Do voters prefer logrolling to compromise in parliamentary democracies?

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Alejandro Ecker , Thomas M. Meyer , Carolina Plescia
{"title":"Do voters prefer logrolling to compromise in parliamentary democracies?","authors":"Alejandro Ecker ,&nbsp;Thomas M. Meyer ,&nbsp;Carolina Plescia","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In countries ruled by coalition governments, government policy is the result of negotiations between parties with diverging policy positions. We study what type of deals voters are willing to accept in these negotiations: policy compromises on individual issues or logrolls where each party gets to keep its position on one issue while conceding on another one. Based on a pre-registered survey experiment conducted after the 2021 Dutch general election, we find no evidence that respondents prefer logroll deals over policy compromises <em>per se</em>. Yet, voters are more sensitive to their policy preferences when evaluating logroll compared to compromise deals. In additional analyses, we show that this logroll effect is more pronounced when the logroll allows parties to keep their positions on their respective core issues. Our results have wider implications for political representation and government formation processes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 102889"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001471","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In countries ruled by coalition governments, government policy is the result of negotiations between parties with diverging policy positions. We study what type of deals voters are willing to accept in these negotiations: policy compromises on individual issues or logrolls where each party gets to keep its position on one issue while conceding on another one. Based on a pre-registered survey experiment conducted after the 2021 Dutch general election, we find no evidence that respondents prefer logroll deals over policy compromises per se. Yet, voters are more sensitive to their policy preferences when evaluating logroll compared to compromise deals. In additional analyses, we show that this logroll effect is more pronounced when the logroll allows parties to keep their positions on their respective core issues. Our results have wider implications for political representation and government formation processes.
在议会民主制中,选民们是否更喜欢抗议而不是妥协?
在联合政府执政的国家,政府的政策是政策立场不同的政党之间谈判的结果。我们研究了选民在这些谈判中愿意接受的交易类型:在个别问题上的政策妥协,或者在一个问题上保持自己的立场,同时在另一个问题上做出让步的协议。根据2021年荷兰大选后进行的一项预先登记的调查实验,我们发现没有证据表明受访者更喜欢法律协议而不是政策妥协本身。然而,与妥协协议相比,选民在评估妥协协议时对自己的政策偏好更为敏感。在进一步的分析中,我们表明,当logroll允许各方在各自的核心问题上保持立场时,这种logroll效应更为明显。我们的研究结果对政治代表和政府组建过程有更广泛的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信