Toe the line, break the whip: explaining floor dissent in parliamentary democracies

References

• Andeweg, Rudy, and Jacques Thomassen (2011). ‘Pathways to Party Unity; Sanctions, Loyalty, Homogeneity and Division of Labor in the Dutch Parliament’, Party Politics, 17:5, 655–72.10.1177/1354068810377188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, James M. Snyder, Jr., and Charles Stewart III (2001). ‘The Effects of Party and Preferences on Congressional Roll-Call Voting’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26:4, 533–72.10.2307/440269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, David P. (1993). ‘Government Formation and Endogenous Parties’, American Political Science Review, 87:1, 34–47.10.2307/2938954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergman, Torbjörn, and Niklas Bolin (2011). ‘Swedish Democracy. Crumbling Political Parties, a Feeble Riksdag, and Technocratic Power Holders’, in Torbjörn Bergman and Kaare Strøm (eds.), The Madisonian Turn. Political Parties and Parliamentary Democracy in Nordic Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 252–95.
   Google Scholar
• Bowler, Shaun, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz (1999). ‘Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and Parliaments’, in Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell and Richard S. Katz (eds.), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus, GA: Ohio State University Press, 3–22.
   Google Scholar
• Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder (2006). ‘Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses’, Political Analysis, 14:1, 63–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brothén, Martin, and Sören Holmberg (2003). Swedish Parliamentary Study 2002. Dokumentation. Göteborg: Statsvetenskapliga institutionen.
   Google Scholar
• Brothén, Martin, Sören Holmberg, and Mari Eriksson (2007). Swedish Parliamentary Study 2006. Dokumentation. Göteborg: Statsvetenskapliga institutionen.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, John M. (2007). ‘Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting’, American Journal of Political Science, 51:1, 92–107.10.1111/ajps.2007.51.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, John M. (2009). Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, John M., and Matthew Søberg Shugart (1995). ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas’, Electoral Studies, 14:4, 417–39.10.1016/0261-3794(94)00035-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, Royce, and Keith T. Poole (2014). ‘Roll-Call Analysis and the Study of Legislatures’, in Shane Martin, Thomas Saalfeld and Kaare Strøm (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 103–25.
   Google Scholar
• Carrubba, Clifford J., Ryan Clough, Matthew J. Gabel, Eliza Montgomery, and Rebecca Schamback (2006). ‘Off the Record: Unrecorded Legislative Votes, Selection Bias and Roll-Call Vote Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, 36:4, 691–704.10.1017/S0007123406000366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrubba, Clifford J., Matthew J. Gabel, and Simon Hug (2008). ‘Legislative Voting Behavior, Seen and Unseen: A Theory of Roll-Call Vote Selection’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33:4, 543–72.10.3162/036298008786403079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman Battista, James, and Jesse T. Richman (2011). ‘Party Pressure in the U.S. State Legislatures.’ Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36:3, 397–422.10.1111/lsq.2011.36.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, Gary W., and Matthew D. McCubbins (2005). Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791123
   Google Scholar
• Cox, Gary W., Thad Kousser, and Matthew D. McCubbins (2010). ‘Party Power or Preferences? Quasi-Experimental Evidence from American State Legislatures’, Journal of Politics, 72:3, 799–811.10.1017/S0022381610000174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowe, Edward (1980). ‘Cross-Voting in the British House of Commons: 1945–74’, Journal of Politics, 42:2, 487–510.10.2307/2130470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowe, Edward (1986). ‘The Web of Authority: Party Loyalty and Social Control in the British House of Commons’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 11:2, 161–85.10.2307/439874
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damgaard, Erik (2000). ‘Denmark: The Life and Death of Government Coalitions’, in Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm, eds. Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 231–63.
   Google Scholar
• Dewan, Torun, and David P. Myatt (2010). ‘The Declining Talent Pool of Government’, American Journal of Political Science, 54:2, 267–86.10.1111/ajps.2010.54.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diermeier, Daniel, and Timothy J. Feddersen (1998). ‘Cohesion in Legislatures and the Vote of Confidence Procedure’, American Political Science Review, 92:3, 611–21.10.2307/2585484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Döring, Herbert (1995). ‘Time as a Scarce Resource: Government Control of the Agenda’, in Herbert Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 223–46.
   Google Scholar
• Döring, Herbert (2001). ‘Parliamentary Agenda Control and Legislative Outcomes in Western Europe’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26:1, 145–65.10.2307/440407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorina, Morris (1989). Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilligan, Thomas W., and Keith Krehbiel (1987). ‘Collective Decisionmaking and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures’, Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 3:2, 287–335.
   Google Scholar
• Gilligan, Thomas W., and Keith Krehbiel (1990). ‘Organization of Informative Committees by a Rational Legislature’, American Journal of Political Science, 34:2, 531–64.10.2307/2111460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmer, Justin, and Eleanor Neff Powell (2013). ‘Congressmen in Exile: The Politics and Consequences of Involuntary Committee Removal’, Journal of Politics, 75:4, 907–20.10.1017/S0022381613000704
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groseclose, Tim (1994). ‘Testing Committee Composition Hypotheses for the U.S. Congress.’ Journal of Politics, 56:2, 440–58.10.2307/2132147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazan, Reuven Y., and Gideon Rahat (2006). ‘The Influence of Candidate Selection Methods on Legislatures and Legislators: Theoretical Propositions, Methodological Suggestions and Empirical Evidence’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 12:3–4, 366–85.10.1080/13572330600875647
   Google Scholar
• Huber, John D. (1996). ‘The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies’, American Political Science Review, 90:2, 269–82.10.2307/2082884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hug, Simon (2010). ‘Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes’, British Journal of Political Science, 40:1, 225–35.10.1017/S0007123409990160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hug, Simon, Simone Wegmann, and Reto Wüest (2015). ‘Parliamentary Voting Procedures in Comparison’, West European Politics, 38:5, 940–68.10.1080/01402382.2015.1045290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackman, Molly C. (2014). ‘Parties, Median Legislators, and Agenda Setting: How Legislative Institutions Matter’, Journal of Politics, 76:1, 259–72.10.1017/S0022381613001291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam, Christopher (2001). ‘Do Ideological Preferences Explain Parliamentary Behaviour? Evidence from Great Britain and Canada’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 7:4, 89–126.10.1080/714003894
   Google Scholar
• Kam, Christopher (2009). Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511576614
   Google Scholar
• Kam, Christopher, William T. Bianco, Itai Sened, and Regina Smyth (2010). ‘Ministerial Selection and Intraparty Organization in the Contemporary British Parliament’, American Political Science Review, 104:2, 289–306.10.1017/S0003055410000080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krehbiel, Keith (1991). Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.8850
   Google Scholar
• Krehbiel, Keith (1993). ‘Where’s the Party?’, British Journal of Political Science, 23:2, 235–66.10.1017/S0007123400009741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunicova, Jana, and Thomas F. Remington (2008). ‘Mandates, Parties and Dissent: Effect of Electoral Rules on Parliamentary Party Cohesion in the Russian State Duma, 1994-2003’, Party Politics, 14:5, 555–74.10.1177/1354068808093390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laver, Michael, and Norman Schofield (1990). Multiparty Government. the Politics of Coalition in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levitt, Steven D. (1996). ‘How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology’, American Economic Review, 86:3, 425–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Londregan, John, James M., and Snyder, Jr. (1994). ‘Comparing Committee and Floor Preferences’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19:2, 233–66.10.2307/440426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundell, Krister (2004). ‘Determinants of Candidate Selection: The Degree of Centralization in Comparative Perspective’, Party Politics, 10:1, 25–47.10.1177/1354068804039119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, Shane (2011). ‘Electoral Institutions, the Personal Vote, and Legislative Organization’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36:3, 339–61.10.1111/lsq.2011.36.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, Lanny W., and Randolph T. Stevenson (2010). ‘The Conditional Impact of Incumbency on Government Formation’, American Political Science Review, 104:3, 503–18.10.1017/S0003055410000213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews, Donald R. (1960). U.S. Senators and Their World. New York, NY: Vintage Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mattson, Ingvar, and Kaare Strøm (1995). ‘Parliamentary Committees’, in Herbert Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. Frankfurt: Campus, 249–307.
   Google Scholar
• Mayhew, David R. (1974). Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, Paul (1999). ‘Coalition Discipline, Enforcement Mechanisms and Intraparty Politics’, in Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz (eds.), Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government. Columbus, GA: Ohio State University Press, 269–87.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, Wolfgang C., and Kaare Strøm (eds.) (1999). Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Narud, Hanne Marthe, and Kaare Strøm (2000). ‘Norway: A Fragile Coalitional Order’, in Wolfgang C. Müller and Kaare Strøm (eds.), Coalition Governments in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 158–91.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, Michael (1987). ‘Conflict and Cohesion in the British Labour Party and French Communist Party’, West European Politics, 10:2, 176–92.10.1080/01402388708424626
   Google Scholar
• Ohmura, Tamaki (2014). ‘When Your Name is on the List, It is Time to Party: The Candidacy Divide in a Mixed-Member Proportional System’, Representation, 50:1, 69–82.10.1080/00344893.2014.902215
   Google Scholar
• Pennings, Paul, and Reuven Y. Hazan (2001). ‘Democratizing Candidate Selection: Causes and Consequences’, Party Politics, 7:3, 267–75.10.1177/1354068801007003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahat, Gideon (2007). ‘Determinants of Party Cohesion: Evidence from the Case of the Israeli Parliament’, Parliamentary Affairs, 60:2, 279–96.10.1093/pa/gsm003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahat, Gideon, Reuven Y. Hazan, and Richard S. Katz (2008). ‘Democracy and Political Parties: On the Uneasy Relationships between Participation, Competition and Representation’, Party Politics, 14:6, 663–83.10.1177/1354068808093405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riksdagsordning [Riksdag Rules of Procedure] (2014), available at http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Riksdagsordning-2014801_sfs-2014-801/.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, Howard, and Erik Voeten (2004). ‘Analyzing Roll Calls with Perfect Spatial Voting: France 1946–1958’, American Journal of Political Science, 48:3, 620–32.10.1111/ajps.2004.48.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saalfeld, Thomas (1995). Parteisoldaten Und Rebellen. Fraktionen Im Deutchen Bundestag 1949–1990. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.10.1007/978-3-663-01124-8
   Google Scholar
• Sannerstedt, Anders (1992). Förhandlingar I Riksdagen. Lund: Lund University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schlesinger, Jospeh A. (1966). Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Scully, Roger (1997). ‘Policy Influence and Participation in the European Parliament’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22:2, 233–52.10.2307/440384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Barry R. Weingast (1987). ‘The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power’, American Political Science Review, 81:1, 85–104.10.2307/1960780
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shor, Boris, and Nolan McCarty (2011). ‘The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures’, American Political Science Review, 105:3, 530–51.10.1017/S0003055411000153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieberer, Ulrich (2006). ‘Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 12:2, 150–78.10.1080/13572330600739413
   Google Scholar
• Sieberer, Ulrich (2010). ‘Behavioral Consequences of Mixed Electoral Systems: Deviating Voting Behavior of District and List MPs in the German Bundestag’, Electoral Studies, 29:3, 484–96.10.1016/j.electstud.2010.04.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skjæveland, Asbjørn (1999). ‘A Danish Party Cohesion Cycle’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 22:2, 121–36.10.1111/scps.1999.22.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skjæveland, Asbjørn (2001). ‘Party Cohesion in the Danish Parliament’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 7:2, 35–56.10.1080/714003872
   Google Scholar
• Spirling, Arthur, and Iain McLean (2007). ‘UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the UK House of Commons’, Political Analysis, 15:1, 85–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strøm, Kaare (1990). ‘A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 32:2, 565–98.10.2307/2111461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strøm, Kaare (1997). ‘Rules, Reasons and Routines: Legislative Roles in Parliamentary Democracies’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 3:1, 155–74.10.1080/13572339708420504
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Riksdag (1997). The Elections Act, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Tavits, Margit (2009). ‘The Making of Mavericks: Local Loyalties and Party Defection’, Comparative Political Studies, 42:6, 793–815.10.1177/0010414008329900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willumsen, David M. (Forthcoming). The Acceptance of Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Willumsen, David M., and Klaus H. Goetz (2016). ‘Set Free? Impending Retirement and Legislative Behaviour in the UK’, Parliamentary Affairs, first published online. doi:10.1093/pa/gsw018.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, David M., and William G. Jacoby (1984). ‘Intraparty Cleavage in the British House of Commons: Evidence from the 1974–1979 Parliament’, American Journal of Political Science, 28:1, 203–23.10.2307/2110794
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zupan, Mark A. (1990). ‘The Last Period Problem in Politics: Do Congressional Representatives Not Subject to a Reelection Constraint Alter Their Voting Behavior?’, Public Choice, 65:2, 167–80.10.1007/BF00123797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar