Friendship,Courting, and Engagement: Pre-electoral Coalition Dynamics in Action

The literature on pre-electoral coalitions (PECs) still relies heavily on comparative statics to gauge whether a PEC is likely to form and/or its effects on government formation. However, less is known about the behavioural dynamics of PECs. The dynamics of the recent 2009 PEC between the Socialist People's Party and the Social Democrats in Denmark are assessed. Elaborating on the signalling hypothesis, it is argued that coalition members over time must show their ability to vote together in parliament in order to establish a credible commitment. Empirical support is found for this take on the signalling thesis. It was also found that the distance between the parties narrows before the formulation of the PEC, and distinct phases in the process are pointed to, which the authors coin ‘friendship’, ‘courting’, and ‘engagement’. Finally, alternative explanations are assessed and the question of which party of the PEC would have to change voting patterns in the inter-party coordination process in order to become 'office-fit' is addressed. It is concluded that PECs have a systematic effect on the members' parliamentary voting behaviour and that they serve as a preparatory signalling device for opposition parties with office ambitions.     

Party Unity in the Swiss Parliament: The Electoral Connection

This study investigates the connection between legislative and electoral politics in Switzerland. The authors postulate that party unity is higher in an election year, and more specifically in votes on issues that are important for the party platform and that are of greater visibility to voters. The authors analyse the entire voting record of the Swiss parliament (lower house) on legislative acts between 1996 and 2007, which consists of roll call votes as well as unpublished votes. The authors find a strong effect of elections on voting unity among certain parties, and also find encouraging support for the hypotheses that this effect is mediated by the visibility of the vote and related issue salience.     

Legislative voting in the pork-dominant parliament: evidence from the Philippine House of Representatives

In this paper I investigate how legislators behave in extremely pork-oriented, or pork-dominant, systems where virtually no party-line voting takes place and politicians strive to deliver individual/local benefits instead of national public policies. I argue that, in the pork-dominant context, most legislators vote with the president, who controls access to the pork pipeline, irrespective of their party affiliations. Thus, the president’s party legislators should have little incentive to vote against the president, regardless of voter demands for pork or policy; however, sometimes opposition-party legislators elected particularly from more-developed districts (where voters often desire policy over pork) should have strong incentives to vote against the president. These arguments are supported with quantitative studies of the post-authoritarian Philippine House of Representatives. It is found that, in the highly homogeneous legislature dominated by pork-seeking politicians, (1) most bills are passed with unanimous or near-unanimous consent, (2) governing-party legislators almost always vote with the majority of the members of the parliament, regardless of voters’ socio-economic conditions, and (3) opposition-party legislators, especially in more-developed areas, tend to vote against the parliamentary majority. These findings indicate that voters’ high socio-economic status promotes programmatic accountability, leading their representatives to undermine voting unity within the extremely cohesive pork-dominant legislature.     

Party Cohesion in the Danish Parliament

This article formulates a comprehensive and systematic taxonomy of micro level explanations of party cohesion; party cohesion being understood as party group members acting in unity externally. This apparatus is used in an analysis of party cohesion in the final divisions in the Danish Parliament, where cohesion figures are among the highest in the liberal democratic world. The investigation is based on interviews, survey data and data on voting behaviour. The main explanations of the high level of cohesion are the absence of disagreement in the party groups and a moral commitment to the party. Variation among MPs, parties and topics is also documented and discussed. The cohesion of each party and the compliant behaviour of individual MPs are related to the importance MPs ascribe to representing their party. Furthermore, divisions on moral issues, EU integration and local matters show lower than normal degrees of cohesion.     

Protesters,Parliamentarians, Policymakers: The Experiences of Australian Green MPs

This article details the distinctive style and political commitments that Green members of parliament (MPs) bring to representative democracy in Australia. Based on in-depth interviews with 16 sitting federal and state Green MPs, it examines the extent to which the political culture, grassroots organisation and values of this left-libertarian party influence the parliamentary role orientations and legislative behaviour of its MPs, and how this fits with existing research on parliamentary representatives. The analysis reveals mixed results: while the legislative priorities and representative focus of MPs appear to be influenced more by previous social movement and parliamentary experience rather than overarching party orientations, the party's culture has had a strong impact on MPs' views regarding issues of conscience and their style of representation. Drawing on the comparative experience of Green parties throughout Western Europe, this article utilises the prism of role orientations to assess the conflicting imperatives Australian Green MPs face in staying true to their movement origins while their party becomes increasingly professional and influential in the parliamentary arena.     

The politics of abortion in the House of Representatives in 1976

The discussion in the U. S. Congress preceeding the passage of the 1976 Hyde Amendment, prohibiting the use of Medicaid funds for abortions, was described and the results of a multivariate analysis of the factors influencing the votes on the amendment in the House of Representatives were presented. Between June 24-August 10, 1976 there were 3 roll call votes on the amendment in the House of Representatives and during this period support for the amendment increased from 54%-69%. Multiple classification analysis was used to analyze the relative influence of 11 independent variables on the voting behavior of the representatives. The 11 variables included 1) the age, educational level, sex, and religious affliation of the representative; 2) the representative's party affliation, degree of constituent support, and previous voting record on liberal issues; and 3) the average income, racial composition, geographical location, and the % of urban residents in the representative's district. The factor which served as the best indicator of the representative's vote on the amendment was the representative's previous voting record on liberal issues. Those with more liberal voting records tended to vote against the amendment and those with more conservative voting records tended to vote for the amendment. The 2nd best predictor of amendment votes was the religious affliation of the representative. Catholic representatives, compared to Protestant and Jewish representatives, were more likely to support the amendment. Geographical location of the representative's district was a moderate indicator of the representative's vote on the amendment. Representatives from the south were more likely to support the amendment. The degree of constituent support for the representative in his own district was also a moderate indicator of the representatives vote on the amendment. The 11 factors together accounted for 1/3 of the votes.     

Judges and Politics: The Parliamentary Contributions of the Law Lords 1876–2009

There is a common perception that, prior to the exclusion of serving judges from the House of Lords in 2009, a ‘politics convention’ operated which required judges to avoid party‐political controversy and ensured that they contributed to debate only rarely. On this view, the presence of the Law Lords in parliament prior to 2009 presented a judicial independence and separation of powers problem in theory only. An examination of the contributions of serving Law Lords and other judicial peers to debates in the House of Lords from 1876–2009 (and retired judges from 1876–2015) reveals that the convention either did not exist or was frequently ignored. While most judges were infrequent participants in parliamentary debate, some were enthusiastic – a small number among the most active parliamentarians in the Lords. The most active judicial peers were conservative in their politics and the best predictor that a judge would be active in the House was an association with conservative politics or causes.     

Parliamentary free speech,court orders and European law

The relationship between parliament and the courts has always had potential difficulties. However, for many years both institutions have respected the need to refrain from trespassing on the province of the other. As Lord Mustill observed, ‘the boundaries (between court and parliament) remain; they are of crucial significance to our private and public lives’.¹ However, developments in law and politics can result in new strains in this relationship. This article considers the particular problems posed by the relationship between court orders, such as injunctions, and free speech in parliament. The issues that will be discussed are not just concerned with English law, but raise questions as to the relationship between European law (both the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and European Community Law) and parliamentary proceedings, something that would have been unthinkable not very long ago.     

Change of Political Allegiance in Parliamentary Life

Since Confederation in Canada and until the 39th federal general election of 23 January 2006, no fewer than 246 members of the House of Commons have changed political allegiance. This number includes only those in the federal portion of Canadian public life and only those in the Lower House of Parliament. At the time of writing, there were 16 Members of the House of Commons who, at one time or another in their careers, left one political party for another. The realities of floor‐crossing and the consequences of such an admittedly risky venture in public life must be assumed to affect parliamentarians’ views about the creation of rules, whether legal, political or mixed, in respect of changes of political allegiance. Through a close examination of the Constitution Act and other Acts of Parliament this article investigates whether such rules exist in Canada. It also provides an overview of recent attempts at codification and lessons learnt from foreign jurisdictions, such as South Africa and New Zealand. The article concludes by referring to Edmund Burke’s famous Address to the Electors of Bristol and observing that the logical consequence for current Canadian political life of Burke’s thoughts may be that a Member of Parliament must be free to vote according to their conscience and therefore may only be held to account to those who elected them until the following election.     

Strategic Ticket Splitting and the Personal Vote in Mixed‐Member Electoral Systems

This article examines ticket splitting in five different mixed‐member electoral systems—Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Lithuania, and RussiA—and indicates the shortcomings inherent in any analysis of such ticket splitting that does not take into account the presence of the personal vote. We find that the personal vote plays a central part in shaping ticket splitting in all of our cases except for Germany, a heavily party‐oriented system in which we find evidence of only a weak personal vote but evidence of substantial strategic voting.     

Diversity policies meet the competency movement: towards reshaping law firm partnership models for the future

Globalisation, commercialisation, and economic pressures following the global financial crisis have produced a ‘new normal’ for the practice of law in private firms, requiring reassessment of the range of skills necessary for success. Scholarship in the ‘competencies movement’ has responded to this need for skills reassessment. At the same time, research and scholarship focused on increasing diversity and inclusion in law firms has blossomed. However, little attention has been paid to analysing synergies in the competencies and diversity movements, and there have been calls for more collaborative research between academics, firms and professional bodies in response to issues of diversity and inclusion. This article presents a collaborative research project between law firms, the Women Lawyers Association of New South Wales, and the Legal Intersections Research Centre at the University of Wollongong on current best practices in diversity in large Australian law firms. It argues that such collaborative projects, with a focus on synergies between the competencies and diversities movements, provide the greatest potential for reshaping law firm practice and partnership models to respond to issues of advancement, attrition, and lack of re-engagement, particularly by women in law firms.     

Institutional Change and Legislative Vote Consensus in New Zealand

In this research note, I discuss results from a recent study assessing the impact that New Zealand's electoral and legislative system reforms had on levels of vote consensus achieved in the House of Representatives. Using a new legislative vote data set spanning from 1987 to 2007, I find evidence that the institutional changes fostered an increase in consensual legislative vote outcomes. I also provide a brief theoretical explanation of the developments and address a few issues concerning the measure of consensus used and the interpretation of the data.     

After Enlargement: Voting Patterns in the Sixth European Parliament

We examined how voting behavior in the European Parliament changed after the European Union added ten new member‐states in 2004. Using roll‐call votes, we compared voting behavior in the first half of the Sixth European Parliament (July 2004‐December 2006) with voting behavior in the previous Parliament (1999–2004). We looked at party cohesion, coalition formation, and the spatial map of voting by members of the European Parliament. We found stable levels of party cohesion and interparty coalitions that formed mainly around the left‐right dimension. Ideological distance between parties was the strongest predictor of coalition preferences. Overall, the enlargement of the European Union in 2004 did not change the way politics works inside the European Parliament. We also looked at the specific case of the controversial Services Directive and found that ideology remained the main predictor of voting behavior, although nationality also played a role.     

Free voting in a provincial parliament: The case of ‘same‐sex’ legislation in Ontario, 1994

Previous research on parliamentary free voting, which has been confined exclusively to national parliaments and almost exclusively to the British House of Commons, has found relatively little constituency impact on members’ voting decisions, even on the most contentious issues of social policy. Since sub‐national parliaments tend to be smaller, less professionalised, and (arguably) ‘closer to the people’, it is possible that a more significant ‘constituency connection’ might be observed in these legislative arenas. This study extends the literature on this topic by empirically examining the fate of a recent homosexual rights bill in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. Contrary to expectations, none of the constituency characteristics used in logistical regression models generates a significant MLE coefficient, suggesting that Canadian provincial legislators may be even less sensitive to constituency preferences than their national counterparts.     

Mixed Rules,Different Roles? An Analysis of the Typical Pathways into the Bundestag and of MPs' Parliamentary Behaviour

Does the German mixed electoral system produce two types of representatives – MPs elected in the district who aim primarily to represent the interests of their constituencies and list MPs who are primarily loyal to their party or seek to serve ‘functional’ interest groups? The paper addresses this controversial question in two steps. It first uses sequence analysis in order to discover empirically just how prominent the exclusive ‘path into the Bundestag’ actually was by way of either the party list or the electoral district. The empirical basis is a data set covering all 3581 members of parliament from 1949 to 2009. Secondly, after having identified MPs with clear district or list careers, the paper replicates a study on committee membership asking whether district MPs sat more often in committees that are of relevance for their districts while list MPs more often sit in so-called ‘policy’ committees. The paper finds no evidence for a clear ‘mandate divide’ between MPs elected in a district and those numerous MPs entering parliament via the party list but also contesting a district.     

Administrative Justice in Wales

This article examines some of the synergies between Phil Thomas’ work and the authors’ research into administrative justice in Wales. Like him, they have examined the impact of new rights-based legislation on access to justice, and also share with him an interest in connections between politics, social policy, and access to justice. The article argues that Wales is not yet taken seriously as ‘a site in which [administrative] justice is done’, and that there remains an ‘implementation gap’ when it comes to putting innovative social policy into practice. The limited development of an administrative justice culture can hamper the achievement of social and economic justice in Wales; such a culture could be fostered with leadership from the Welsh Government and the Senedd, alongside improved training for administrators, and the potential addition of ‘a just Wales’ to the well-being goals contained in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.     

Portfolio Allocation within Parties: The Role of Regional Party Branches

One of the most persistent findings in coalition research is the proportionality rule (‘Gamson's Law’) that guides the allocation of portfolios between parties. This article tests the assumption that a similar rule is at work within parties. More specifically, it examines the allocation of ministerial posts to regional party branches in 25 post-war cabinets in Austria between 1945 and 2008. Drawing on the literature on party organisations, three types of resources (membership, vote and population shares) are identified, all of which account for a substantial part of the variation in the shares of cabinet seats awarded to each party branch. The analysis thus bears out the proportionality proposition to a significant degree. Furthermore, it is shown that there is considerable cross-party variation in the allocation patterns, which reflects differences in the organisational structure of the parties.     

Yea or Nay: Do Legislators Benefit by Voting Against Their Party?

This article asks whether legislators are able to reap electoral benefits from opposing their party on one or more high‐profile issues. Using data from a national survey in which citizens are asked their own positions on seven high‐profile issues voted on by the U.S. Senate, as well as how they believe their state's two senators have voted on these issues, I find that senators generally do not benefit from voting against their party. Specifically, when a senator deviates from her party, the vast majority of out‐partisans nonetheless persist in believing that the senator voted with her party anyhow; and while the small minority of out‐partisans who are aware of her deviation are indeed more likely to approve of and vote for such a senator, there are simply too few of these correctly informed citizens for it to make a meaningful difference for the senator's overall support.     

Preferences and agreement in legislative parties: testing the causal chain

This research note focuses on two specific dimensions of legislative cohesion: the homogeneity of preferences within a party and party agreement. Although these two dimensions have often been considered as synonyms, it is argued that these two concepts refer to different realities. The authors therefore develop distinct measurements for these two concepts. The authors then examine their statistical relationship, putting to the test the widespread assumption that heterogeneous preferences increase the probability of disagreement. The authors do so by testing the effect of different measures of a member of parliament’s ideological distance to her/his party on her/his self-reported frequency of disagreement with her/his party. It is demonstrated that the causal chain linking both concepts is only verified in the case of a conscious ideological distance. The results have crucial theoretical and methodological implications for future research on party cohesion and party unity.