This article measures, compares, and analyzes the degree to which local factors, be they candidate qualities or district characteristics, affect electoral politics. It applies Morgenstern and Potthoff’s components-of-variance model to 56 parties or coalitions to measure the “local vote” and shows that only in some cases do local factors manifest themselves in voting patterns. To explain this finding, the authors argue that the type of executive system, ideological cohesion, and a country’s ethnic heterogeneity combined with federalism are all strongly tied to the local vote patterns. Statistical tests also show that in spite of the large literature on the incentives that electoral systems can offer to candidates to pursue a personal vote, the electoral system does not have a clear impact on the local vote.
Alcántara Sáez, M. (multiple dates). Elites Parlamentarias en América Latina (PELA) (Survey conducted by Instituto Interuniversitario de Estudios de Iberoamérica y Portugal).
2.
Alcántara Sáez, M., & Freidenberg, F. (Eds.). (2002). Partidos políticos de América Latina. Salamanca, Spain: Universidad de Salamanca.
3.
Alexander, H. E. (1989). Comparative political finance in the 1980s. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Alexander, H. E., & Shiratori, R. (1994). Comparative political finance among democracies. Boulder, CO: Westview.
5.
Alvarez, AngelE. (1997). Los dineros dela política. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
6.
American Political Science Association, Committee on Political Parties. (1950). Toward a more responsible two-party system. New York: Rinehart.
7.
Ames, B. (2001). The deadlock of democracy in Brazil. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
Bawn, K. (1993). The logic of institutional preferences: German electoral law as a social choice outcome. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 965-989.
9.
Burnell, P., & Ware, A. (Eds.). (1998). Funding democracy. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
10.
Cain, B., Ferejohn, J., & Fiorina, M. (1984). The constituency service basis of the personal vote for U.S. representatives and British members of Parliament. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 110-125.
11.
Cain, B., Ferejohn, J., & Fiorina, M. (1987). The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
Caramani, D. (2000). Elections in Western Europe since 1815: Electoral results by constituencies. London: Macmillan.
13.
Carey, J., & Shugart M. S. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies, 14(4), 417-439.
14.
Claggett, W., Flanigan, W., & Zingale, N. (1984). Nationalization of the American electorate. American Political Science Review, 78(1), 77-91.
15.
del Castillo, V. P. (1985). La financiación de partidos y candidatos en las democracias occidentales. Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno de España.
16.
Gunlicks, A. B. (1993). Campaign and party finance in North America and Western Europe. Boulder, CO: Westview.
17.
Huber, J., & Inglehart, R. (1995). Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics, 1, 73-111.
18.
International Monetary Fund. (2001). Government financestatistics yearbook. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
Katz, R. S. (1973). The attribution of variance in electoral returns: An alternative measurement technique. American Political Science Review, 67(3), 817-828.
20.
Katz, R. S. (1986). Intraparty preference voting. In B. Grofman & A. Lijphart (Eds.), Electoral laws and their political consequences (pp. 85-103). New York: Agathon.
21.
Krain, M. (1997). State-sponsored mass murder: The onset and severity of genocides and politicides. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(3), 331-360.
22.
Mainwaring, S. P. (1999). Rethinking party systems in the third wave of democratization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23.
Morgenstern, S. (2001). Organized factions and disorganized parties: Electoral incentives in Uruguay. Party Politics, 7(2), 235-256.
24.
Morgenstern, S. (2004). Patterns of legislative politics: Roll call voting in Latin America and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Morgenstern, S., & Potthoff, R. F. (2005). The components of elections: District heterogeneity, district-time effects, and volatility. Electoral Studies, 24, 17-40.
26.
Nielson, D. (2003). Supplying trade reform: Political institutions and liberalization in middle-income presidential democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 470-491.
27.
Samuels, D. (1999). Incentives to cultivate a party vote in candidate centric electoral systems. Comparative Political Studies, 32, 487-518.
28.
Schoenbach, K. (1987). The role of mass media in West German elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 12(3), 373-394.
29.
Shankar, R., & Shah, A. (2001). Bridging the economic divide within nations: A scorecard on the performance of regional development policies in reducing regional income disparities (World Bank Working Paper 2717). Washington, DC: World Bank.
30.
Siavelis, P. M. (2000). The president and the congress in post-authoritarian Chile: Institutional constraintsto democratic consolidation. University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press.
31.
Stokes, D. (1965). A variance components model of political effects. In J. M. Claunch (Ed.), Mathematical applications in political science (pp. 61-85). Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press.
32.
Stokes, D. (1967). Parties and the nationalization of electoral forces. In W. N. Chambers & W. D. Burnham (Eds.), The American party systems: States of political development (pp. 182-202). New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
Studlar, D. T., & McAllister, I. (1994). The electoral connection in Australia: Candidate roles, campaign activity, and the popular vote. Political Behavior, 16(3), 385-410.
34.
Zovatto, D. G., & del Castillo, P. (1998). La financiación de la política en Iberoamérica. San José, Costa Rica: IIDH-CAPEL.
