Signalling issue salience: Explaining niche party support in second-order elections

Why do many mainstream party voters switch to voting for niche parties in second-order elections? I develop a simple framework to explain niche party switching in second-order elections and propose that some voters defect strategically to niche parties as a way to signal the salience of an otherwise overlooked issue to their preferred mainstream party. Using panel data from the United Kingdom and Germany, I find that vote switching in second-order elections is more common among those who perceive a mismatch between the party they feel close to and the party perceived as best able to handle an issue of importance to them, as well as when they believe less is at stake and when they place much importance on an overlooked issue.     

It’s Not the Media,Stupid

It is commonly believed that the general public is heavily dependent on the media for its political news and views and that, as a consequence, the media exercise a strong influence over public opinion and behaviour. However, many millions in the Western world strongly believe things that are barely ever mentioned in the mainstream media, just as many millions also firmly reject or ignore some of the messages that are repeated incessantly by them. This confirms sixty years of experimental psychology research showing that most individuals are capable of preserving their beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, argument and logic to the contrary. Consistent with this, political science research finds little evidence of strong media influence on the party voting, political attitudes and election agendas of citizens. They have their own ways of gathering political information about the world around them, and they do not necessarily believe what they read in the papers, unless they are so inclined to start with. Consequently, media influences on mass opinion and behaviour are weaker than commonly assumed and, such as they are, their effects are more beneficial than harmful for democracy.     

Resurgent Remain and a Rebooted Revolt on the Right: Exploring the 2019 European Parliament Elections in the United Kingdom

The 2019 European Parliament (EP) election took place against the backdrop of the vote for Brexit and the failure of Parliament to agree on a withdrawal agreement. Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party topped the poll and the pro‐Remain Liberal Democrats, which called for a second referendum on EU membership, returned from electoral obscurity to take second place, while other pro‐Remain parties similarly performed well. In sharp contrast, the two main parties, Labour and the Conservatives, recorded their lowest combined vote share since they became the main representatives of the two‐party system. In this article, we draw on aggregate‐level data to explore what happened at the 2019 EP election in Great Britain. Our evidence suggests Labour suffered from a ‘pincer movement’, losing support in its mainly white, working class ‘left behind’ heartlands but also in younger cosmopolitan areas where Labour had polled strongly at the 2017 general election. Support for the new Brexit Party increased more significantly in ‘left behind’ communities, which had given strong support to Leave at the 2016 referendum, suggesting that national populists capitalised on Labour’s woes. The Conservatives haemorrhaged support in affluent, older retirement areas but largely at the expense of the resurgent Liberal Democrats, with the latter surging in Remain areas and where the Conservatives are traditionally strong, though not in areas with younger electorates where the party made so much ground prior to the 2010–2015 coalition government. Lastly, turnout increased overall compared with 2014, but individuals living in Leave areas were less motivated to vote. Overall, our findings suggest that those living in Remain areas were more driven to express their discontent with the Brexit process and more inclined to support parties that offer a second referendum on Britain’s EU membership.     

论公诉案件庭前审查程序

公正是诉讼追求的永远价值目标，但在司法实践中存在诸多制约此目标实现的因素，庭前审查程序成为其中之一种。在不能彻底废弃此类制度之前，必须将实体审查改革为单纯程序性审查，如此，或可为其后的审判程序及审判结果提供相对公正的保障。     

刍析表决权信托客体——表决权抑或股权

表决权信托对于保护中小股东,维持股权结构,职工持股等方面都有很大的意义,其在我国的理论研究和实践方面也正广泛地展开。然而对于表决权信托的客体研究却众说纷纭,这种理论上的模糊不清导致对于表决权信托的研究始终处于一种表面的状态。文章旨在对表决权信托客体的各类学说进行梳理和纠错。从信托基本制度入手,以分析委托人和受托人之间的权利义务为主线,辅之于我国现实生活中的表决权信托实例,最终揭示出表决权信托的客体是股权这一论点。     

我国公民民主观念的构成

我国的社会主义民主改革已经逐渐深入，但是我国公民的民主观念却仍然保留有计划经济时代和大民主时代的特征，这种错误的民主观念对我国政府和社会的危害都是极大的，因此，我们必须改进我国公民的民主观念，以达成国家制度与公民的良性互动。     

程序类型化理论：简易程序设置的理论根源

简易程序设置的理论根源多是从效率的角度来阐述的,对此,本文提出了不同的观点.主张从程序的功能--正义再分配的角度入手,探讨程序设置的理论根源.通过分析,认为程序的类型化理论是程序设置在制度层面上的理论支撑,进而提出简易程序设置的理论根源也在于程序类型化理论,最终落脚于实现正义.     

Treating Voters as an Afterthought? The Legacies of a Decade of Electoral Modernisation in the United Kingdom

Over the past decade, the UK's New Labour government has been at the forefront of efforts internationally to modernise electoral procedures, promising to deliver 'an e-enabled, multi-channel general election by 2006'. This paper considers the origins and the impacts of reforms to UK electoral procedures with a particular focus on the adoption of postal voting on demand and pilots of electronic voting and counting since 2000. The paper concludes that the principal legacy of the modernisation agenda to date is likely to have been a negative impact on public confidence in the electoral process.     

澳门回归后我国区际法律冲突问题研究

本文先就澳门回归后我国区际法律冲突的特点和解决的原则作了简明的分析，接着对中国大陆与澳门之间区际法律冲突的解决模式和步骤进行了探讨。作者在分别考察了美国、英国、澳大利亚、加拿大等国的几种典型模式的基础上，认为我国所采取的模式应该是在坚持一国两制基本原则前提下，较为灵活的、能反映中国实际的分阶段演进的模式。文章建议，由先采取类似于解决国际法律冲突的方式逐步发展到全国法律的初步统一。     

Disputes about corporate expression absorption and their legal remedies

Corporate expression is the expression that a company gives to the outside in its capacity as a legal entity. Often referring to resolutions made by shareholder meetings and the board of directors, based on good faith and bound by contractual spirit, a company must be held liable for its expression. Corporate expression absorption refers to the corporate behaviors and situations wherein the majority voting shareholders and directors replace the will of the minority voting shareholders and directors within their own will. Among them, the majority voting shareholders at a shareholders’ meeting (shareholders’ general meeting) are decision-making shareholders, and directors, managers and other senior management staff that decide corporate affairs are called decision-making members. Corporate expression absorption consists of two sorts: absorption by shareholders’ meeting and absorption by the board of directors. Shareholders’ meeting is a company’s authoritative organization; when the voting rights of some shareholders exceed the statutory limit, they will be able to manipulate the expression of shareholders’ meetings and replace the will of other shareholders with that of their own. The expression absorption by the board of directors refers to the practice wherein the majority directors decide on important corporate matters in accordance with the majority rule. Thus, it can be seen that the corporate expression absorption is a double-edged sword, not only capable of uplifting operational efficiency but also likely to help decision-making shareholders achieve personal gains and transfer corporate interests. As for the disputes of corporate expression absorption, the following legal remedies might be adopted: (1) Limit the voting rights of decision-making shareholders. (2) Provide shareholders with veto power over specific events. (3) Ask the chambers of commerce (industry associations) to arbitrate specific events. (4) Preserve the market value of shares held by dissenting directors. (5) Expand cumulative voting; (6) Provide shareholders the right to exit. (7) Legal remedies for corporate deadlock. (8) Shareholders’ derivative lawsuits. __________ Translated from China Law, No. 4, 2005