Joshua Townsley, S. J. Turnbull-Dugarte, Siim Trumm, Caitlin Milazzo
While most voters in democratic countries still cast their ballot on election day, the proportion of the electorate which opts for postal voting has been steadily, and often dramatically, increasing. This transformation in electoral politics, however, is under-researched, particularly with regards to the motivations underlying the decision to cast a postal vote. In this article, we analyse the factors that drive an individual to vote by post rather than at the polling station. Using data from the 2019 British Election Study, we show, among other findings, that citizens for whom in-person voting would entail higher costs, such as the elderly and disabled, are more likely to opt for the convenience of postal voting. In addition, we find that partisans are unlikely to vote by post, suggesting that they derive greater expressive benefits from voting in a public setting. Finally, our analysis demonstrates that constituency marginality matters when it comes to opting for postal voting: citizens in more competitive constituencies are significantly more likely to ensure their votes by casting their ballots by post rather than on election day.
{"title":"Who Votes by Post? Understanding the Drivers of Postal Voting in the 2019 British General Election","authors":"Joshua Townsley, S. J. Turnbull-Dugarte, Siim Trumm, Caitlin Milazzo","doi":"10.1093/pa/gsab049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab049","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 While most voters in democratic countries still cast their ballot on election day, the proportion of the electorate which opts for postal voting has been steadily, and often dramatically, increasing. This transformation in electoral politics, however, is under-researched, particularly with regards to the motivations underlying the decision to cast a postal vote. In this article, we analyse the factors that drive an individual to vote by post rather than at the polling station. Using data from the 2019 British Election Study, we show, among other findings, that citizens for whom in-person voting would entail higher costs, such as the elderly and disabled, are more likely to opt for the convenience of postal voting. In addition, we find that partisans are unlikely to vote by post, suggesting that they derive greater expressive benefits from voting in a public setting. Finally, our analysis demonstrates that constituency marginality matters when it comes to opting for postal voting: citizens in more competitive constituencies are significantly more likely to ensure their votes by casting their ballots by post rather than on election day.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49135146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article poses the following research questions: to what extent has the populist executive in Hungary affected formal and informal parliamentary powers? To what extent has the relation between the executive and the legislative changed over the three legislative periods of populist government? This article examines change in formal powers but also in the informal practices concerning parliament’s legislative and scrutiny functions. Regarding the time frame, the empirical analysis compares the period when Fidesz was in opposition (2006–2010), with the period when Fidesz has been in government (2010–2020). The article establishes that during 2010–2020, the legislative suffered profound disempowerment that has been attributed to three factors: systemic collapse of democracy in Hungary, weakening formal powers of the legislature and the autocratic features of the Fidesz party. Moreover, the article demonstrates that executive–legislative relations have been dynamic between 2010 and 2020 and concern different formal and informal practices.
{"title":"How Far Can Populist Governments Go? The Impact of the Populist Government on the Hungarian Parliament","authors":"G. Ilonszki, Adrienn Vajda","doi":"10.1093/pa/gsab007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The article poses the following research questions: to what extent has the populist executive in Hungary affected formal and informal parliamentary powers? To what extent has the relation between the executive and the legislative changed over the three legislative periods of populist government? This article examines change in formal powers but also in the informal practices concerning parliament’s legislative and scrutiny functions. Regarding the time frame, the empirical analysis compares the period when Fidesz was in opposition (2006–2010), with the period when Fidesz has been in government (2010–2020). The article establishes that during 2010–2020, the legislative suffered profound disempowerment that has been attributed to three factors: systemic collapse of democracy in Hungary, weakening formal powers of the legislature and the autocratic features of the Fidesz party. Moreover, the article demonstrates that executive–legislative relations have been dynamic between 2010 and 2020 and concern different formal and informal practices.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42165731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is a significant literature on the role of both parties and leaders in electoral politics and a broad understanding of the strength of the relationship between the two in voters’ minds. However, less has been done to determine if there is systematic variation in whether voters see a party and its leader as one and the same. I address this question by using the Comparative Study of Electoral System to measure the impact of leader changes on voter perceptions. I find that new leaders are less likely to be evaluated according to the party they represent, with some evidence that maintaining the same leader over a long period of time increases the association between leader and party.
{"title":"Leader Change, Time in Office and the Determinants of Voter Perceptions","authors":"Jack Bridgewater","doi":"10.1093/pa/gsab040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab040","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 There is a significant literature on the role of both parties and leaders in electoral politics and a broad understanding of the strength of the relationship between the two in voters’ minds. However, less has been done to determine if there is systematic variation in whether voters see a party and its leader as one and the same. I address this question by using the Comparative Study of Electoral System to measure the impact of leader changes on voter perceptions. I find that new leaders are less likely to be evaluated according to the party they represent, with some evidence that maintaining the same leader over a long period of time increases the association between leader and party.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46847597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Chilcot report set out in detail its finding that the Blair Government had been prone to groupthink in its decision-making processes when leading Britain into the Iraq War. Subsequent British prime ministers have been in no hurry to change their style of governing in ways that might broaden decision-making circles and introduce the ‘challenge’ that Chilcot said had been lacking. This article draws on the literature on the psychology of group decision-making to examine the extent to which groupthink remains embedded in the processes of cabinet government in the UK. The article argues that the strongest driver of groupthink is the psychological disposition towards conflict of individual prime ministers. Drawing on interviews with ministers, civil servants and special advisers we suggest that the political authority of the prime minister interacts with their psychological predisposition towards debate to encourage groupthink, polythink or a more positive style of ‘vigilant’ decision-making.
{"title":"Groupthink, Polythink and the Challenges of Decision-Making in Cabinet Government","authors":"Dennis C Grube, Anna Killick","doi":"10.1093/pa/gsab047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab047","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Chilcot report set out in detail its finding that the Blair Government had been prone to groupthink in its decision-making processes when leading Britain into the Iraq War. Subsequent British prime ministers have been in no hurry to change their style of governing in ways that might broaden decision-making circles and introduce the ‘challenge’ that Chilcot said had been lacking. This article draws on the literature on the psychology of group decision-making to examine the extent to which groupthink remains embedded in the processes of cabinet government in the UK. The article argues that the strongest driver of groupthink is the psychological disposition towards conflict of individual prime ministers. Drawing on interviews with ministers, civil servants and special advisers we suggest that the political authority of the prime minister interacts with their psychological predisposition towards debate to encourage groupthink, polythink or a more positive style of ‘vigilant’ decision-making.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49350052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-01DOI: 10.1093/PA/GSAB041/6333307
Victor Ellenbroek, M. Meijers, A. Krouwel
In the ideational approach to populism, populist politicians consider a politically pluralist parliament both as unnecessary and as an obstacle to the expression of the true people’s will in politics. It is however an open question whether citizens with high populist attitudes are just as negatively predisposed towards pluralism in parliament and coalition government: Thus far, evidence of a negative relationship between populist attitudes and preferences for pluralism in politics has been inconclusive. We asked ca 2.000 Dutch respondents – raked to be representative of the population – to draw up their ideal assembly and to select the parties that they wish to be part of coalition government. Results show that individuals who score high on the populist attitudes scale are not negatively predisposed towards the inclusion of many parties in parliament and coalition government. These results shed new light on the presumed incompatibility between populism, pluralism, and liberal democracy.
{"title":"Populist but Pluralist? : Populist Attitudes and Preferences for Political Pluralism in Parliament and Government","authors":"Victor Ellenbroek, M. Meijers, A. Krouwel","doi":"10.1093/PA/GSAB041/6333307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PA/GSAB041/6333307","url":null,"abstract":"In the ideational approach to populism, populist politicians consider a politically pluralist parliament both as unnecessary and as an obstacle to the expression of the true people’s will in politics. It is however an open question whether citizens with high populist attitudes are just as negatively predisposed towards pluralism in parliament and coalition government: Thus far, evidence of a negative relationship between populist attitudes and preferences for pluralism in politics has been inconclusive. We asked ca 2.000 Dutch respondents – raked to be representative of the population – to draw up their ideal assembly and to select the parties that they wish to be part of coalition government. Results show that individuals who score high on the populist attitudes scale are not negatively predisposed towards the inclusion of many parties in parliament and coalition government. These results shed new light on the presumed incompatibility between populism, pluralism, and liberal democracy.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46376299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alan Convery, David C. W. Parker, P. Haines, Sheri DeBoe Johnson, Rachel Schmidt
The creation of the Scottish Parliament provided Scottish citizens with an additional layer of politicians to represent them. But to whom do constituents turn when seeking help with a problem—councillors, MSPs or MPs? We assess how partisanship, national identity and shared competences affect public perceptions of the governing responsibilities of the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament and local councils. We find that an individual’s national identity considerably affects perceptions of the political powers delegated to Scottish political institutions. We conclude by considering the implications for efforts to further devolve powers to the devolved legislatures in the UK.
{"title":"Do Constitutional Preferences Affect Citizens’ Representational Choices? Evidence from the Devolved UK","authors":"Alan Convery, David C. W. Parker, P. Haines, Sheri DeBoe Johnson, Rachel Schmidt","doi":"10.1093/pa/gsab044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsab044","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The creation of the Scottish Parliament provided Scottish citizens with an additional layer of politicians to represent them. But to whom do constituents turn when seeking help with a problem—councillors, MSPs or MPs? We assess how partisanship, national identity and shared competences affect public perceptions of the governing responsibilities of the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament and local councils. We find that an individual’s national identity considerably affects perceptions of the political powers delegated to Scottish political institutions. We conclude by considering the implications for efforts to further devolve powers to the devolved legislatures in the UK.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48520247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction: The ‘Votes-at-16’ Debate in the UK","authors":"Jonathan Tonge, Thomas Loughran, A. Mycock","doi":"10.1093/PA/GSAB021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PA/GSAB021","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42827211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The debate over reform to the voting age at Westminster elections is dominated by a concept of young people as deficient and disengaged citizens. In the contemporary context of young civic action, new approaches to the civic can support a regeneration of the vote in young people’s expanded political toolbox. A conceptual approach to the debate on voting reform is presented alongside a critical appraisal of the opportunities available, to all sides of the debate, to contribute to young political regeneration.
{"title":"Missing an Opportunity? The Limited Civic Imagination of Votes at 16","authors":"B. Bowman","doi":"10.1093/PA/GSAB016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PA/GSAB016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The debate over reform to the voting age at Westminster elections is dominated by a concept of young people as deficient and disengaged citizens. In the contemporary context of young civic action, new approaches to the civic can support a regeneration of the vote in young people’s expanded political toolbox. A conceptual approach to the debate on voting reform is presented alongside a critical appraisal of the opportunities available, to all sides of the debate, to contribute to young political regeneration.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49419004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The UK is now a multi-level polity with asymmetrical minimum ages of enfranchisement. The franchise was first extended to 16- and 17-year-olds in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. The Scottish and Welsh governments now permit 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in elections to their devolved parliaments and local councils. The Northern Ireland Executive and the devolved authorities in England do not, however, have the power to change the voting age, and across all four nations of the UK, the age of franchise remains 18 for elections to the Westminster Parliament. The previous extension of the age of franchise, from 21 to 18 in 1969, attracted little controversy or political partisanship. But while there has been considerable political consensus regarding voting age reform in Scotland and Wales, debate over ‘Votes-at-16’ for Westminster elections has witnessed growing party-based partisanship. This article draws upon elite interviews with politicians across the political spectrum elected to Westminster and the devolved institutions on their attitudes to voting age reform, conducted as part of a 2-year Leverhulme Trust ‘Lowering the Voting Age in the UK’ project. The article argues that the multi-level party politics of the ‘Votes-at-16’ debate has consolidated rival party opinions on voting age reform at Westminster but not beyond.
{"title":"Voting Age Reform, Political Partisanship and Multi-Level Governance in the UK: The Party Politics of ‘Votes-at-16’","authors":"Jonathan Tonge, Thomas Loughran, A. Mycock","doi":"10.1093/PA/GSAB020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PA/GSAB020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The UK is now a multi-level polity with asymmetrical minimum ages of enfranchisement. The franchise was first extended to 16- and 17-year-olds in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. The Scottish and Welsh governments now permit 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in elections to their devolved parliaments and local councils. The Northern Ireland Executive and the devolved authorities in England do not, however, have the power to change the voting age, and across all four nations of the UK, the age of franchise remains 18 for elections to the Westminster Parliament. The previous extension of the age of franchise, from 21 to 18 in 1969, attracted little controversy or political partisanship. But while there has been considerable political consensus regarding voting age reform in Scotland and Wales, debate over ‘Votes-at-16’ for Westminster elections has witnessed growing party-based partisanship. This article draws upon elite interviews with politicians across the political spectrum elected to Westminster and the devolved institutions on their attitudes to voting age reform, conducted as part of a 2-year Leverhulme Trust ‘Lowering the Voting Age in the UK’ project. The article argues that the multi-level party politics of the ‘Votes-at-16’ debate has consolidated rival party opinions on voting age reform at Westminster but not beyond.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44074146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Opposition responsibility is a neglected field, and if at all noticed, opposition parties are often placed in the irresponsibility frame. The purpose of our paper is to examine to what extent, under which conditions, and in which ways opposition parties can be considered to act responsibly. This article will develop the concept of opposition responsibility and test the expectations in the behaviour of opposition parties in three countries: Hungary, Italy and Spain. The analysis highlights that opposition responsibility exceeds—although does not exclude—policy making and scrutiny activities as it has broader implications. We shall regard the opposition’s general performance and their political system-related behaviour as components of responsibility.
{"title":"Can Opposition Parties Be Responsible?","authors":"G. Ilonszki, Francesco Marangoni, Anna M. Palau","doi":"10.1093/PA/GSAB028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/PA/GSAB028","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Opposition responsibility is a neglected field, and if at all noticed, opposition parties are often placed in the irresponsibility frame. The purpose of our paper is to examine to what extent, under which conditions, and in which ways opposition parties can be considered to act responsibly. This article will develop the concept of opposition responsibility and test the expectations in the behaviour of opposition parties in three countries: Hungary, Italy and Spain. The analysis highlights that opposition responsibility exceeds—although does not exclude—policy making and scrutiny activities as it has broader implications. We shall regard the opposition’s general performance and their political system-related behaviour as components of responsibility.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46426234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：