Parliaments of the World

Herman, Valentine

doi:10.1515/9783111691053

Cited by 28 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11 High rates of executive success and low participation of individual members in law-making are, indeed, characteristics of most parliamentary regimes. The data assembled by the Inter Parliamentary Union (Herman & Mendel 1976) covering the 1971-1976 period register only 3 out of 14 countries with parliamentary regimes in which government legislative success is below 80%. There is no case in which individual initiatives represent more than 20% of the laws passed.…”

Section: Centralization Of the Decision-making Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

DEMOCRATICINSTITUTIONS ANDREGIMESURVIVAL: Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered

Cheibub

Limongi

2002

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review arguments and empirical evidence found in the comparative literature that bear on the differences in the survival rates of parliamentary and presidential democracies. Most of these arguments focus on the fact that presidential democracies are based on the separation of executive and legislative powers, while parliamentary democracies are based on the fusion of these powers. From this basic distinction several implications are derived which would lead to radically different behavior and outcomes under each regime. We argue that this perspective is misguided and that we cannot deduce the functioning of the political system from the way governments are formed. There are other provisions, constitutional or otherwise, that also affect the way parliamentary and presidential democracies operate and that may counteract some of the tendencies that we would expect to observe if we were to derive the regime's performance from its basic constitutional principle.

show abstract

Section: Centralization Of the Decision-making Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

DEMOCRATICINSTITUTIONS ANDREGIMESURVIVAL: Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered

Cheibub

Limongi

2002

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Australia and New Zealand the citizens must take the initiative; however, they are legally required to do so, and subject to fines or other penalties for failing to register. Of the 20 democracies outside the United States, only France leaves voter registration to voluntary initiative of citizens (Herman, 1976). In France citizens are required to register in their community and to obtain identification cards, which facilitates voter registration.…”

Section: The Cultural and Institutionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective

1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite relatively favorable citizen attitudes, voter turnout in American national elections is far below the average of 80% of the eligible electorate that votes in other industrialized democracies. The American institutional setting—particularly the party system and the registration laws—severely inhibits voter turnout, and probably also accounts for the unusual degree to which education and other socioeconomic resources are directly linked to voting participation in the United States.Using a combination of aggregate and comparative survey data, the present analysis suggests that in comparative perspective, turnout in the United States is advantaged about 5% by political attitudes, but disadvantaged 13% by the party system and institutional factors, and up to 14% by the registration laws. The experience of other democracies suggests that encouraging voter participation would contribute to channeling discontent through the electoral process. Even a significantly expanded American electorate would be more interested and involved in political activity than are present voters in most other democracies.

show abstract

“…This is especially true in the case of the Netherlands, our empirical case, where opposition parties are more powerless vis-à-vis government parties than in other countries (e.g. Andeweg and Irwin, 2014;Herman, 1976). In a multiparty system, getting into government means that the AIP has to pass the "bottleneck" of coalition formation.…”

Section: The Treatment Modelmentioning

confidence: 95%

Does ostracism affect party support? Comparative lessons and experimental evidence

Spanje¹,

Weber

2017

Party Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of anti-immigration parties (AIPs) in many European democracies poses a strategic problem for established actors: Immediate policy impact of AIPs can be averted by ostracizing them (i.e. refusing any cooperation), but this strategy may sway public opinion further in their favour. A comparative review shows large variation in the electoral trajectories of ostracized parties. We therefore propose a model of the context conditions that shape the repercussions of ostracism in public opinion. Under conditions that suggest substantial policy impact of an AIP were it to join a coalition government, ostracism should decrease the party’s electoral support. Vice versa, if context suggests strong “signaling” potential of an AIP if in opposition, ostracism should increase its support. To avoid apparent endogeneity of political context and party competition, the model is tested with a survey-embedded experiment on a representative sample from the Netherlands. Results confirm that ostracism is a double-edged strategy.

show abstract

Parliaments of the World

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

DEMOCRATICINSTITUTIONS ANDREGIMESURVIVAL: Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered

DEMOCRATICINSTITUTIONS ANDREGIMESURVIVAL: Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered

American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective

Does ostracism affect party support? Comparative lessons and experimental evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About