Research on mixed electoral systems provides inconclusive findings on the question whether members of parliament (MPs) elected in single-member districts are more likely to vote against the party line than MPs elected via closed party lists. This article rejects both the hypothesis of a general “mandate divide” and the competing claim that contamination effects completely wash out behavioral differences. Instead, we argue that electoral incentives to defect are stronger for a specific type of MP—those who run only in a district and are electorally insecure. Statistical analyses of roll call votes in the German Bundestag covering more than 60 years support this “conditional mandate divide” against alternative hypotheses. These findings suggest a more nuanced view on electoral system effects in mixed electoral systems and highlight the importance of electoral competition for incentivizing MPs to side with district demands if those conflict with the party line.
AndreADepauwSBeyensS (2015a) Party loyalty and electoral dealignment. Party Politics21(6): 970–981.
3.
AndreADepauwSMartinS (2015b) Electoral systems and legislators’ constituency effort. The mediating effect of electoral vulnerability. Comparative Political Studies48(4): 464–496.
4.
AndréADepauwSMartinS (2016) The classification of electoral systems: bringing legislators back in. Electoral Studies42: 42–53.
5.
AndréADepauwSShugartMS (2014) The effect of electoral institutions on legislative behavior. In: MartinSSaalfeldTStrømKW (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–249.
6.
Bauer-BlaschkowskiSMaiP (2019) Von „Abweichlern“ und „Überzeugungstätern“: eine Analyse des Abstimmungsverhaltens im 18. Deutschen Bundestag. In: ZohlnhöferRSaalfeldT (eds), Zwischen Stillstand, Politikwandel und Krisenmanagement: Eine Bilanz der Regierung Merkel 2013-2017. Wiesbaden: VS Springer, pp. 219–256.
7.
BawnKThiesMF (2003) A comparative theory of electoral incentives. Representing the unorganized under PR, plurality and mixed-member electoral systems. Journal of Theoretical Politics15(1): 5–32.
8.
BellAJonesK (2015) Explaining fixed effects: random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods3(1): 133–153.
9.
BräuningerTDebusM (2012) Parteienwettbewerb in den deutschen Bundesländern. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
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, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
13.
ClarkTDMartinaitisZDilbaR (2008) Electoral mandate and party cohesion. Does it matter in Lithuania?Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics24(3): 317–337.
14.
ComanEE (2012) Legislative behavior in Romania: the effect of the 2008 Romanian electoral reform. Legislative Studies Quarterly37(2): 199–224.
15.
ComanEE (2015) Institutions and vote unity in parliaments: evidence from 33 national chambers. Journal of Legislative Studies21(3): 360–389.
16.
CrispBF (2007) Incentives in mixed-member electoral systems. General election laws, candidate selection procedures, and cameral rules. Comparative Political Studies40(12): 1460–1485.
17.
DepauwSMartinS (2009) Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective. In: GianettiDBenoitK (eds), Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Government in Parliamentary Democracies. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 103–120.
18.
DetterbeckK (2016) Candidate selection in Germany. American Behavioral Scientist60(7): 837–852.
19.
DishawFH (1971) Roll call vote deviancy of the CDU/CSU Fraktion in the West German Bundestag. Sozialwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch für Politik2: 539–561.
20.
FerraraF (2004) Frogs, mice and mixed electoral institutions: party discipline in Italy’s XIV chamber of deputies. Journal of Legislative Studies10(4): 10–31.
21.
FerraraFHerronESNishikawaM (2005) Mixed Electoral Systems. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
22.
HanmerMJKalkanKO (2013) Behind the curve. Clarifying the best approach to calculating predicted probabilites and marginal effects from limited dependent variable models. American Journal of Political Science57(1): 263–277.
23.
HaspelMRemingtonTFSmithSS (1998) Electoral institutions and party cohesion in the Russian Duma. Journal of Politics60(2): 417–439.
24.
HeitshusenVYoungGWoodDM (2005) Electoral context and MP constituency focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science49(1): 32–45.
25.
HerronES (2002) Electoral influences on legislative behavior in mixed-member systems. Evidence from Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada. Legislative Studies Quarterly27(3): 361–382.
26.
HixS (2004) Electoral institutions and legislative behaviour. Explaining voting defection in the European Parliament. World Politics56(1): 194–223.
27.
JunHWHixS (2010) Electoral systems, political career paths and legislative behavior: evidence from South Korea’s mixed-member system. Japanese Journal of Political Science11(2): 153–171.
28.
KamCJ (2009) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
KunicovaJRemingtonTF (2008) Mandates, parties and dissent. Effect of electoral rules on parliamentary party cohesion in the Russian State Duma, 1994-2003. Party Politics 14(5): 555–574.
30.
LancasterTDPattersonWD (1990) Comparative pork barrel politics. Perceptions from the West German Bundestag. Comparative Political Studies22(4): 458–477.
MitchellP (2000) Voters and their representatives. Electoral institutions and delegation in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research37(3): 335–351.
33.
MoserRGScheinerE (2004) Mixed electoral systems and electoral system effects: controlled comparison and crossnational analysis. Electoral Studies23(4): 575–599.
34.
MüllerWC (2000) Political parties in parliamentary democracies. Making delegation and accountability work. European Journal of Political Research34(3): 309–333.
35.
OhmuraT (2014a) When your name is on the list, it is time to party. The candidacy divide in a mixed-member proportional system. Representation50(1): 69–82.
36.
OhmuraT (2014b) Voting without the party. Voting behaviour on issues of conscience in the German Bundestag (1949-2013). Paper prepared for the ECPR General Conference, Glasgow, 3–6 September 2014.
37.
OlivellaSTavitsM (2014) Legislative effects of electoral mandates. British Journal of Political Science44(2): 301–321.
38.
PooleKTRosenthalH (1997) Congress. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
ProkschS-OSlapinJB (2015) The Politics of Parliamentary Debate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
RichTS (2014) Party voting cohesion in mixed member legislative systems: evidence from Korea and Taiwan. Legislative Studies Quarterly39(1): 113–135.
41.
RoddenJ (2010) The geographic distribution of political preferences. Annual Review of Political Science13: 321–340.
42.
RueckertGLCraneW (1962) CDU deivancy in the German Bundestag. Journal of Politics24(3): 477–488.
43.
SaalfeldT (1995) Parteisoldaten und Rebellen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
44.
SaalfeldT (2005) Germany. Stability and strategy in a mixed-member proportional system. In: GallagherMMitchellP (eds), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 206–229.
45.
SchüttemeyerSS (1994) Hierarchy and efficiency in the bundestag: the German answer to institutionalizing parliament. In: CopelandGWPattersonSC (eds), Parliaments in the Modern World. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 29–58.
46.
ShugartMS (2001) Electoral ‘efficiency’ and the move to mixed-member systems. Electoral Studies20(2): 173–193.
47.
SiebererU (2006) Party unity in parliamentary democracies. A comparative analysis. Journal of Legislative Studies12(2): 150–178.
48.
SiebererU (2010) Behavioral consequences of mixed electoral systems. Deviating voting behavior of district and list MPs in the German Bundestag. Electoral Studies29(3): 484–496.
49.
SiebererU (2015) Using MP statements to explain voting behavior in the German Bundestag: an individual level test of the competing principals theory. Party Politics21(2): 284–294.
50.
SiebererUSaalfeldTOhmuraT, et al. (2020) Roll call votes in the German Bundestag. A new dataset, 1949-2013. British Journal of Political Science50(3): 1137–1145.
51.
SteckerC (2015) How effects on party unity vary across votes. Party Politics21(5): 791–802.
52.
StoffelMF (2014a) A unified scale of electoral incentives. Representation50(1): 55–67.
StoffelMFSiebererU (2018) Measuring reelection prospects across electoral systems: a general approach applied to Germany. West European Politics41(5): 1191–1207.
55.
StratmannT (2006) Party-line voting and committee assignments in the German mixed-member system. In: CongletonRDSwedenborgB (eds), Democratic Constitutional Design and Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–130.
56.
StratmannTBaurM (2002) Plurality rule, proportional representation, and the German Bundestag. How incentives to pork-barrel differ across electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science46(3): 506–514.
57.
ThamesFC (2001) Legislative voting behaviour in the Russian Duma. Understanding the effect of mandate. Europe-Asia Studies53(6): 869–884.
58.
ThamesFC (2005) A house divided. Party strength and the mandate divide in Hungary, Russia, and Ukraine. Comparative Political Studies38(3): 282–303.
59.
ZittelT (2017) Electoral systems in context: Germany. In: HerronESPekkanenRJShugartMS (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
60.
ZittelTNyhuisD (2019) Two faces of party unity: roll-call behavior and vote explanations in the German Bundestag. Parliamentary Affairs72(2): 406–424.
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.
