Under open-list proportional representation (OLPR), individual candidates compete for personal votes and representation has a distinctly individualistic dimension. This article provides a unique analysis of this individualistic representational dimension, by comparing the effects of policy positions with personal vote-earning attributes on individual electoral success within the context of the Finnish OLPR. The study confirms that personal attributes related to experience, locality and celebrity status have a strong positive effect on candidates’ ability to attract personal votes. On a more novel account, it also demonstrates that even under decidedly complex electoral settings, policy positions matter for candidates’ electoral fortunes, and that candidates who take on moderate positions within the context of their respective party are more successful than candidates who deviate from the party-median.
AmesB (1995) Electoral strategy under open-list proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science39(2): 406–433.
2.
AndréADepauwS (2014) District magnitude and the personal vote. Electoral Studies35: 102–114.
3.
AndréADepauwSDeschouwerK (2014) Legislators’ local roots: disentangling the effect of district magnitude. Party Politics20(6): 904–917.
4.
AndréADepauwSShugartMS, et al. (2017) Party nomination strategies in flexible-list systems: do preference votes matter?Party Politics23(5): 589–600.
5.
ArterD (2009) Clowns, ‘alluring ducks’ and ‘miss Finland 2009’: the value of ‘celebrity candidates’ in an open list PR voting system. Representation50(4): 453–470.
6.
ArterD (2013) The ‘hows’, not the ‘whys’ or the ‘wherefores’: the role of intra-party competition in the 2011 breakthrough of the true Finns. Scandinavian Political Studies36(2): 99–120.
7.
BergmanMEShugartMSWattKA (2013) Patterns of intraparty competition in open-lists and SNTV systems. Electoral Studies32(2): 321–333.
8.
BerggrenNJordahlHPoutvaaraP (2010) The looks of a winner: beauty and electoral success. Journal of Public Economics94(1–2): 8–15.
9.
BlaisANadeauRGidengilE, et al. (2001) The formation of party preferences: testing the proximity and directional models. European Journal of Political Research40(1): 81–91.
10.
Blom-HansenJElklitJSerritzlewS, et al. (2016) Ballot position and election results: evidence from a natural experiment. Electoral Studies44: 172–183.
11.
ButlerDM (2009) A regression discontinuity design analysis of the incumbency advantage and tenure in the U.S. house. Electoral Studies28(1): 123–128.
12.
CareyJM (2007) Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 92–107.
13.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
14.
CainBFerejohnJFiorinaM (1987). The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15.
CarozziFRepettoL (2016) Sending the pork home: birth town bias in transfers to Italian municipalities. Journal of Public Economics134: 42–52.
16.
ColomerJ (2011) Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems. Essex: ECPR Press.
17.
CarsonJLEngstromEJRobertsJM (2007) Candidate quality, the personal vote, and the incumbency advantage in congress. American Political Science Review101(2): 289–301.
18.
CoxG (1990) Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science34(4): 903–935.
19.
CrispBFJensenKMYawelS (2007) Magnitude and vote seeking. Electoral Studies26(4):727–734.
20.
CrispBFOlivellaSMaleckiM, et al. (2013) Vote-earning strategies in flexible list systems: seats at the price of unity. Electoral Studies32(4): 658–669.
21.
DahlgaardOJ (2016) You just made it: individual incumbency advantage under proportional representation. Electoral Studies44: 319–328.
22.
DownsA (1957) An economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper Collins.
23.
EriksonR (1971) The advantage of incumbency in congressional elections. Polity3(3): 395–405.
24.
GelmanAKingG (1990) Estimating the incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science34(4): 1142–1164.
25.
GrofmanB (2008) The impact of electoral laws on political parties. In: WittmanDAWeingastBR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 102–121.
26.
HixS (2004) Electoral institutions and legislative behaviour: explaining voting defection in the European parliament. World Politics56(1): 194–223.
27.
KarvonenL (2010) The Personalisation of Politics. A study of Parliamentary Democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
28.
KarvonenL (2014) Parties, Governments and Voters in Finland. Politics under Fundamental Societal Transformation. Colchester: ECPR Press.
29.
KeyVOJr (1949) Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: A.A. Knopf.
30.
KitscheltHSmythR (2002) Programmatic party cohesion in emerging postcommunist democracies Russia in comparative context. Comparative Political Studies35(10): 1228–1256.
31.
KotakorpiKPoutvaaraPTerviöM (2017) Returns to office in national and local politics: a bootstrap method and evidence from Finland. The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization33(3): 413–442.
32.
LauRRRedlawskDP (2006) How Voters Decide. Information Processing During Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
MatakosKSavolainenRTroumpounisO, et al. (2018) Electoral institutions and intra-party organization. Working Paper VATT Institute for Economic Research.
34.
MeriläinenJTukiainenJ (2018) Rank effects in political promotions. Public Choice177(1–2): 87–109.
35.
MondakJJ (1993) Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior15(2): 167–192.
36.
PajalaA (2013) Government vs opposition voting in the Finnish parliament Eduskunta since World War II. European Journal of Government and Economics2(1): 41–58.
37.
PopkinSL (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
38.
PutGJMaddensB (2015)The effect of municipal size and local office on the electoral success of Belgian/Flemish election candidates: a multilevel analysis. Government and Opposition59(4): 607–628.
39.
RabinowitzGMacdonaldSE (1989) A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review83(1): 93–121.
40.
RaynoldsABenRAndrewE (2005) Electoral System Design: The New International IDEA Handbook. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
41.
SaarimaaTTukiainenJ (2016) Local representation and strategic voting: evidence from electoral boundary reforms. European Journal of Political Economy41: 31–45.
42.
ShugartMSValdiniMESuominenK (2005) Looking for locals: voter information demands and personal vote-earning attributes of legislators under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science49(2): 437–449.
43.
SinghSP (2010) Contextual influences on the decision calculus: a cross-national examination of proximity voting. Electoral Studies29(3): 425–434.
44.
TavitsM (2009) The making of mavericks: local loyalties and party defection. Comparative Political Studies20(10): 1–23.
45.
TavitsM (2010) Effect of local ties on electoral success and parliamentary behaviour. The case of Estonia. Party Politics16(2): 215–235.
46.
ValdiniME (2006) Electoral institutions and information shortcuts: the effect of decisive intraparty competition on the behavior of voters and party elites. PhD Thesis,University of California, San Diego. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8718h6gc(accessed 8 June 2019).
47.
von SchoultzÅ (2016) Passing through the eye of the needle – individual electoral success in Finnish parliamentary elections. In: KarvonenLPaloheimoHRaunioT (eds) The Changing Balance of Political Power in Finland. Stockholm: Santerus Academic Press, pp. 163–188.
48.
von SchoultzÅ (2018) Electoral systems in context: Finland. In: HerronESPekkanenRJShugartMS (eds) Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 601–626.
49.
WestinenJ (2015) Cleavages in Contemporary Finland: A Study on Party-Voter Ties. Åbo: ÅboAkademi University 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.
