There is plenty of evidence that legislators think that aligning with voter preferences benefits their re-election. But whether or not legislators are constrained by demand, we have limited knowledge. This article tests whether issue representation in a generally salient field affects legislators’ electoral performance. The analysis uses data from five consecutive Hungarian elections (1994–2010), and investigates the effect of agricultural interpellations on the legislators’ vote shares under varying district demand. The findings indicate that congruence between district demand and legislator action matters when the issue is of great salience, and during times of anti-party sentiments within the electorate. While more interpellations are rewarded in rural districts, MPs can lose a lot of votes by asking agricultural interpellations in an urban area. At the same time, not submitting interpellations in rural constituencies does not result in similar vote loss. The results suggest that for re-election seekers taking action is the way to go only if it is calibrated to district demand.
AbramowitzAI (1988) Explaining Senate Election Outcomes. American Political Science Review82 (2): 385–403.
2.
AlvarezRMNaglerJBowlerS (2000) Issues, Economics, and the Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: The British 1987 General Election. The American Political Science Review94 (1): 131–149.
3.
AnsolabehereSJonesPE (2010) Constituents’ Responses to Congressional Roll-Call Voting. American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 583–597.
4.
BailerS (2011) People’s Voice or Information Pool? The Role of, and Reasons for, Parliamentary Questions in the Swiss Parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies17 (3): 302–314.
5.
BarroR (1973) The Control of Politicians: An Economic Model. Public Choice14 (1): 19–42.
6.
BawnK (1999) Voter Responses to Electoral Complexity: Ticket Splitting, Rational Voters and Representation in the Federal Republic of Germany. British Journal of Political Science29 (3): 487–505.
7.
BenoitKMarshM (2008) The Campaign Value of Incumbency: A New Solution to the Puzzle of Less Effective Incumbent Spending. American Journal of Political Science52 (4): 874–890.
8.
BirdK (2005) Gendering Parliamentary Questions. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations7 (3): 353–370.
9.
BlidookKKerbyM (2011) Constituency Influence on ‘Constituency Members’: The Adaptability of Roles to Electoral Realities in the Canadian Case. The Journal of Legislative Studies17 (3): 327–339.
10.
BorghettoESantana PereiraJFreireA (2020) Parliamentary Questions as an Instrument for Geographic Representation: The Hard Case of Portugal. Swiss Political Science Review26 (1): 10–30.
11.
BovitzGLCarsonJL (2006) Position-Taking and Electoral Accountability in the U.S. House of Representatives. Political Research Quarterly59 (2): 297–312.
12.
BraderTTuckerJA (2012) Following the Party’s Lead: Party Cues, Policy Opinion, and the Power of Partisanship in Three Multiparty Systems. Comparative Politics44 (4): 403–420.
13.
BussingAPattonWRobertsJM, et al. (2020) The Electoral Consequences of Roll Call Voting: Health Care and the 2018 Election. Political Behavior. Epub ahead of print 8 May. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-020-09615-4.
14.
CainBFerejohnJFiorinaMP (1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
CameronCEpsteinDO’HalloranS (1996) Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substantive Black Representation in Congress?American Political Science Review90 (4): 794–812.
16.
Canes-WroneBBradyDWCoganJF (2002) Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting. The American Political Science Review96 (1): 127–140.
17.
CareyJM (2007) Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science51 (1): 92–107.
18.
CarmanCShephardM (2007) Electoral Poachers? An Assessment of Shadowing Behaviour in the Scottish Parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies13 (4): 483–496.
19.
CarsonJLKogerGLeboMJ, et al. (2010) The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science54 (3): 598–616.
20.
ChiruM (2015) Rethinking Constituency Service: Electoral Institutions, Candidate Campaigns and Personal Vote in Hungary & Romania. Budapest: Central European University.
21.
ClausenAR (1973) How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
ClemRSCraumerPR (2002) Urban and Rural Effects on Party Preference in Russia: New Evidence from the Recent Duma Election. Post-Soviet Geography and Economics43 (1): 1–12.
23.
CostaOPoyetC (2016) Back to Their Roots: French MPs in Their District. French Politics14 (4): 406–438.
24.
CostelloRThomassenJRosemaM (2012) European Parliament Elections and Political Representation: Policy Congruence between Voters and Parties. West European Politics35 (6): 1226–1248.
25.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
DäublerT (2018) National Policy for Local Reasons: How MPs Represent Party and Geographical Constituency through Initiatives on Social Security. Acta Politica55: 472–491.
27.
Deegan-KrauseK (2007) New Dimensions of Political Cleavage. In: DaltonRJKlingemannH-D (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.538–556.
28.
EnyediZTókaG (2007) The Only Game in Town: Party Politics in Hungary. In: WebbPWhiteS (eds) Party Politics in New Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.147–178.
29.
EulauHKarpsPD (1977) The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly2 (3): 233–254.
30.
EvansG (2006) The Social Bases of Political Divisions in Post-Communist Eastern Europe. Annual Review of Sociology32: 245–270.
31.
EzrowL (2005) Are Moderate Parties Rewarded in Multiparty Systems? A Pooled Analysis of Western European Elections, 1984–1998. European Journal of Political Research44 (6): 881–898.
32.
FearonJ (1999) Electoral Accountability and the Control of Politicians: Selecting Good Types versus Sanctioning Poor Performance. In: PrzeworskiAStokesSCManinB (eds) Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.55–97.
33.
FerejohnJ (1986) Incumbent Performance and Electoral Control. Public Choice50 (1/3): 5–25.
34.
FordRJenningsW (2020) The Changing Cleavage Politics of Western Europe. Annual Review of Political Science23 (1): 295–314.
35.
Green-PedersenC (2010) Bringing Parties into Parliament: The Development of Parliamentary Activities in Western Europe. Party Politics16 (3): 347–369.
36.
HarrissJMooreM (2017) Development and the Rural-Urban Divide. New York: Routledge.
37.
HealyAMalhotraN (2013) Retrospective Voting Reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science16 (1): 285–306.
38.
HiranoSSnyderJM (2009) Using Multimember District Elections to Estimate the Sources of the Incumbency Advantage. American Journal of Political Science53 (2): 292–306.
39.
HlynsdóttirEMÖnnudóttirEH (2018) Constituency Service in Iceland and the Importance of the Centre-Periphery Divide. Representation54 (1): 55–68.
40.
Hoffman-MartinotV (1994) Voter Turnout in French Municipal Elections. In: Lopez-NietoL (ed.) Local Elections in Europe. Barcelona: Institut de cie`nces politiques I socials, pp.13–42.
41.
HutchingsVLMcClerkingHKCharlesG-U (2004) Congressional Representation of Black Interests: Recognizing the Importance of Stability. The Journal of Politics66 (2): 450–468.
42.
IlonszkiG (2007) From Minimal to Subordinate: A Final Verdict? The Hungarian Parliament, 1990–2002. The Journal of Legislative Studies13 (1): 38–58.
43.
KarácsonyG (2006) Árkok És Légvárak: A Választói Viselkedés Stabilizálódása Magyarországon. In: KarácsonyG (ed.) A 2006-Os Országgyűlési Választások: Elemzések És Adatok. Budapest: DKMKA, pp.59–103.
44.
KarpJAVowlesJBanducciSA, et al. (2002) Strategic Voting, Party Activity, and Candidate Effects: Testing Explanations for Split Voting in New Zealand’s New Mixed System. Electoral Studies21 (1): 1–22.
45.
KellermannM (2016) Electoral Vulnerability, Constituency Focus, and Parliamentary Questions in the House of Commons. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations18 (1): 90–106.
46.
KellyPLobaoL (2019) The Social Bases of Rural-Urban Political Divides: Social Status, Work, and Sociocultural Beliefs. Rural Sociology84 (4): 669–705.
47.
KeyVO (1966) The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936-1960. New York: Random House.
48.
KingG (1991) Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage. British Journal of Political Science21 (1): 119–128.
49.
KingdonJW (1989) Congressmen’s Voting Decisions, 3rd edn.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
50.
KirklandJHHardenJJ (2016) Representation, Competing Principals, and Waffling on Bills in U.S. Legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly41 (3): 657–686.
51.
KlingemannH-DWesselsB (2001) The Political Consequence of Germany’s Mixed-Member System: Personalization at the Grass Roots?. In: ShugartMSWattenbergMP (eds) Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.279–296.
52.
KmettyZTóthG (2011) A Politikai Részvétel Három Szintje. In: TardosREnyediZSzabóA (eds) Részvétel, Képviselet, Politikai Változás. Budapest: Demokrácia Kutatások Magyar Központja Alapítvány, pp. 75–115.
53.
KolpinskayaE (2017) Substantive Religious Representation in the UK Parliament: Examining Parliamentary Questions for Written Answers, 1997–2012. Parliamentary Affairs70 (1): 111–131.
54.
KriesiH (1998) The Transformation of Cleavage Politics The 1997 Stein Rokkan Lecture. European Journal of Political Research33 (2): 165–185.
55.
LinT-MEnelowJMDorussenH (1999) Equilibrium in Multicandidate Probabilistic Spatial Voting. Public Choice98 (1/2): 59–82.
56.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. Free Press.
57.
McgraneDBerdahlLBellS (2017) Moving Beyond the Urban/Rural Cleavage: Measuring Values and Policy Preferences across Residential Zones in Canada. Journal of Urban Affairs39: 17–39.
58.
MaestasC (2000) Professional Legislatures and Ambitious Politicians: Policy Responsiveness of State Institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly25 (4): 663–690.
59.
MansbridgeJ (2009) A ‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation. Journal of Political Philosophy17 (4): 369–398.
60.
MayhewDR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection, Second Edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
61.
MillerWEStokesDE (1963) Constituency Influence in Congress. The American Political Science Review57 (1): 45–56.
62.
NorrisP (1997) The Puzzle of Constituency Service. The Journal of Legislative Studies3 (2): 29–49.
63.
NyhanBMcGheeESidesJ, et al. (2012) One Vote Out of Step? The Effects of Salient Roll Call Votes in the 2010 Election. American Politics Research40 (5): 844–879.
64.
OtjesSLouwerseT (2018) Parliamentary Questions as Strategic Party Tools. West European Politics41 (2): 496–516.
65.
OverbyeE (1995) Making a Case for the Rational, Self-Regarding, ‘Ethical’ Voter. . . and Solving the ‘Paradox of Not Voting’ in the Process. European Journal of Political Research27 (3): 369–396.
66.
PappZ (2020) The Mandate Divide in Policy Representation: The Substantive Representation of Agricultural Interests in the Hungarian Parliament. Parliamentary Affairs. Epub ahead of print 7 February. DOI: 10.1093/pa/gsaa002.
67.
PappZRussoF (2018) Parliamentary Work, Re-selection and Re-election: In Search of the Accountability Link. Parliamentary Affairs71 (4): 853–867.
68.
PappZZorigtB (2016) Party-Directed Personalisation: The Role of Candidate Selection in Campaign Personalisation in Hungary. East European Politics32 (4): 466–486.
69.
RaymondCDHoltJ (2019) Constituency Preferences and Assignment to Agriculture Committees. Parliamentary Affairs72 (1): 141–161.
70.
RobertsA (2009) The Quality of Democracy in Eastern Europe: Public Preferences and Policy Reforms, 1st edn. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
71.
RobertsAKimB-Y (2011) Policy Responsiveness in Post-communist Europe: Public Preferences and Economic Reforms. British Journal of Political Science41 (4): 819–839.
72.
RoddenJA (2019) Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-rural Political Divide. Hachette: Basic Books.
73.
RogersS (2017) Electoral Accountability for State Legislative Roll Calls and Ideological Representation. American Political Science Review111 (3): 555–571.
74.
RosasGShomerYHaptonstahlSR (2015) No News Is News: Nonignorable Nonresponse in Roll-Call Data Analysis. American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 511–528.
75.
RoseR (1992) Escaping from Absolute Dissatisfaction: A Trial-and Model of Change in Eastern Europe. Journal of Theoretical Politics4 (4): 371–393.
76.
RussoFWibergM (2010) Parliamentary Questioning in 17 European Parliaments: Some Steps towards Comparison. The Journal of Legislative Studies16 (2): 215–232.
77.
SaalfeldT (2011) Parliamentary Questions as Instruments of Substantive Representation: Visible Minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005–10. The Journal of Legislative Studies17 (3): 271–289.
78.
SchoeneM (2019) European Disintegration? Euroscepticism and Europe’s Rural/Urban Divide. European Politics and Society20 (3): 348–364.
79.
SchofieldN (2004) Equilibrium in the Spatial ‘Valence’ Model of Politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics16 (4): 447–481.
80.
SebőkMMolnárCKubikBG (2017) Exercising Control and Gathering Information: The Functions of Interpellations in Hungary (1990–2014). The Journal of Legislative Studies23 (4): 465–483.
81.
SerraGMoonD (1994) Casework, Issue Positions, and Voting in Congressional Elections: A District Analysis. The Journal of Politics56 (1): 200–213.
82.
SöderlundP (2008) Retrospective Voting and Electoral Volatility: A Nordic Perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies31 (2): 217–240.
83.
SoraceM (2018) The European Union Democratic Deficit: Substantive Representation in the European Parliament at the Input Stage. European Union Politics19 (1): 3–24.
84.
SozziF (2016) Electoral Foundations of Parliamentary Questions: Evidence from the European Parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies22 (3): 349–367.
85.
SulkinTSwiggerN (2008) Is There Truth in Advertising? Campaign Ad Images as Signals about Legislative Behavior. The Journal of Politics70 (1): 232–244.
86.
SullivanJLShawLEMcAvoyGE, et al. (1993) The Dimensions of Cue-Taking in the House of Representatives: Variation by Issue Area. The Journal of Politics55 (4): 975–997.
87.
TavitsM (2010) Effect of Local Ties on Electoral Success and Parliamentary Behaviour: The Case of Estonia. Party Politics16 (2): 215–235.
88.
ThananithichotS (2012) Political Engagement and Participation of Thai Citizens: The Rural-Urban Disparity. Contemporary Politics18 (1): 87–108.
89.
ThomassenJAndewegRB (2004) Beyond Collective Representation: Individual Members of Parliament and Interest Representation in the Netherlands. The Journal of Legislative Studies10 (4): 47–69.
90.
TókaG (2002) Issue Voting and Party Systems in Central and Eastern Europe. In: FuchsDRollerEWeßelsB (eds) Bürger Und Demokratie in Ost Und West: Studien Zur Politischen Kultur Und Zum Politischen Prozess – Festschrift Für Hans-Dieter Klingemann. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag Für Sozialwissenschaften, pp.169–185.
91.
TókaGPopaS (2013) Hungary. In: BerglundSEkmanJDeegan-KrauseK, et al. (eds) The Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe, 3rd edn.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.291–338.
92.
TóthCTörökG (2002) Politikai Napirend, 2001: Kiegyenlítettebb Tematizációs Verseny a Választások Előtt (Political Agenda, 2001: A More Balances Thematizing Competition Before the Elections). In: KurtánSSándorPVassL (eds) Magyarország Politikai Évkönyve 2001-Ről (The Political Yearbook of Hungary from 2001). Budapest: DKMKA, pp.167–188.
93.
VerbaSNieNH (1987) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
94.
WibergMKouraA (1994) The Logic of Parliamentary Questions. In: WibergM (ed.) Parliamentary Control in Nordic Countries. Helsinki: Finnish Political Science Association, pp.19–43.
95.
WillumsenDM (2019) So Far Away from Me? The Effect of Geographical Distance on Representation. West European Politics42 (3): 645–669.
96.
WoodDMYoungG (1997) Comparing Constituency Activity by Junior Legislators in Great Britain and Ireland. Legislative Studies Quarterly22 (2): 217–232.
97.
WoonJ (2012) Democratic Accountability and Retrospective Voting: A Laboratory Experiment. American Journal of Political Science56 (4): 913–930.
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.
