Measuring re-election prospects across electoral systems: a general approach applied to Germany

References

• Abramowitz, Alan I., Brad Alexander, and Matthew Gunning (2006). ‘Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections’, Journal of Politics, 68:1, 75–88.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00371.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• André, Audrey, Sam Depauw, and Shane Martin (2015). ‘Electoral Systems and Legislators’ Constituency Effort. the Mediating Effect of Electoral Vulnerability’, Comparative Political Studies, 48:4, 464–496.10.1177/0010414014545512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bawn, Kathleen, and Michael F. Thies (2003). ‘A Comparative Theory of Electoral Incentives. Representing the Unorganized under PR, Plurality and Mixed-Member Electoral Systems’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15:1, 5–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernauer, Julian, and Simon Munzert (2014). ‘Loyal to the Game? Strategic Policy Representation in Mixed Electoral Systems’, Representation, 50:1, 83–97.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, William D., Michael B. Berkman, and Stuart Schneiderman (2000). ‘Legislative Professionalism and Incumbent Reelection: The Development of Institutional Boundaries’, American Political Science Review, 94:04, 859–874.10.2307/2586212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caramani, Daniele (2004). The Nationalization of Politics. the Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511616662
   Google Scholar
• Crisp, Brian F. (2007). ‘Incentives in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. General Election Laws, Candidate Selection Procedures, and Cameral Rules’, Comparative Political Studies, 40:12, 1460–1485.10.1177/0010414007301703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debus, Marc, and Hanna Bäck (2014). ‘Der Einfluss von Mandatstyp und Wahlkreiseigenschaften auf die inhaltlichen Positionen in Parlamentsreden. Eine Untersuchung anhand der parlamentarischen Debatten im Deutschen Bundestag von 1998 bis 2002’, Swiss Political Science Review, 20:2, 330–353.10.1111/spsr.2014.20.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Ferrara, Federico, Erik S. Herron, and Misa Nishikawa (2005). Mixed Electoral Systems. Contamination and Its Consequences. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9781403978851
   Google Scholar
• Gschwend, Thomas (2007). ‘Ticket-Splitting and Strategic Voting under Mixed Electoral Rules. Evidence from Germany’, European Journal of Political Research, 46:1, 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heitshusen, Valerie, Garry Young, and David M. Wood (2005). ‘‘Electoral Context and MP Constituency Focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom’, American Journal of Political Science, 49:1, 32–45.10.1111/ajps.2005.49.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herron, Erik S. (2002). ‘Electoral Influences on Legislative Behavior in Mixed-Member Systems. Evidence from Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 27:3, 361–382.10.2307/3598568
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, Matthew D., and Andrew Gelman (2014). ‘The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo’, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15, 1351–1381.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jun, Hae-Won, and Simon Hix (2010). ‘Electoral Systems, Political Career Paths and Legislative Behavior: Evidence from South Korea’s Mixed-Member System’, Japanese Journal of Political Science, 11:2, 153–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayser, Mark A., and René Lindstädt (2015). ‘A Cross-National Measure of Electoral Competitiveness’, Political Analysis, 23:02, 242–253.10.1093/pan/mpv001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manow, Philip (2015). Mixed Rules, Mixed Strategies. Candidates and Parties in Germany’s Electoral System. Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moser, Robert G., and Ethan Scheiner (2004). ‘Mixed Electoral Systems and Electoral System Effects: Controlled Comparison and Crossnational Analysis’, Electoral Studies, 23:4, 575–599.10.1016/S0261-3794(03)00056-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niedermayer, Oskar (2012). ‘Regionalisierung des Wahlverhaltens und des Parteiensystems auf der Bundesebene 1949-2009’, in Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck (ed.), Wählen in Deutschland. PVS-Sonderheft 45. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 134–156.
   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
• Riera, Pedro, and Damien Bol (2017). ‘Ticket-Splitting in Mixed-Member Systems: On the Importance of Seat Linkage between Electoral Tiers’, West European Politics, 40:3, 584–597.10.1080/01402382.2016.1271598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saalfeld, Thomas (2005). ‘Germany. Stability and Strategy in a Mixed-Member Proportional System’, in Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell (eds.), The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 206–229.
   Google Scholar
• Sartori, Giovanni (1976). Parties and Party Systems. A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   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, 484–496.10.1016/j.electstud.2010.04.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieberer, Ulrich (2015). ‘Using MP Statements to Explain Voting Behavior in the German Bundestag: An Individual Level Test of the Competing Principals Theory’, Party Politics, 21:2, 284–294.10.1177/1354068812472584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieberer, Ulrich, and Wolfgang C. Müller (2017). ‘Aiming Higher: The Consequences of Progressive Ambition among MPs in European Parliaments’, European Political Science Review, 9:1, 27–50.10.1017/S1755773915000260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stan Development Team (2017). RStan: The R Interface to Stan. R package version 2.16.2. http://mc-stan.org.
   Google Scholar
• Stoffel, Michael F. (2014a). ‘A Unified Scale of Electoral Incentives’, Representation, 50:1, 55–67.10.1080/00344893.2014.902216
   Google Scholar
• Stoffel, Michael F. (2014b). ‘MP Behavior in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems’, Electoral Studies, 35, 78–87.10.1016/j.electstud.2014.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratmann, Thomas, and Martin Baur (2002). ‘Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag, How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ across Electoral Systems’, American Journal of Political Science, 46:3, 506–514.10.2307/3088395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strøm, Kaare (1997). ‘Rules, Reasons, and Routines. Legislative Roles in Parliamentary Democracies’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 3:1, 155–174.10.1080/13572339708420504
   Google Scholar
• Vehtari, Aki, Andrew Gelman, and Jonah Gabry (2016). ‘Practical Bayesian Model Evaluation Using Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation and WAIC’, arXiv, 1507. 04544v3.
   Google Scholar
• Watanabe, Sumio (2013). ‘A Widely Applicable Bayesian Information Criterion’, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14, 867–897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zittel, Thomas, and Thomas Gschwend (2008). ‘Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. Candidates in the 2005 German Elections’, West European Politics, 31:5, 978–1003.10.1080/01402380802234656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar