The servant of two masters: Electoral incentives in the Scottish Parliament

References

• Allison, P. 2012. Logistic Regression for Rare Events. https://statisticalhorizons.com/logistic-regression-for-rare-events.
   Google Scholar
• Arrow, K. J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arter, D. 2004. The Scottish Parliament; A Scandinavian-Style Assembly? London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Battle, M. 2011. “Second-Class Representatives or Work Horses? Committee Assignments and Electoral Incentives in the Scottish Parliament.” Parliamentary Affairs 64, 494–512. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsq055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bawn, K. M., and M. F. Thies. 2003. “A Comparative Theory of Electoral Incentives: Representing the Unorganized Under PR, Plurality and Mixed-Member Systems.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15, 5–32. doi: 10.1177/0951692803151001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, D. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowler, S., and D. M. Farrell. 1993. “Legislative Shirking and Voter Monitoring: Impacts of the European Parliament Electoral Systems upon Legislator-Voter Relationships.” Journal of Common Market Studies 31, 45–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5965.1993.tb00447.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradbury, J. 2009. “Devolution and Party Organization in the UK: Statewide Parties and Statewide-Regional Branch Relations Over Candidate Selection in Scotland and Wales.” In Territorial Party Politics in Western Europe, edited by W. Swenden and B. Maddens, 199–144. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bradbury, J., and J. Mitchell. 2007. “The Constituency Work of Members of the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales: Approaches, Relationships and Rules.” Regional and Federal Studies 17, 117–145. doi: 10.1080/13597560701189669
   Google Scholar
• Brambor, T., W. R. Clark, and M. Golder. 2006. “Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses.” Political Analysis 14, 63–82. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpi014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, B. E., J. A. Ferejohn, and M. P. Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P. 2011. The Scottish Political System Since Devolution. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, J. M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, J. M., and M. S. Shugart. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies 14, 417–439. doi: 10.1016/0261-3794(94)00035-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carman, C., and M. Shephard. 2007. “Electoral Poachers? An Assessment of Shadowing Behaviour in the Scottish Parliament.” Journal of Legislative Studies 13: 107–116. doi: 10.1080/13572330701663587
   Google Scholar
• Commission on Parliamentary Reform. 2017. Report on the Scottish Parliament.
   Google Scholar
• Cowley, P., and S. Lochore. 2000. “AMS in a Cold Climate: The Scottish Parliament in Practice.” Representation 37, 175–185. doi: 10.1080/00344890008523138
   Google Scholar
• Cox, G. 1997. Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, R. H., and W. J. Oleszek. 2006. Congress and Its Members. Washington: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, R., O. Gay, and P. Bowers. 2005. Better Governance for Wales: The White Paper. Standard Note: SN/PC/3717.
   Google Scholar
• Duverger, M. 1954. Political Parties. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Elling, R. C. 1982. “Ideological Change in the U.S. Senate: Time and Electoral Responsiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7, 75–92. doi: 10.2307/439692
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, D. M. 2001. “The United Kingdom Comes of Age: The British Electoral Reform ‘Revolution’ of the 1990s.” In Mixed Member Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, edited by M. S. Shugart and M. P. Wattenberg, 521–541. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fenno Jr, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrara, F., E. S. Herron, and M. Nishikawa. 2005. Mixed Electoral Systems: Contamination and Its Consequences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Golden, M. A., and E. Chang. 2001. “Competitive Corruption: Factional Conflict and Political Malfeasance in Postwar Italian Christian Democracy.” World Politics 53, 588–622. doi: 10.1353/wp.2001.0015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gschwend, T., and T. Zittel. 2016. “Who Brings Home the Pork? Parties and the Role of Localness in Committee Assignments in Mixed-Member Proportional Systems.” Party Politics. doi:10.1177/1354068816678884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansard. 2006. HC Deb, January 9. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060109/debtext/60109-12.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, R. 1998. The Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System. London: Stationary Office Books.
   Google Scholar
• Karvonen, L. 2010. The Personalisation of Politics. Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, J. N., and B. R. Sala. 1996. “Careerism, Committee Assignments, and the Electoral Connection.” American Political Science Review 90: 21–33. doi: 10.2307/2082795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, G., and L. Zeng. 2001. “Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.” Political Analysis 9, 137–163. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a004868
   Google Scholar
• Lancaster, T. D., and W. D. Patterson. 1990. “Comparative Pork Barrel Politics: Perceptions From the West German Bundestag.” Comparative Political Studies 22, 458–477. doi: 10.1177/0010414090022004004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laver, M., and N. Schofield. 1990. Multiparty Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindstädt, R., and R. Vander Wielen. 2011. “Timely Shirking: Time-Dependent Monitoring and Its Effects on Legislative Behavior in the U.S. Senate.” Public Choice 148, 119–148. doi: 10.1007/s11127-010-9649-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, J. S., and J. Freese. 2014. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, T. C. 2002. “Putting a Human Face on Proportional Representation; Early Expectiences in Scotland and Wales.” Representation 38, 271–283. doi: 10.1080/00344890208523191
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, T. C. 2006. “Second-Class Representatives? Mixed-Member Proportional Representation in Britain.” Parliamentary Affairs 59, 60–77. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsj006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundberg, T. C. 2007. Proportional Representation and the Constituency Role in Britain. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, T. C. 2014. “Tensions Between Constituency and Regional Members of the Scottish Parliament Under Mixed-Member Proportional Representation: A Failure of the New Politics.” Parliamentary Affairs 67, 351–370. doi: 10.1093/pa/gss055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, P. 2000. “The Committee System of the Scottish Parliament.” In The New Scottish Politics, edited by G. Hassan and C. Warhurst, 66–74. Norwich: Stationary Office.
   Google Scholar
• Manow, P. 2013. “Mixed Rules, Different Roles? An Analysis of the Typical Pathways into the Bundestag and of MPs Parliamentary Behaviour.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 19, 287–308. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2013.786962
   Google Scholar
• Martin, S. 2011. “Electoral Institutions, the Personal Vote, and Legislative Organization.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36, 339–361. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00018.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayhew, D. R. 1975. The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, J. 2010. “The Narcissism of Small Differences: Scotland and Westminster.” Parliamentary Affairs 63, 98–116. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsp047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papp, Z. 2016. “Shadowing the Elected: Mixed-Member Incentives to Locally Oriented Parliamentary Questioning.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 22, 216–236. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2016.1163880
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, D. C. W., and C. M. Richter. 2018. “Back from Holyrood: How Mixed Member Proportional Representation and Ballot Structure Shape the Personal Vote.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20, 674–692. doi: 10.1177/1369148118762279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scottish Parliament. 2017, October 01. Scottish Parliament Statistics. Scottish Parliament. http://www.parliament.scot/abouttheparliament/46935.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Searing, D. D. 1994. Westminster’s World: Understanding Political Roles. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seyd, P. 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Labour Left. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shugart, M. S. 2001a. “Electoral ‘Efficiency’ and the Move to Mixed-Member Systems.” Electoral Studies 20: 173–193. doi: 10.1016/S0261-3794(00)00007-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shugart, M. S. 2001b. “‘Extreme’ Electoral Systems and the Appeal of the Mixed-Member Alternative.” In Mixed Member Systems: The Best of Both Worlds?, edited by M. S. Shugart and M. P. Wattenberg, 25–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shugart, M. S., and M. P. Wattenberg. 2001. Mixed Member Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stratmann, T., and M. 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, 506–514. doi: 10.2307/3088395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, L. J. 1998. “‘Second-Class MPs’? New Zealand's Adaptation to Mixed-Member Parliamentary Representation.” Political Science 49, 125–152. doi: 10.1177/003231879804900201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, B. D., and I. H. Indridason. 2018. “Luck of the Draw? Private Members’ Bills & the Electoral Connection.” Political Science & Research Methods, 211–227. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2017.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar