Loyal lists, distinctive districts: how dissent-shirking and leisure-shirking affect mixed-candidate selection

References

• Bailer, Stefanie, and Tamaki Ohmura (2018). ‘Exploring, Maintaining, and Disengaging: The Three Phases of a Legislator’s Life’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 43:3, 493–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumann, Markus, Marc Debus, and Tristan Klingelhöfer (2017). ‘Keeping One’s Seat: Systems. The Competitiveness of MP Renomination in Mixed-Member Electoral’, The Journal of Politics, 79:3, 979–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becher, Michael, and Ulrich Sieberer (2008). ‘Discipline, Electoral Rules and Defection in the Bundestag, 1983–94’, German Politics, 17:3, 293–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benedetto, Giacomo, and Simon Hix (2007). ‘The Rejected, the Ejected, and the Dejected: Explaining Government Rebels in the 2001–2005 British House of Commons’, Comparative Political Studies, 40:7, 755–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borghetto, Enrico, and Marco Lisi (2018). ‘Productivity and Reselection in a Party-Based Environment: Evidence from the Portuguese Case’, Parliamentary Affairs, 71:4, 868–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, Bruce E., John Ferejohn, and Morris P. Fiorina (1987). The Personal Vote – Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, John M., and Matthew S. Shugart (1995). ‘Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas’, Electoral Studies, 14:4, 417–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrubba, Clifford J., Matthew Gabel, Lacey Murrah, Ryan Clough, Elizabeth Montgomery, and Rebecca Schambach (2006). ‘Off the Record: Unrecorded Legislative Votes, Selection Bias and Roll-Call Vote Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, 36:4, 691–704.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Däubler, Thomas, Love Christensen, and Lukáš Linek (2018). ‘Parliamentary Activity, Re-Selection and the Personal Vote: Evidence from Flexible-List Systems’, Parliamentary Affairs, 71:4, 930–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frech, Elena (2016). ‘Re-Electing MEPs: The Factors Determining Re-Election Probabilities’, European Union Politics, 17:1, 69–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galasso, Vincenzo, and Tommaso Nannicini (2017). ‘Political Selection Under Alternative Electoral Rules’, Public Choice, 171:3–4, 257–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher, Michael, and Michael Marsh, eds. (1988). Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Giannetti, Daniela, and Andrea Pedrazzani (2016). ‘Rules and Speeches: How Parliamentary Rules Affect Legislators’ Speech-Making Behavior’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41:3, 771–800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handelsblatt (2013). ‘FDP lässt Euro-Abweichler fallen’, available at http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/bundestagskandidaturen-fdp-laesst-euro-abweichler-fallen-seite-all/7789552-all.html.
   Google Scholar
• Hanmer, Michael J., and Kerem O. Kalkan (2013). ‘Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models’, American Journal of Political Science, 57:1, 263–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazan, Reuven Y., and Gideon Rahaṭ (2010). Democracy Within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hellmann, Daniel, and Benjamin Höhne (2020). ‘Die formale Dimension der Kandidatenaufstellung: Satzungen im Parteien- und Zeitvergleich’, Zeitschrift Für Parlamentsfragen, 51:1, 3–25.
   Google Scholar
• Hermansen, Silje S. L. (2018). ‘Striving for Influence: The Effect of Performance on Candidate Selection’, Party Politics, 24:4, 382–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hix, Simon, Abdul Noury, and Gerard Roland (2018). ‘Is There a Selection Bias in Roll Call Votes? Evidence from the European Parliament’, Public Choice, 176:1–2, 211–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höhmann, Daniel, and Svenja Krauss (2022). ‘Complements or Substitutes? The Interdependence between Coalition Agreements and Parliamentary Questions as Monitoring Mechanisms in Coalition Governments’, Parliamentary Affairs, 75:2, 420–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höhmann, Daniel, and Ulrich Sieberer (2020). ‘Parliamentary Questions as a Control Mechanism in Coalition Governments’, West European Politics, 43:1, 225–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hug, Simon (2010). ‘Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes’, British Journal of Political Science, 40:1, 225–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itzkovitch-Malka, Reut, and Reuven Y. Hazan (2017). ‘Unpacking Party Unity: The Combined Effects of Electoral Systems and Candidate Selection Methods on Legislative Attitudes and Behavioural Norms’, Political Studies, 65:2, 452–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwerse, Tom, and Cynthia van Vonno (2022). ‘Moving Up or Down: Parliamentary Activity and Candidate Selection’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 28:2, 216–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manow, Philip (2007). ‘Electoral Rules and Legislative Turnover: Evidence from Germany’s Mixed Electoral System’, West European Politics, 30:1, 195–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marangoni, Francesco, and Federico Russo (2018). ‘Not All Roads Lead to Rome: The Conditional Effect of Legislative Activity on Reselection Prospects in Italy’, Parliamentary Affairs, 71:4, 888–907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, Wolfgang C. (2000). ‘Political Parties in Parliamentary Democracies: Making Delegation and Accountability Work’, European Journal of Political Research, 37, 309–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papp, Zsófia (2019). ‘Same Species, Different Breed: The Conditional Effect of Legislator Activities in Parliament on Re-Selection in a Mixed-Member Electoral System’, Parliamentary Affairs, 72:1, 59–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Jonathan B. Slapin (2012). ‘Institutional Foundations of Legislative Speech’, American Journal of Political Science, 56:3, 520–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Jonathan B. Slapin (2015). The Politics of Parliamentary Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Put, Gert-Jan, Benjamin de Vet, Richard Schobess, Bram Wauters, and Bart Maddens (2022). ‘Rewarding Some, But Not All? The Selectoral Consequences of Parliamentary Activity for Newcomers and Experienced MPs in Belgium (1995–2019)’, Parliamentary Affairs.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauh, Christian, Pieter de Wilde, and Jan Schwalbach (2017). ‘The ParlSpeech Data Set: Annotated Full-Text Vectors of 3.9 Million Plenary Speeches in the Key Legislative Chambers of Seven European States’.
   Google Scholar
• Reiser, Marion (2019). ‘Wettbewerb, Proporz, Solidarität - die konkurrierenden Logiken informeller Regeln bei der innerparteilichen Kandidatenaufstellung’, Zeitschrift für Parteienwissenschaften, 2, 195–205.
   Google Scholar
• Remschel, Tobias, and Corinna Kroeber (2022). ‘Every Single Word: A New Data Set Including All Parliamentary Materials Published in Germany’, Government and Opposition, 57:2, 276–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saalfeld, Thomas (1995). Parteisoldaten und Rebellen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Schüttemeyer, Susanne S. (2002). ‘Wer wählt wen wie aus? Pfade in das unerschlossene Terrain der Kandidatenaufstellung’, Gesellschaft - Wirtschaft - Politik, 2, 145–59.
   Google Scholar
• Shomer, Yael (2014). ‘What Affects Candidate Selection Processes? A Cross-National Examination’, Party Politics, 20:4, 533–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieberer, Ulrich (2006). ‘Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis’, The Journal of Legislative Studies, 12:2, 150–78.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieberer, Ulrich, and Tamaki Ohmura (2021). ‘Mandate Type, Electoral Safety, and Defections from the Party Line: The Conditional Mandate Divide in the German Bundestag, 1949–2013’, Party Politics, 27:4, 704–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieberer, Ulrich, Thomas Saalfeld, Tamaki Ohmura, Henning Bergmann, and Stefanie Bailer (2020). ‘Roll-Call Votes in the German Bundestag: A New Dataset, 1949–2013’, British Journal of Political Science, 50:3, 1137–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder, James M., and Michael M. Ting (2003). ‘Roll Calls, Party Labels, and Elections’, Political Analysis, 11:4, 419–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strøm, Kaare (1990). ‘A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 34:2, 565–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willumsen, David M., and Patrik Öhberg (2017). ‘Toe the Line, Break the Whip: Explaining Floor Dissent in Parliamentary Democracies’, West European Politics, 40:4, 688–716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, Steven L., Nils Ringe, and Jack van Thomme (2016). ‘Policy Leadership and Re-Election in the European Parliament’, Journal of European Public Policy, 23:8, 1158–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wimmel, Andreas (2014). ‘Nach der ESM-Abstimmung im Bundestag. Abstrafung der Euro-Skeptiker?’, GWP – Gesellschaft. Wirtschaft. Politik, 63:1, 13–22.
   Google Scholar
• Yildirim, Tevfik M., Gülnur Kocapınar, and Yüksel A. Ecevit (2019). ‘Staying Active And Focused? The Effect of Parliamentary Performance on Candidate Renomination and Promotion’, Party Politics, 25:6, 794–804.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeit-Online (2011). ‘Seehofer warnt Kanzlerin vor neuen Lasten’. https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2011-09/abstimmung-bundestag-rettungsschirm.
   Google Scholar