The principle of cyclicality in the leading theory of multi-level voting – second-order election theory – assumes that simultaneous multi-level voting should be congruent and that regional electoral contests should have no second-order election effects: regional turnout should not decrease, parties in office should not lose support, while opposition, small and new parties should not attract more votes. This article tests the principle of cyclicality of second-order election theory against a set of simultaneous multi-level elections in order to explain why second-order election effects rise and fall.
AgiusC. (2007), ‘Sweden's 2006 Parliamentary Election and After: Contesting or Consolidating the Swedish Model’, Parliamentary Affairs60(4), pp. 585–600.
2.
BirchS. (2000), ‘Interpreting the Regional Effect in Ukrainian Politics’, Europe–Asia Studies52(6), pp. 1017–1041.
3.
BrancatiD. (2007), ‘The Origins and Strengths of Regional Parties’, British Journal of Political Science38, pp. 135–159.
4.
DeschouwerK. (2000), ‘Belgium's Quasi-regional Elections of June 1999’, Regional & Federal Studies10(1), pp. 125–132.
5.
DeschouwerK. (2012), The Politics of Belgium: Governing a Divided Society, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
FabreE. (2010), ‘Multi-level Election Timing: A Comparative Overview’, Regional & Federal Studies20(2), pp. 175–199.
7.
FitzmauriceJ. (2004), ‘Belgium Stays “Purple”: The 2003 Federal Election’, West European Politics27(1), pp. 146–156.
8.
HeathA.M.L.I.TaylorB.CurticeJ. (1999), ‘Between First and Second Order: A Comparison of Voting Behaviour in European and Local Elections in Britain’, European Journal of Political Research35, pp. 389–414.
9.
HendersonA.McEwenN. (2010), ‘A Comparative Analysis of Voter Turnout in Regional Elections’, Electoral Studies29(3), pp. 405–416.
10.
HendersonA.RomanovaV. (2011), ‘Multi-level Voting in Vertically Simultaneous Elections’, Paper presented at the EPOP Conference, University of Exeter, 9 September.
11.
JefferyC.HoughD. (2003), ‘Regional Elections in Multi-level Systems’, European Urban and Regional Studies10(3), pp. 199–212.
12.
JefferyC.HoughD. (2009), ‘Understanding Post-Devolution Elections in Scotland and Wales in Comparative Perspective’, Party Politics15, pp. 219–240.
13.
MarksG.HoogheL.SchakelA. (2008), The Rise of Regional Authority: A Comparative Study of 42 Democracies, London: Routledge.
14.
MassettiE. (2009), ‘Explaining Regionalist Party Positioning in a Multi-dimensional Ideological Space: A Framework for Analysis’, Regional and Federal Studies19, pp. 501–531.
15.
MazeyS. (1986), ‘Notes on Recent Elections: The French Regional Elections of 16 March 1986’, Electoral Studies53, pp. 297–312.
16.
OlssonJ.AstromJ. (2003), ‘Why Regionalism in Sweden?’, Regional and Federal Studies1393, pp. 66–89.
17.
OSCE/ODIHR (2006), Ukraine, Parliamentary Elections, 29 March 2006: Election Observation Mission Final Report. Available from http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/19595 [Accessed 7 May 2013].
18.
PallaresF.KeatingM. (2003), ‘Multi-level Electoral Competition: Sub-state Elections and Party Systems in Spain’, European Urban and Regional Studies10, pp. 239–255.
19.
ReifK.SchmittH. (1980), ‘Nine Second Order National Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results’, European Journal of Political Research8, pp. 3–44.
20.
RossC. (2011), ‘Regional Elections and Electoral Authoritarianism in Russia’, Europe–Asia Studies63(4), pp. 641–662.
21.
SchakelA.H.DandoyR. (2010), ‘Turnout in Regional Elections’, Paper presented at the ‘Towards a Regional Political Science’ workshop, University of Edinburgh, 24–25 June.
22.
SchakelA.H.JefferyC. (2013), ‘Are Regional Elections Really Second Order Elections?’, Regional Studies47(3), pp. 323–341.
23.
SchrijverF. (2004), ‘Electoral Performance of Regionalist Parties and Perspectives on Regional Identity in France’, Regional and Federal Studies14(2), pp. 187–210.
24.
SlomczynskiK.GoldieS.JakubZ. (2008), ‘Fluid Party Systems, Electoral Rules and Accountability of Legislators in Emerging Democracies: The Case of Ukraine’, Party Politics14(1), pp. 91–112.
SwendenW. (2010), ‘Why Belgian Federalism is Not more Asymmetrical’ in RequejoF.NagelK.-J. (eds.), Federalism beyond Federations: Asymmetry and Processes of Re-symmetrization in Europe, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 13–36.
27.
SwyngedouwM. (2002), ‘The General Election in Belgium, June 1999’, Electoral Studies21, pp. 123–127.
28.
VersmessenE. (1995), ‘In the Kingdom of Paradoxes: The Belgian Regional and National Elections of May 1995’, Regional and Federal Studies5(2), pp. 239–246.
