Cracking the whip: the deliberative costs of strict party discipline

References

• Allern, E. H., & Karlsen, R. (2014). Party leaders in Norway. In J.B.Pilet & W. Cross (Eds.), The selection of political party leaders in contemporary parliamentary democracies: A comparative study (pp. 47–61). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• BäChtiger, A., & Hangartner, D. (2010). When deliberative theory meets empirical political science: Theoretical and methodological challenges in political deliberation. Political Studies, 58(4), 609–629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bale, T., & Webb, P. (2014). Party Leaders in the United Kingdom. In J.B.Pilet & W.Cross (Eds.), The selection of political party leaders in contemporary parliamentary democracies: A comparative study (pp. 12–29). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ceron, A. (2015). Brave rebels stay home: Assessing the effect of intra-party ideological heterogeneity and party whip on roll-call votes. Party Politics, 21(2), 246–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandra, K., & Umaira, W. (2011, June). India’s democratic dynasties. 622 Seminar. Retrieved from http://www.india-seminar.com/2011/622/622_kanchan_&_wamiq.htm
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics, 97(1), 26–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coman, E. E. (2015). Institutions and vote unity in parliaments: Evidence from 33 national chambers. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 21(3), 360–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cordero, G., & Coller, X. (2015). Cohesion and candidate selection in parliamentary groups. Parliamentary Affairs, 68(3), 592–615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowley, P., & Norton, P. (1999). Rebels and rebellions: Conservative MPs in the 1992 parliament. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1(1), 84–105.
   Google Scholar
• Depaw, S. (2003). Government party discipline in parliamentary democracies: The cases of Belgium, France and the United Kingdom in the 1990s. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 9(4), 130–146.
   Google Scholar
• Dorey, P. (2014). Policy making in Britain: An introduction. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2008). Discursive representation. American Political Science Review, 102(4), 481–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebeling, M. (2016). Epistemic political egalitarianism, political parties, and conciliatory democracy. Political Theory, 44(5), 629–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elster, J. (2007). Explaining social behavior: More nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• G. Viswanathan v The Honourable Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, 1996 2 SCC 353 (Supreme Court of India, January 24, 1996).
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R., & Spiekermann, K. (2012). Epistemic aspects of representative government. European Political Science Review, 4(3), 303–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. (2005). Sequencing deliberative moments. Acta Politica, 40(2), 182–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan, Z. (2017, December 18). The question of intra-party democracy. The Hindu. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-question-of-intraparty-democracy/article21827524.ece
   Google Scholar
• Hessick, A. F., & Jordan, P. S. (2009). Setting the size of the Supreme Court. Arizona State Law Journal, 41(3), 645–708. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/arzjl41&i=653
   Google Scholar
• Invernizzi-Accetti, C., & Wolkenstein, F. (2017). The crisis of party democracy, cognitive mobilization, and the case for making parties more deliberative. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 97–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, R. (1968). Rebels and whips: An analysis of dissension, discipline and cohesion in British political parties. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kam, C. J. (2009). Party discipline and parliamentary politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Katz, R., & Cross, W. (2013). The challenges of intra-party democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kenig, O., & Rahat, G. (2014). Party leaders in Israel. In J.B.Pilet & W.Cross (Eds.), The selection of political party leaders in contemporary parliamentary democracies: A comparative study (pp. 206–221). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Khaitan, T. (2013, February). The real price of parliamentary obstruction. 642 Seminar 37; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 42/2013. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2215859
   Google Scholar
• Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu, 1992 SCR (1) 686, (Supreme Court of India, February 18, 1992).
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. (2012). Why the many are smarter than the few and why it matters. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(1). Article 7. http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss1/art7
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton, NJ: : Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leydet, D. (2015). Partisan legislatures and democratic deliberation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(3), 235–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, C., McLean, I., Fishkin, J., & Luskin, A. R. (2000). Deliberation, preference structuration, and cycles: Evidence from deliberative polls, Presented at the meetings of the American Political Science Association, September 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Malik, K., & Kala, M. (2014). Vital stats: Performance of parliament during the15th Lok Sabha. New Delhi: PRS Legislative Research. http://www.prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/vital-stats/performance-of-parliament-during-the-15th-lok-sabha-3146/
   Google Scholar
• Marti, J. L. (2006). The epistemic conception of deliberative democracy defended. In J. L. Marti & S. Besson (Eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents (pp. 27–56). Burlington: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S. (1977[1861]). Considerations on representative government. In J. M. Robson (ed.), Collected works of John Stuart Mill (Vol. 19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Min, J. B. (2016). Politics must get it right sometimes: Reply to Muirhead. Critical Review, 28(3–4), 404–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muirhead, R. (2014). The politics of getting it right. Critical Review, 26(1–2), 115–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikolenyi, C., (2011). Constitutional sources of party cohesion: Anti-defection laws around the world, Presented at the Oslo-Rome Workshop on Democracy. https://www.uio.no/english/research/interfaculty-research-areas/democracy/news-and-events/events/seminars/2011/papers-roma-2011/Rome-Nikolenyi.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Norton, P. (2003). ‘Cohesion without discipline: Party voting in the House of Lords’. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 9(4), 57–72.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, D., & Smith, G. (2015). Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 213–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rumi, R. A. (2011, June). Dynasties and clientelism in Pakistan. 622 Seminar. Retrieved from http://www.india-seminar.com/2011/622/622_raza_ahmad_rumi.htm
   Google Scholar
• Rummens, S. (2012). Staging deliberation: The role of representative institutions in the deliberative process. Journal of Political Philosophy, 20(1), 23–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, M., & Cowley, P. (2016). The policy power of the Westminster parliament: The “Parliamentary State” and the empirical evidence. Governance, 29(1), 121–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, M., & Gover, D. (2017). Legislation at Westminster. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ruud, A. E., & Islam, M. M. (2016). Political dynasty formation in Bangladesh. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 39(2), 401–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarrow, S. E. (2015). Beyond party members: Changing approaches to partisan mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scarrow, S. E., & Gezgor, B. (2010). Declining memberships, changing members? European political party members in a new era. Party Politics, 16(6), 823–843.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartzberg, M. (2014). Counting the many: The origins and limits of supermajority rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shankar, B. L., & Rodrigues, V. (2011). The Indian parliament: A democracy at work. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sieberer, U. (2006). Party unity in parliamentary democracies: A comparative analysis. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 12(2), 150–178.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, R. (2015). Intra-party democracy and Indian political parties. The Hindu Centre for Politics & Public Policy. Retrieved from https://www.thehinducentre.com/publications/policy-report/article6912772.ece
   Google Scholar
• Spary, C. (2010). Disrupting rituals of debate in the Indian parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 16(3), 338–351.
   Google Scholar
• Spary, C. (2013). Legislative protest as disruptive democratic practice. Democratization, 20(3), 392–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiwari, D. K. (2014). Criminality in the Lok Sabha: An examination of MP participation and MP attributes. In S. Pai & A. Kumar (Eds.), The Indian parliament: A critical appraisal (pp. 299–316). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.
   Google Scholar
• Urbinati, N. (2002). Mill on democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Urbinati, N. (2006). Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Haute, E., & Gauja, A. (Eds.). (2015). Party members and activists. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vermeule, A. (2008). Law and the limits of reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vermeule, A. (2011). Second opinions and institutional design. Virginia Law Review, 97(6), 1435–1474. http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/1435.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. (2009). Representative Lawmaking. Boston University Law Review, 89(2), 335–355. http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/volume89n2/documents/WALDRON.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. (2016). Political Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• White, J., & Ypi, L. (2011). On partisan political justification. American Political Science Review, 105(2), 381–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, J., & Ypi, L. (2016). The meaning of partisanship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolkenstein, F. (2016). A deliberative model of intra-party democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 24(3), 297–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar