Parliamentary Voting

  • Simon Hug


Votes in parliament offer one of the few sources of behavioral data to study members of parliaments (MPs). As a consequence, an increasing number of studies rely on such data and by employing sophisticated methods generate new insights on how MP interact with their constituency, their party and their leaders in parliament. This paper reviews the main strands of research in this field and cautions against a too uncritical use of data on parliamentary voting. First of all, in many parliaments, information on individual voting behavior is not available for all votes; and second, votes by MPs are influenced by myriad of factors like their constituency, their party, etc. In addition, votes can obviously only be observed on objects having been admitted to the agenda. Consequently, to take full advantage of the wealth of information stemming from parliamentary voting, the full context of MPs’ choices has to be taken into consideration.


Parliaments Parliamentary voting Decision-making ideology Political parties 


  1. Achen, C. H. (1986). Statistical analysis of quasi-experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J. H. (1995). Why parties? The origin and transformation of party politics in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alker, H. R. (1964). Dimensions of conflict in the general assembly. American Political Science Review, 58(3), 642–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, L. F., Watts, M., & Wilcox, A. R. (1966). Legislative roll call analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, J. T. (2002). When majorities fail: The Russian legislature, 1990–1993. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J. M, Jr, & Stewart, C. I. I. I. (2001). The effects of party and preferences on congressional roll call voting. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(4), 533–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartels, L. M. (1991). Constituency opinion and congressional policy making: The Reagan defense buildup. American Political Science Review, 85(2), 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Attina, F. (1990). The voting behaviour of European Parliament members and the problem of the Europarties. European Journal of Political Research, 18(5), 557–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aydelotte, W. O. (1963). Voting patterns in the British House of Commons in the 1840s. Comparative Studies and History, 5(2), 134–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bailer, S., Schulz, T., & Selb, P. (2009). What role for the whips? A latent-variable approach to leadership effects on party group cohesion in the European Parliament. Journal of Legislative Studies, 15(4), 355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ball, M. (1951). Bloc voting in the general assembly. International Organization, 5(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brzinski, J. B. (1995). Political group cohesion in the European Parliament, 1989–1994. In C. Rhodes & S. Mazey (Eds.), The state of the European Union (pp. 135–158). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  14. Burton, R. (1936). The French chamber of deputies: a study of party allegiance, attitudes, and cohesion. American Political Science Review, 30(3), 549–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bütikofer, S., & Hug, S. (2010). The Swiss upper house. Chambre de réflexion or conservative renegades? Journal of Legislative Studies, 16(2), 176–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bütikofer, S. & Hug, S. (2008). Strategic behavior in the Swiss Parliament. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, August 27–31, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. Carey, J. M. (2009). Legislative voting and accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Carey, J., & Reynolds, A. (2007). Parties and accountable government in new democracies. Party Politics, 13(2), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carroll, R. & Poole, K. (2013, forthcoming). Roll Call Analysis and the Study of Legislatures. In The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, ed. Shane Martin, Thomas Saalfeld & Kaare Strøm. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Carrubba, C. J., Gabel, M., & Hug, H. (2008). Legislative voting behavior, seen and unseen: adjusting for selection effects in roll call vote analysis. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carrubba, C. J., Gabel, M., Murrah, L., Clough, R., Montegomery, E., & Schambach, R. (2006). Off the record: unrecorded legislative votes, selection bias, and roll-call vote analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 36(4), 691–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clinton, J. D. (2006). Representation in Congress: constituents and roll calls in the 106th House. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 397–409.Google Scholar
  23. Clinton, J. D. (2012). Using roll call estimates to test models of politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clinton, J. D., & Lapinski, L. (2008). Laws and roll calls in the U.S. Congress, 1891–1994. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 511–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Clinton, J. D., & Meirowitz, A. (2003). Integrating voting theory and roll call analysis: a framework. Political Analysis, 11(4), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clinton, J. D., & Meirowitz, A. (2004). Testing explanations of strategic voting in legislatures: a reexamination of the compromise of 1790. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 675–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clinton, J. D., Jackman, S., & Rivers, D. (2004). The statistical analysis of roll call voting: a unified approach. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Crisp, B. F., & Driscoll, A. (2012). The strategic use of legislative voting procedures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 37(2), 67–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Collie, M. P. (1984). Voting behavior in legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 9(1), 3–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cox, G. W. (1997). Making votes count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. (1993). Legislative leviathan. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Cox, G. W. & McCubbins, M. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Curini, L., & Zucchini, F. (2010). Testing the theories of law making in a parliamentary democracy: A roll call analysis of the Italian Chamber of Deputies (1987–2006). In T. König, G. Tsebelis, & M. Debus (Eds.), Reform processes and policy change: Veto players and decision-making in modern democracies (pp. 189–212). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Debus, M., & Hansen, M. E. (2010). Die Dimensionalität der Reichstage der Weimarer Republik von 1920 bis 1932. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 51(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Depauw, S., & Martin, S. (2009). Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective. In D. Giannetti & F. K. Benoit (Eds.), Intra-party politics and coalition governments (pp. 103–120). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Desposato, S. W. (2005). Correcting for small group inflation of roll-call cohesion scores. British Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 731–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Desposato, S. (2009). Party switching in Brazil: causes, effects, and representation. In W. Heller & C. Mershon (Eds.), Legislative party switching and the foundations of political parties. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Diermeier, D., & Feddersen, T. (1998). Cohesion in legislatures and the vote of confidence procedure. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 611–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eichenberger, R., Stadelmann, D., & Portmann, M. (2012). A comparative analysis of the voting behavior of constituents and their representatives for public debts. Constitutional Political Economy, 23(3), 244–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Faas, T. (2003). To defect or not to defect? National, institutional and party group pressures on MEPs and their consequences for party group cohesion in the European Parliament. European Journal of Political Research, 42(6), 841–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Farquharson, R. (1969). Theory of voting. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Fennell, L. C. (1974). Reasons for roll calls: an exploratory analysis with Argentine data. American Journal of Political Science, 18(2), 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fiorina, M. P. (1975). Constituency influence: a generalized model and its implications for statistical studies of roll-call behavior. Political Methodology, 2(3), 249–266.Google Scholar
  44. Gallagher, M., & Marsh, M. (Eds.) (1988). Candidate selection in a comparative perspective. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Godbout, J. F., & Høyland, B. (2011). Legislative voting in the Canadian Parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Grofman, B., Griffin, R., & Berry, G. (1995). House members who become senators: learning from a ‘natural experiment’ in representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(4), 513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Häge, Frank M. (2011). Choice or circumstance? Adjusting measures of foreign policy similarity for chance agreement. Political Analysis, 19(3), 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hamilton, A., Jay, J. & Madison, J. (1787). The Federalist. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
  49. Han, J. (2007). Analysing roll calls of the European Parliament—a Bayesian application. European Union Politics, 8(4), 479–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hansen, M. E. (2009). The positions of Irish parliamentary parties 1937–2006. Irish Political Studies, 24(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hansen, M., & Debus, M. (2012). The behaviour of political parties and MPs in the parliaments of the Weimar Republic. Party Politics, 18(5), 709–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Harris, C. W. (1948). A factor analysis of selected senate roll calls, 80th Congress: educational and psychological measurement, vol. 8(4), pp. 582–591.Google Scholar
  53. Hazan, R. Y., & Rahat, G. (2010). Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Heckman, J. J. & Snyder, J. M. Jr. (1997). Linear probability models of the demand for attributes with an empirical application to estimating the preferences of legislators. The Rand Journal of Economics, 28 (Special issue), 142–189.Google Scholar
  55. Heller, W. B., & Mershon, C. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Heller, W., & Mershon, C. (Eds.) (2009). Legislative party switching and the foundations of political parties. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  57. Hix, S. (2002). Parliamentary Behavior with Two Principals: Preferences, Parties, and Voting in the European Parliament. American Journal of Political Science 46(3), 688–698.Google Scholar
  58. Hix, S. & Noury, A. (2007). Government-opposition or left-right? The institutional determinants of voting in eight parliaments. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August 30–September 2, 2007.Google Scholar
  59. Hix, S., Noury, A., & Roland, G. (2006). Democratic politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Hovet, T. (1960). Bloc politics in the United Nations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Høyland, B. (2010). Procedural and party effects in European Parliament roll call votes. European Union Politics, 11(4), 597–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Huber, J. D. (1996). The vote of confidence in parliamentary democracies. American Political Science Review, 90(2), 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Huber, J. D., & Lupia, A. (2001). Cabinet instability and delegation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hug, S. (2010). Selection effects in roll call votes. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hug, S., & Martin, D. (2012). How electoral systems affect MPs’ positions. Electoral Studies, 31(1), 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hug, S. (2012). What’s in a vote? Paper prepared for presentation at the 5th Conference on The Political Economy of International Organizations, Villanova, January 2012.Google Scholar
  67. Hug, S., & Schulz, T. (2007). Left-right positions of political parties in Switzerland. Party Politics, 13(3), 305–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hug, S., Wegmann, S. & Wüest, R. (2012). Parliamentary voting procedures in comparison. Paper prepared for presentation at the 2nd Annual General Conference of The European Political Science Association, Berlin, 21–23 June 2012.Google Scholar
  69. Jackson, J. E., & Kingdon, J. W. (1992). Ideology, interest group scores, and legislative voters. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 805–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Jensen, T. K. (2000). Party cohesion. In P. Esaiasson & K. Heidar (Eds.), Beyond Westminster and Congress: the Nordic experience (pp. 210–236). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Jenny, M. & Müller, W. C. (2011). Party-disciplining, position-taking, or obstruction? Roll call votes in a party democracy. Paper prepared for presentation at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshop, April 13–18, St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  72. Jun, H., & Hix, S. (2010). Electoral systems, political career paths and legislative behavior: evidence from South Korea’s mixed-member system. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kalt, J. P., & Zupan, M. A. (1990). The apparent ideological behavior of legislators: Testing for principal-agent slack in political institutions. Journal of Law and Economics, 33(1), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Kam, C. (2001). Do ideological preferences explain parliamentary behaviour: Evidence from Great Britain and Canada. Journal of Legislative Studies, 7(4), 89–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kam, C. (2008). Party discipline and parliamentary politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Kaniovski, S., & Mueller, D. C. (2011). How representative is the European Union Parliament? European Journal of Political Economy, 27(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Krehbiel, K. (1993). Where’s the party? British Journal of Political Science, 23(2), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Krehbiel, K., & Rivers, D. (1990). Sophisticated voting in Congress: A reconsideration. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 548–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kristinsson, G. H. (2011). Party cohesion in the Icelandic Althingi. Stjórnmál and Stjórnsýsla, 7(2), 73–96.Google Scholar
  80. Kingdon, J. W. (1973). Congressmen’s voting decisions. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  81. Lee, D. S., Moretti, E & Butler, M. J. (2004). Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the U.S. House. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 807–859.Google Scholar
  82. Levitt, S. D. (1996). How do senators vote? Disentangling the role of voter preferences, party affiliation, and senator ideology. American Economic Review, 86(3), 425–441.Google Scholar
  83. Lijphart, A. (1963). The analysis of bloc voting in the general assembly: a critique and a proposal. American Political Science Review, 57(4), 902–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Lindstädt, R., Slapin, J. B., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2011). Balancing competing demands: Position-taking and election proximity in the European Parliament. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lindstädt, R., Jonathan, B. S. & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2013, forthcoming). Adaptive behaviour in the European Parliament: Learning to balance competing demands. European Union Politics.Google Scholar
  86. Londregan, J. (2000a). Estimating legislator’s preferred points. Political Analysis, 8(1), 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Londregan, J. (2000b). Legislative institutions and ideology in Chile. Cambridge: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lowell, A. L. (1901). The influence of party upon legislation in England and America. Annual Report of the American Historical Association, pp. 321–543.Google Scholar
  89. Luif, P., & Radeva, M. (2007). EU co-ordination in international organizations: The case of the United Nations General Assembly and the organization for security and co-operation in Europe. In N. Casarini & C. Musu (Eds.), European foreign policy in an evolving international system: The road towards convergence (pp. 27–40). New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  90. Lynch, M., & Madonna, A. ( 2013, forthcoming). Viva Voce: Implications from the Disappearing Voice Vote. Social Science Quarterly.Google Scholar
  91. Lyons, P., & Lacina, T. (2009). An examination of legislative roll-call voting in the Czech Republic using spatial models. Czech Sociological Review, 45(6), 1155–1190.Google Scholar
  92. MacRae, D. (1958). Dimensions of congressional voting. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  93. MacRae, D. (1967). Parliament, parties, and society in France 1946–1958. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  94. Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. M. (2002). Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis, 10(2), 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Masket, S., & Noel, H. (2012). Serving two masters: Using referenda to assess partisan versus dyadic legislative representation. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 104–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Mayhew, D. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  97. McCarty, N. (2011). Measuring legislative preferences. In E. Schickler & F. E. Lee (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the American Congress (pp. 66–94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  98. McCarty, N., Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2001). The hunt for party discipline in Congress. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 673–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. McKelvey, R. D. (1975). Policy related voting and electoral equilibrium. Econometrica, 43(5/6), 815–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Meserve, S. A., Pemstein, D., & Bernhard, W. T. (2009). Political ambition and legislative behavior in the European Parliament. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1015–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Middlebrook, J. (2003). Les méthodes de vote au sein des parlements. Informations constitutionnelles et parlementaires, 53(186), 42–67.Google Scholar
  102. Müller, W. C., & Strøm, K. (1999). Policy, office, or votes? How political parties in Western Europe make hard decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Nokken, T. P. (2000). Dynamics of congressional loyalty: Party defection and roll-call behavior, 1947–97. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(3), 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Nokken, T. P., & Poole, K. T. (2004). Congressional party defection in American history. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29(4), 545–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Noury, A. G., & Mielcova, E. (1997). Roll call voting in a multi-party parliament: The case of the Czech Parliament. Working Paper: Free University of Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  106. Noury, A., Dobrowolski, W., & Mazurkiewicz, M. (1999). Voting behavior in the Polish Parliament. Mimeo: Free University of Brussels.Google Scholar
  107. Poole, K. (2000). Nonparametric unfolding of binary choice data. Political Analysis, 8(3), 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (1985). A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(2), 357–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Portmann, M., Stadelmann, D., & Eichenberger, R. (2012). District magnitude and representation of the majority’s preferences: evidence from popular and parliamentary votes. Public Choice, 151(3), 585–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Owens, J. E. (2003). Explaining party cohesion and discipline in democratic legislatures: purposiveness and contexts. Journal of Legislative Studies, 9(4), 12–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Özbudun, E. (1970). Party cohesion in western democracies: A causal analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  113. Poole, K. (2005). Spatial models of parliamentary voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Rice, S. A. (1925). The behavior of legislative groups: a method of measurement. Political Science Quarterly, 40(1), 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rice, S. A. (1928). Quantitative methods in politics. New York: A.A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  116. Roberts, J. M. (2007). The statistical analysis of roll-call data: a cautionary tale. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(3), 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Rosenthal, H., & Voeten, E. (2004). Analyzing roll calls with perfect spatial voting. American Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 620–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Saalfeld, T. (1995). On dogs and whips: recorded votes. In H. Döring (Ed.), Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe (pp. 528–565). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  119. Sekhon, J. S., & Titiunik, R. (2012). When natural experiments are neither natural nor experiments. American Political Science Review, 106(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2003). Ideology, party and interests in the British Parliament of 1841–1847. British Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 581–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Shor, B., Berry, C., & McCarty, N. (2010). A bridge to somewhere: Mapping state and congressional ideology on a cross-institutional common space. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 35(3), 417–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Sieberer, U. (2006). Party unity in parliamentary democracies: A comparative analysis. Journal of Legislative Studies, 12(2), 150–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Sieberer, U. (2010). Behavioral consequences of mixed electoral systems: deviating voting behavior of district and list MPs in the German Bundestag. Electoral Studies, 29(3), 484–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Skjaeveland, A. (1999). A Danish party cohesion cycle. Scandinavian Political Studies, 22(2), 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Snyder, J. M, Jr, & Groseclose, T. (2000). Estimating party influence in congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Spirling, A., & McLean, I. (2006). The rights and wrongs of roll calls. Government and Opposition, 41(4), 581–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Spirling, A., & McLean, I. (2007). UK OC OK? Interpreting optimal classification scores for the U.K. House of Commons. Political Analysis, 15(1), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Stecker, C. (2011). Namentliche Abstimmungen als Währung individualisierter Repräsentation. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 5(2), 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Stokman, F. N. (1977). Roll calls and sponsorship: a methodological analysis of Third World group formation in the United Nations. Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff.Google Scholar
  130. Stratmann, T. (2006). Party-line voting and committee assignments in the German mixed member system. In R. D. Congleton & B. Swedenborg (Eds.), Democratic constitutional design and public policy: Analysis and evidence (pp. 111–130). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  131. Strøm, K. (2000). Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 261–289.Google Scholar
  132. Strøm, K. (2003). Parliamentary democracy and delegation. In K. Strøm, W. C. Müller, & T. Bergman (Eds.), Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies (pp. 55–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Strøm, K., Müller, W. C., & Markham Smith, M. (2010). Parliamentary control of coalition governments. Annual Review of Political Science, 13(1), 517–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Thames, F. C. (2007). Discipline and party institutionalization in Post-Soviet legislatures. Party Politics, 13(4), 456–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Thiem, J. (2009). Nationale Parteien im Europäischen Parlament. Delegation, Kontrolle und politischer Einfluss. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  136. Traber, D., Hug, S. & Sciarini, P. (2013, forthcoming). Party Unity in the Swiss Parliament. The Electoral Connection. Journal of Legislative Studies.Google Scholar
  137. Treier, S. (2011). Comparing ideal points across institutions and time. American Politics Research, 39(5), 804–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Uslaner, E., & Zittel, T. (2006). Comparative legislative behavior. In R. A. W. Rhodes, S. A. Binder, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political institutions (pp. 455–473). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  139. VanDoren, P. M. (1990). Can we learn the causes of congressional decisions from roll-call data? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15(3), 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Voeten, E. (2000). Clashes in the assembly. International Organization, 54(2), 185–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Warwick, P. (1977). French popular front: A legislative analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  142. Weisberg, H. F. (1972). Scaling models for legislative roll-call analysis. American Political Science Review, 66(4), 1306–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Weisberg, H. F. (1978). Evaluating theories of congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science, 22(3), 554–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de science politique et relations internationales, Faculté des sciences économiques et socialesUniversité de GenèveGenève 4Switzerland

Personalised recommendations