Too much choice, too little impact: a multilevel analysis of the contextual determinants of preference voting

References

• Anderson, Christopher J. (2009). ‘Nested Citizens: Macropolitics and Microbehavior in Comparative Politics’, in Mark I. Lichbach and Alan S. Zuckerman (eds.), Comparative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 314–332.10.1017/CBO9780511804007
   Google Scholar
• André, Audrey, and Sam Depauw (2014). ‘District Magnitude and the Personal Vote’, Electoral Studies, 35, 102–114.10.1016/j.electstud.2014.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• André, Audrey, Bram Wauters, and Jean-Benoit Pilet (2012). ‘It’s Not Only about Lists: Explaining Preference Voting in Belgium’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 22:3, 293–313.10.1080/17457289.2012.692374
   Google Scholar
• André, Audrey, Sam Depauw, Matthew S. Shugart, and Roman Chytilek (2015). ‘Party Nomination Strategies in Flexible-List Systems: Do Preference Votes Matter?’, Party Politics.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1354068815610974.
   Google Scholar
• Bengtsson, Åsa, Kasper M. Hansen, Ólafur T. Hardarson, Hanne Marthe Narud, and Henrik Oscarsson (2014). The Nordic Voter: Myths of Exceptionalism. Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bergh, Johannes, and Tor Bjørklund (2011). ‘The Revival of Group Voting: Explaining the Voting Preferences of Immigrants in Norway’, Political Studies, 59:2, 308–327.10.1111/post.2011.59.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergman, Matthew E., Matthew S. Shugart, and Kevin A. Watt (2013). ‘Patterns of Intraparty Competition in Open-List & SNTV Systems’, Electoral Studies, 32:2, 321–333.10.1016/j.electstud.2013.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blais, André (2006). ‘What Affects Voter Turnout?’, Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 111–125.10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowler, Shaun, and David M. Farrell (1991a). ‘Voter Behavior under STV-PR: Solving the Puzzle of the Irish Party System’, Political Behavior, 13:4, 303–320.10.1007/BF00992866
   Google Scholar
• Bowler, Shaun, and David M. Farrell (1991b). ‘Party Loyalties in Complex Settings: STV and Party Identification’, Political Studies, 39:2, 350–362.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1991.tb01374.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brockington, David (2003). ‘A Low Information Theory of Ballot Position Effect’, Political Behavior, 25:1, 1–27.10.1023/A:1022946710610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canache, Damarys, Jeffery J. Mondak, and Ernesto Cabrera (2000). ‘Voters and the Personal Vote: A Counterfactual Simulation’, Political Research Quarterly, 53:3, 663–676.10.1177/106591290005300310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, John M., and Simon Hix (2011). ‘The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low-Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems’, American Journal of Political Science, 55:2, 383–397.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00495.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, John, and Matthew S. Shugart (1995). ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas’, Electoral Studies, 14:4, 417–439.10.1016/0261-3794(94)00035-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, Gary W. (1997). Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174954
   Google Scholar
• Cunow, Saul (2014). Vote Choice in Complex Electoral Environments. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Political Science, UC San Diego.
   Google Scholar
• Curtice, John, and Michael Marsh (2014). ‘Confused or Competent? How Voters Use the STV Ballot Paper’, Electoral Studies, 34:2, 146–158.10.1016/j.electstud.2013.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtice, John, and W. Phillips Shively (2009). ‘Who Represents Us Best? One Member or Many?’, Hans-Dieter Klingemann (ed.), The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 171–192.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, Russell J. (2004). Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268436.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, Russell J., and Christopher J. Anderson (2010). Citizens, Context, and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199599233.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Dassonneville, Ruth, Marc Hooghe, and Michael Lewis-Beck (2017). ‘Do Electoral Rules Have an Effect on Electoral Behaviour? An Impact Assessment’, West European Politics.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1271597.
   Google Scholar
• Delli Carpini, Michael, and Scot Keeter (1996). What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deschouwer, Kris, Pascal Delwit, Marc Hooghe, Pierre Baudewyns, and Stefaan Walgrave (2015). De Kiezer Ontcijferd. Tielt: Lanno Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, David M., and Ian McAllister (2000). ‘Through a Glass Darkly: Understanding the World of STV’, in Shaun Bowler and Bernard Grofman (eds.), Elections in Australia, Ireland and Malta under the Single Transferable Vote: Reflections on an Embedded Institution. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 17–36.
   Google Scholar
• Grönlund, Kimmo, and Henry Milner (2006). ‘The Determinants of Political Knowledge in Comparative Perspective’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 29:4, 386–406.10.1111/scps.2006.29.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holli, Anne Maria, and Hanna Wass (2010). ‘Gender-Based Voting in the Parliamentary Elections of 2007 in Finland’, European Journal of Political Research, 49:5, 598–630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikstens, Janis (2013). ‘This is a Man’s World: Effects of Preferential Voting on Women’s Representation in Latvia’, unpublished paper, University of Latvia.
   Google Scholar
• Iyengar, Sheena S., and Mark R. Lepper (2000). ‘When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79:6, 995–1006.10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karvonen, Lauri (2004). ‘Preferential Voting: Incidence and Effects’, International Political Science Review, 25:2, 203–226.10.1177/0192512104041283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karvonen, Lauri (2010). The Personalisation of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, Richard S. (1986). ‘Intraparty Preference Voting’, in Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart (eds.), Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York, NY: Agathon Press, 85–103.
   Google Scholar
• Klingemann, Hans-Dieter (ed.) (2009). The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, and Bernhard Wessels (2009). ‘How Voters Cope with the Complexity of Their Political Environment: Differentiation of Political Supply, Effectiveness of Electoral Institutions, and the Calculus of Voting’, in Hans-Dieter Klingemann (ed.), The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 237–265.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, Richard L., and David P. Redlawsk (2007). How Voters Decide: Information Processing during Election Campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laver, Michael (2004). ‘Analysing Structures of Party Preference in Electronic Voting Data’, Party Politics, 10:5, 521–541.10.1177/1354068804045386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malhotra, Naresh K. (1982). ‘Information Load and Consumer Decision Making’, Journal of Consumer Research, 8:4, 419–430.10.1086/jcr.1982.8.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, Michael (1985). ‘The Voters Decide?: Preferential Voting in European List Systems’, European Journal of Political Research, 13:4, 365–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, Michael (2007). ‘Candidates or Parties? Objects of Electoral Choice in Ireland’, Party Politics, 13:4, 500–527.10.1177/1354068807075944
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattes, Kyle, and Caitlin Milazzo (2014). ‘Pretty Faces, Marginal Races: Predicting Election Outcomes Using Trait Assessments of British Parliamentary Candidates’, Electoral Studies, 34:2, 177–189.10.1016/j.electstud.2013.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, Monika L. (1997). ‘Voting Cues in Low-Information Elections: Candidate Gender as a Social Information Variable in Contemporary United States Elections’, American Journal of Political Science, 41:1, 270–283.10.2307/2111716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott, Monika L. (2009). ‘Voting for Myself: Candidate and Voter Group Associations over Time’, Electoral Studies, 28:4, 606–614.10.1016/j.electstud.2009.05.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, Pippa (2006). ‘Ballot Structures and Legislative Behavior: Changing Role Orientations via Electoral Reform’, in Timothy J. Power and Nicol C. Rae (eds.), Exporting Congress?: the Influence of the U.S. Congress on World Legislatures. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 157–184.
   Google Scholar
• Renwick, Alan, and Jean-Benoit Pilet (2015). Faces on the Ballot. the Personalization of Electoral Systems in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reutskaja, Elena, and Robin M. Hogarth (2009). ‘Satisfaction in Choice as a Function of the Number of Alternatives: When “Goods Satiate”’, Psychology and Marketing, 26:3, 197–203.10.1002/mar.v26:3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy, Jason (2011). ‘Information Heterogeneity, Complexity and the Vote Calculus’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 21:1, 29–56.10.1080/17457289.2010.537342
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, Barry (2003). The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• Shafir, Eldar, and Amos Tversky (1992). ‘Thinking through Uncertainty: Nonconsequential Reasoning and Choice’, Cognitive Psychology, 24:4, 449–474.10.1016/0010-0285(92)90015-T
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shugart, Matthew S. (2005). ‘Comparative Electoral Systems Research: The Maturation of a Field and the New Challenges Ahead’, in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–56.10.1093/0199257566.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Sigelman, Lee, and Carol K. Sigelman (1982). ‘Sexism, Racism, and Ageism in Voting Behavior: An Experimental Analysis’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 45:4, 263–269.10.2307/3033922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer, Matthew M., and Ryan E. Carlin (2013). ‘Context Counts: The Election Cycle, Development, and the Nature of Economic Voting’, Journal of Politics, 75:3, 730–742.10.1017/S0022381613000467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sniderman, Paul M., Richard A. Brody, and Philip E. Tetlock (1993). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snijders, T.A.B., and R.J. Bosker (2012). Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Söderlund, Peter (2017). ‘Candidate-Centred Electoral Systems and Voter Turnout’. West European Politics.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1271599.
   Google Scholar
• Stroh, Patrick K. (1995). ‘Voters as Pragmatic Cognitive Misers: The Accuracy-Effort Trade-off in the Candidate Evaluation Process’, in Milton Lodge and Kathleen M. McGraw (eds.), Political Judgment: Structure and Process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 207–228.
   Google Scholar
• van der Kolk, Henk (2003). ‘Preferential Voting in European Local Elections’, unpublished paper, Twente University.
   Google Scholar
• van Holsteyn, Joop, and Rudy B. Andeweg (2010). ‘Demoted Leaders and Exiled Candidates: Disentangling Party and Person in the Voter’s Mind’, Electoral Studies, 29:4, 628–635.10.1016/j.electstud.2010.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessels, Bernhard, and Hermann Schmitt (2008). ‘Meaningful Choices, Political Supply, and Institutional Effectiveness’, Electoral Studies, 27:1, 19–30.10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaller, John (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511818691
   Google Scholar