Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legislator Preferences, Party Desires: The Impact of Party Switching on Legislative Party Positions

  • Chapter
Political Parties and Legislative Party Switching

Abstract

Democratic politics and political parties go hand in hand. Politicians win elections and hold office as members of parties (Epstein 1967). For their part, political parties organize legislatures and manage the passage of policy (Aldrich 1995; Cox and McCubbins 1993; 2005). Legislators’ political identities are tightly linked to their party affiliations, even where parties are seen as relatively weak vis-à-vis individual politicians. In this light, party switches, particularly when executed by sitting legislators, are curious and perhaps even bizarre. As the first chapter in this book emphasized, there is on one hand the motivational question: why would a legislator decide to change his or her party affiliation during a legislative term? As we also highlighted at the outset, there is on the other hand the practical question of policy consequences: what difference does party switching make? We take up the latter issue here by asking how party switching by sitting legislators affects the preferences of legislative parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

7.8 References

  • Ă€gh, Attila. 1999. “The Parliamentarization of the East Central European Parties: Party Discipline in the Hungarian Parliament, 1990–1996.” In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, ed. Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz, 167–188. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Edited by Benjamin I. Page. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. 2000. “The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the Electoral Connection.” In Congress Reconsidered, ed. Lawrence C. Dodd, and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, 269–292. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, John H., and William T. Bianco. 1992. “A Game-Theoretic Model of Party Affiliation of Candidates and Office Holders.” Mathematical and Computer Modelling 16 (8/9): 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, Alberto, and Alex Cukierman. 1990. “The Politics of Ambiguity.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 (4): 829–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini, Stefano, and Roberto D’Alimonte, eds. 1995. Maggioritario ma non troppo. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, Kenneth, and Michael Laver. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, Robin, and William B. Heller. 2005. “Safety in Numbers? Seat Shares and Discipline in Legislative Parties.” Paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Granada, Spain, April 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, Shaun, David M. Farrell, and Richard Katz. 1999. “Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and Parliaments.” In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, ed. Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz, 3–22. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric Tannenbaum. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments, 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, Randall L. 1987. “Reputation and Legislative Leadership.” Public Choice 55 (1-2): 81–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camera dei Deputati. 1987. I deputati e senatori del decimo Parlamento repubblicano. Rome: La Navicella.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Joseph, David W. Brady, and Patricia A. Hurley. 1977. “The Electoral Basis of Party Voting: Patterns and Trends in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1887–1969.” In The Impact of the Electoral Process, ed. Louis Maisel and Joseph Cooper, 135–167. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Gary W. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • D’Alimonte, Roberto, and Stefano Bartolini, eds. 1997. Maggioritario per caso. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Alimonte, Roberto, and Stefano Bartolini, eds. 2002. Maggioritario finalmente? La transizione elettorale 1994–2001. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desposato, Scott W. 2006. “Parties for Rent? Ambition, Ideology, and Party Switching in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 62–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duverger, Maurice. 1972. Party Politics and Pressure Groups. New York: Crowell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Leon D. 1967. Political Parties in Western Democracies. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, Matthew J., and John Huber. 2000. “Putting Parties in their Place.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 94–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, William B., and Carol Mershon. 2005a. “Party Switching in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1996–2001.” Journal of Politics 67 (2): 536–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, William B., and Carol Mershon. 2005b. “Switch or Stick? Formal and Empirical Perspectives on Legislative Party Switching.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, William B., and Carol Mershon. 2008. “Dealing in Discipline: Party Switching and Legislative Voting in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, 1988–2000.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 910–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair. 1995. “Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: The Emergence of the Cartel Party.” Party Politics 1 (1): 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Richard S., and Peter Mair, eds. 1994. How Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in Party Organizations in Western Democracies. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchheimer, Otto. 1966. “The Transformation of Western European Party Systems.” In Political Parties and Political Development, ed. Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner, 177–200. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. “Where’s the Party?” British Journal of Political Science 23: 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, Keith. 1999a. “Paradoxes of Parties in Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (1): 31–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, Keith. 1999b. “The Party Effect from A to Z and Beyond.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 832–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, Keith. 2000. “Party Discipline and Measures of Partisanship.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 212–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laver, Michael. 1999. “Divided Parties, Divided Government.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 224 (1): 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laver, Michael, and Kenneth Benoit. 2003. “The Evolution of Party Systems between Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (2): 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laver, Michael, and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 1990. “Government Coalitions and Intraparty Politics.” British Journal of Political Science 20: 489–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, Keith. 1999. “How Political Parties Emerged from the Primeval Slime: Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and the Formation of Governments.” In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, ed. Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz, 23–48. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laver, Michael, and Norman Schofield. 1990. Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, Michael, and Paul Mitchell. 1999. “Office, Votes, and then Policy: Hard Choices for Political Parties in the Republic of Ireland, 1981–1992.” In Policy, Office, or Votes: How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions, ed. Kaare Strøm and Wolfgang C. MĂĽller, 36–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, Gail M. 2003. “Party Switching in the European Parliament: Why Bother?” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, April 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • MejĂ­a Acosta, AndrĂ©s. 1999. “Indisciplina y deslealtad en el congreso ecuatoriano.” Iconos (6): 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mershon, Carol, and William B. Heller. 2003. “Party Switching and Political Careers in the Spanish Congress of Deputies, 1982–1996.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, April 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • MĂĽller, Wolfgang C., and Kaare Strøm, eds. 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes: How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nocifero, Niccolò, and Sergio Valdini. 1992. Il palazzo di vetro. Il lavoro dei deputati italiani nella decima legislatura. Florence: Vallecchi Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ordeshook, Peter C., and Olga V. Shvetsova. 1994. “Ethnic Heterogeneity, District Magnitude, and the Number of Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 100–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasquino, Gianfranco. 1996. 1945–1996. Archivio della politica in Italia [CD-ROM]. Laterza Multimedia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott, Charles. 1967. “A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility under Majority Rule.” American Economic Review 57: 787–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, Keith T. 2000. “Nonparametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data.” Political Analysis 8 (2): 211–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plott, Charles. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, Steven R., and Michael F. Thies. 2000. “The Consequences of Electoral Reform in Japan.” In Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? ed. Matthew Soberg Shugart and Martin P. Wattenberg, 380–403. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricolfi, Luca. 1993. L’ultimo Parlamento. Sulla fine della prima Repubblica. Rome: La Nuova Italia Scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Edited by Benjamin I. Page. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saari, Donald G., and Katri Sieberg. 2001. “The Sum of the Parts Can Violate the Whole.” American Political Science Review 95 (2): 415–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez de Dios, Manuel. 1999. “Parliamentary Party Discipline in Spain.” In Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, ed. Shaun Bowler, David M. Farrell, and Richard S. Katz, 141–162. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarrow, Susan E. 2000. “Parties without Members? Party Organization in a Changing Electoral Environment.” In Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. Russell J. Dalton and Martin P. Wattenberg, 79–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1966. Ambition and Politics: Politics in the United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, Norman, Bernard Grofman, and Scott Feld. 1988. “The Core and the Stability of Group Choice in Spatial Voting Games.” American Political Science Review 82 (1): 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seyd, Patrick. 1998. “Tony Blair and New Labour.” In New Labour Triumphs: Britain at the Polls, ed. Anthony King, 49–73. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.” American Political Science Review 66 (2): 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Mark S. Bonchek. 1997. Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions. New York and London: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spirling, Arthur, and Iain McLean. 2007. “UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the U.K. House of Commons.” Political Analysis 15 (1): 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, Kaare. 1990. “A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 34: 565–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, Kaare. 1994. “The Presthus Debacle: Intraparty Politics and Bargaining Failure in Norway.” American Political Science Review 88 (1): 112–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SvĂĄsand, Lars, Kaare Strøm, and Bjørn Erik Rasch. 1997. “Change and Adaptation in Party Organization.” In Challenges to Political Parties: The Case of Norway, ed. Kaare Strøm and Lars Sväsand, 91–123. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomás MallĂ©n, Beatriz. 2002. Transfuguismo parlamentario y democracia de partidos. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, George. 1999. “Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis.” American Political Science Review 93 (3): 591–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, George. 2000. “Veto Players and Institutional Analysis.” Governance 13 (4): 441–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. New York and Princeton, NJ: Russel Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turan, Ilter. 1985. “Changing Horses in Midstream: Party Changers in the Turkish National Assembly.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 10 (1): 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verzichelli, Luca. 1996. “I gruppi parlamentari dopo il 1994. Fluiditä e riaggregazioni.” Rivista italiana di scienza politica 26 (2): 391–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zielinski, Jakub, Kazimierz M. Slomczynski, and Goldie Shabad. 2005. “Electoral Control in New Democracies: The Perverse Incentives of Fluid Party Systems.” World Politics 57 (3): 365–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. William B. Heller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carol Mershon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

William B. Heller Carol Mershon

Copyright information

© 2009 William B. Heller and Carol Mershon

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Heller, W.B., Mershon, C. (2009). Legislator Preferences, Party Desires: The Impact of Party Switching on Legislative Party Positions. In: Heller, W.B., Mershon, C. (eds) Political Parties and Legislative Party Switching. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230622555_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation