2006) Party unity in parliamentary democracies: a comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies12(2): 150–178.
44.
SmithMJ (1999) The Core Executive in Britain. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
45.
SpirlingAMcLeanI (2006) UK OC OK? interpreting optimal classification scores for the UK House of Commons. Political Analysis15(1): 85–96.
46.
WhiteG (2011) Cabinets and First Ministers. Vancouver: UBC 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.
