2004
DOI: 10.1080/1465342042000294356
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strategic co-ordination in the 2002 Hungarian election

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous research observed a growing trend of strategic voting under the Hungarian supermixed system until 2010 (Nikolenyi, 2004; Kiss, 2015). While the 2002 election was the first election in Hungary when the party system transformation resulted in electoral outcomes in line with Duverger's expectations (Nikolenyi, 2004; cf.…”
Section: Methods and Research Designmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Previous research observed a growing trend of strategic voting under the Hungarian supermixed system until 2010 (Nikolenyi, 2004; Kiss, 2015). While the 2002 election was the first election in Hungary when the party system transformation resulted in electoral outcomes in line with Duverger's expectations (Nikolenyi, 2004; cf.…”
Section: Methods and Research Designmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Previous research observed a growing trend of strategic voting under the Hungarian supermixed system until 2010 (Nikolenyi, 2004; Kiss, 2015). While the 2002 election was the first election in Hungary when the party system transformation resulted in electoral outcomes in line with Duverger's expectations (Nikolenyi, 2004; cf. the ‘learning hypothesis’ by Tavits & Annus, 2006), especially in the 2010 election there was the strong evidence of strategic voting, or the strategic motivation of voters of third‐place candidates, respectively (Kiss, 2015).…”
Section: Methods and Research Designmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…(cf. Nikolenyi 2004;Kiss 2015;Maškarinec 2018a) use a measure which weighs parties according to their relative sizes. Specifically, we calculate Laakso and Taagepera"s (1979) effective number of electoral parties (ENEP) in each precinct as a measure of strategic voting.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The MSZP/SZDSZ coalition was hurt in 1998 by charges of corruption within the government's privatization board (Szilagyi, 1996) and by an outbreak of shootings and bomb explosions in Budapest during the spring of the election (Popescu and Tóka, 2000: 6). The narrow MSZP/SZDSZ victory in 2002 may have turned on such non-issue criteria as youth mobilized by parents and cell phone technology (Sükösd and Dányi, 2003) and the MSZP's and SZDSZ's use of joint candidate lists during the runoff election (Nikolenyi, 2004).…”
Section: Notesmentioning
confidence: 99%