Winning votes: the comparative importance of money and time on parliamentary candidates’ electoral performance in Estonia

References

• Allik, M. 2015. “Who Stands in the Way of Women? Open vs. Closed Lists and Candidate Gender in Estonia.” East European Politics 31 (4): 429–451.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Bassat, A., M. Dahan, and E. F. Klor. 2015. “Does Campaign Spending Affect Electoral Outcomes?” Electoral Studies 40: 102–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, K., and M. Marsh. 2010. “Incumbent and Challenger Campaign Spending Effects in Proportional Electoral Systems: The Irish Elections of 2002.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (1): 159–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadwick, A. 2006. Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, K. K.-L. 2001. “Structuralism Versus Intentionalism in Post-Communist Party System Evolution.” Party Politics 7 (5): 605–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton, R. 2012. The Apartisan American: Dealignment and Electoral Change. Washington: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, R. 2019. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, O. D., and B. Duncan. 1955. “A Methodological Analysis of Segregation Indexes.” American Sociological Review 20 (2): 210–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enli, G. 2017. “Twitter as Arena for the Authentic Outsider: Exploring the Social Media Campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” European Journal of Communication 32 (1): 50–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, J., D. Cutts, E. Fieldhouse, and B. Rottweiler. 2019. “The Impact of Electoral Context on the Electoral Effectiveness of District-Level Campaigning: Popularity Equilibrium and the Case of the 2015 British General Election.” Political Studies 67 (2): 271–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, J., R. Johnston, D. Cutts, C. Pattie, and E. Fieldhouse. 2014. “You Get What You (Don’t) Pay for: The Impact of Volunteer Labour and Candidate Spending at the 2010 British General Election.” Parliamentary Affairs 67 (4): 804–824.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, E. F., and T. N. Ridout. 2013. “Negative, Angry, and Ubiquitous: Political Advertising in 2012.” The Forum 10/ (4): 51–61.
   Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S. 2004. “Does Campaign Spending Work? Field Experiments Provide Evidence and Suggest New Theory.” American Behavioral Scientist 47 (5): 541–574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerodimos, R., and J. Justinussen. 2015. “Obama’s 2012 Facebook Campaign: Political Communication in the Age of the Like Button.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 12 (2): 113–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. K., and I. McAllister. 2011. “Do Online Election Campaigns Win Votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” Election.” Political Communication 28 (2): 227–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, R. K., and I. McAllister. 2015. “Normalising or Equalising Party Competition? Assessing the Impact of the Web on Election Campaigning.” Political Studies 63 (3): 529–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Górecki, M. A., and P. Kukołowicz. 2014. “Gender Quotas, Candidate Background and the Election of Women: A Paradox of Gender Quotas in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems.” Electoral Studies 36: 65–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ibenskas, R. 2014. “Activists or Money? Explaining the Electoral Success and Persistence of Political Parties in Lithuania.” Party Politics 20 (6): 879–889.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, G. C. 2006. “Measuring Campaign Spending Effects in U.S. House Elections.” In Capturing Campaign Effects, edited by H. Brady, and R. Johnston, 199–220. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson, G. C. 2013. The Politics of Congressional Elections. New York: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobson, G. C. 2015. “It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” The Journal of Politics 77 (3): 861–873.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jankowski, M., and K. Marcinkiewicz. 2019. “Ineffective and Counterproductive? The Impact of Gender Quotas in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems.” . Politics & Gender 15/ (1): 1–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenig, O., and N. Atmor. 2021. “Candidate Spending and Success in Israel’s Party Primaries: How Far Does Money Go?” Party Politics 27 (1): 125–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koc-Michalska, K., D. G. Lilleker, P. Surowiec, and P. Baranowsi. 2014. “Poland’s 2011 Online Election Campaign: New Tools, New Professionalism, New Ways to Win Votes.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11 (2): 186–205.
   Google Scholar
• Kopecký, P. 1995. “Developing Party Organizations in East-Central Europe.” Party Politics 1 (4): 515–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, R. R., L. Sigelman, C. Heldman, and P. Babbitt. 1999. “The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Review.” American Political Science Review 93: 851–875.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, R. R., L. Sigelman, and I. B. Rovner. 2007. “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” The Journal of Politics 69 (4): 1176–1209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupo, N. 2015. Party Brands in Crisis: Partisanship, Brand Dilution, and the Breakdown of Political Parties in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mair, P. 1997. Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marcinkiewicz, K. 2014. “Electoral Contexts That Assist Voter Coordination: Ballot Placement Effects in Poland.” Electoral Studies 33: 322–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAllister, I. 2002. “Calculating or Capricious? The New Politics of Late Deciding Voters.” In Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums, edited by D. M. Farrell, and R. Schmitt-Beck, 22–40. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• National Electoral Committee. 2020. Toimunud Valimiste Arhiiv. Available online at: https://www.valimised.ee/et/toimunud-valimiste-arhiiv (accessed 20/07/2020).
   Google Scholar
• Negrine, R., and D. G. Lilleker. 2002. “The Professionalization of Political Communication: Continuities and Change in Media Practices.” European Journal of Communication 17 (3): 305–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OpenSecrets. 2020. 2020 Election to Cost $14 Billion, Blowing Away Spending Records. Available online at: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update (accessed 23/02/2021).
   Google Scholar
• Ragauskas, R. 2021. “Party-Determined Viability and Gender Bias in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems.” Politics & Gender 17 (2): 250–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuster, S. S. 2020. “Does Campaign Spending Affect Election Outcomes? New Evidence from Transaction-Level Disbursement Data.” The Journal of Politics 82 (4): 1502–1515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparks, S. 2018. “Campaign Spending and the Top-Two Primary: How Challengers Earn More Votes per Dollar in One-Party Contests.” Electoral Studies 54: 56–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spenkuch, J. L., and D. Toniatti. 2018. “Political Advertising and Election Results.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133 (4): 1981–2036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stratmann, T. 2009. “How Prices Matter in Politics: The Returns to Campaign Advertising.” Public Choice 140: 357–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, J. 2014. Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sudulich, L., and S. Trumm. 2019. “A Comparative Study of the Effects of Electoral Institutions on Campaigns.” British Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 381–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sudulich, M. L., M. Wall, and D. M. Farrell. 2013. “Why Bother Campaigning? Campaign Effectiveness in the 2009 European Parliament Elections.” Electoral Studies 32 (4): 768–778.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavits, M. 2010. “Effect of Local Ties on Electoral Success and Parliamentary Behaviour.” Party Politics 16 (2): 215–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavits, M. 2012. “Organising for Success: Party Organizational Strength and Electoral Performance in Postcommunist Europe.” The Journal of Politics 74 (1): 83–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavits, M. 2013. Post-Communist Democracies and Party Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trounstine, J. 2011. “Evidence of Local Incumbency Advantage.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (2): 255–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trumm, S. 2016. “What Does It Take to Get Elected in a Post-Communist Democracy? The Success and Failure of Parliamentary Candidates in Estonia.” East European Politics and Societies and Cultures 30 (1): 169–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trumm, S., and L. Sudulich. 2018. “What Does It Take to Make It to the Polling Station? The Effects of Campaign Activities on Electoral Participation.” Party Politics 24 (2): 168–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Biezen, I. 2003. Political Parties in New Democracies: Party Organization in Southern and East-Central Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Vliegenthart, R. 2012. “The Professionalization of Political Communication? A Longitudinal Analysis of Dutch Election Campaign Posters.” American Behavioral Scientist 56 (2): 135–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar