Do voters prefer logrolling to compromise in parliamentary democracies?

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102889
Alejandro Ecker , Thomas M. Meyer , Carolina Plescia
{"title":"Do voters prefer logrolling to compromise in parliamentary democracies?","authors":"Alejandro Ecker ,&nbsp;Thomas M. Meyer ,&nbsp;Carolina Plescia","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In countries ruled by coalition governments, government policy is the result of negotiations between parties with diverging policy positions. We study what type of deals voters are willing to accept in these negotiations: policy compromises on individual issues or logrolls where each party gets to keep its position on one issue while conceding on another one. Based on a pre-registered survey experiment conducted after the 2021 Dutch general election, we find no evidence that respondents prefer logroll deals over policy compromises <em>per se</em>. Yet, voters are more sensitive to their policy preferences when evaluating logroll compared to compromise deals. In additional analyses, we show that this logroll effect is more pronounced when the logroll allows parties to keep their positions on their respective core issues. Our results have wider implications for political representation and government formation processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 102889"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001471","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In countries ruled by coalition governments, government policy is the result of negotiations between parties with diverging policy positions. We study what type of deals voters are willing to accept in these negotiations: policy compromises on individual issues or logrolls where each party gets to keep its position on one issue while conceding on another one. Based on a pre-registered survey experiment conducted after the 2021 Dutch general election, we find no evidence that respondents prefer logroll deals over policy compromises per se. Yet, voters are more sensitive to their policy preferences when evaluating logroll compared to compromise deals. In additional analyses, we show that this logroll effect is more pronounced when the logroll allows parties to keep their positions on their respective core issues. Our results have wider implications for political representation and government formation processes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
期刊最新文献
How congruent are populist parties with their constituencies? Evidence from the 2019 European Parliament Elections in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden Editorial Board Explaining 2020 Trump support: The role of anti-Muslim, pro-police, and anti-BLM attitudes Losing predicts perceptions that elections were decided by fraud, but margin of loss and candidate race do not Explicit partisan candidate support and bureaucratic responsiveness in hyper-partisan environment: Evidence from a field experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1