Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting Defection in the European Parliament

Simon Hix · World Politics · 2004 · political-science · 10.1353/wp.2004.0012 · record hix2004-electoral-institutions-and-legisla
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. The only explicit self-to-prior-work relation in the text is in a footnote (note 16), and the extraction runs the footnote sentence into the full citation, so the quoted evidence is the leading clause of that footnote rather than a free-standing body sentence; it is an exact substring. Other citations in the article characterise the literature rather than positioning this paper against it, so no further relations were recorded. Method is coded observational-study (large-N fixed-effects logit analysis of recorded roll-call behaviour); the paper also contains a formal decision-theoretic model, which the single method facet cannot capture. 2026-08-14, 2026-08-15 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
logistic regression 3 fields · confidence interval 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 5 concept tags on this paper, all 5 are grounded in a quoted sentence.

policy conflict closed-list proportional representation semiopen-list PR systems roll-call votes closed-list Centralized candidate selection gives the national leadership a credible power to punish, so the MEP anticipates the cost and complies with national instructions The MEP weighs the cost of defecting from each principal and votes for whichever side leaves her better off, an expected-utility calculation Where individual candidate votes decide electoral fortunes, reelection-seeking legislators cultivate a personal following independent of the party, which loosens party discipline closed-list proportional representation (PR) system semiopen- or ordered-list PR system fully open-list PR system single-transferable-vote (STV) system electoral institutions an MEP's two principals defection the European Parliament as a laboratory electoral institution variables Electoral System Candidate Selection District Magnitude MEP defection seniority EPG NP VOTE logistic regression fixed-effects logit model fixed effects Fixed effects (dummy variables) predicted probability conditional probability confidence interval significance test two-tailed test observational-study

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2004.0012. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 1 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 1 · concepts 5 · content_tags 38 · controls 1 · limitations 9 · mechanisms 3 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	legislative voting defection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	observational-study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: observational-study	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Centralized candidate selection gives the national leadership a credible power to punish, so the MEP anticipates the cost and complies with national instructions	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: The MEP weighs the cost of defecting from each principal and votes for whichever side leaves her better off, an expected-utility calculation	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Where individual candidate votes decide electoral fortunes, reelection-seeking legislators cultivate a personal following independent of the party, which loosens party discipline	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Statistical significance is inflated by the very large number of vote-decision observations. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every significance claim in the paper: THE EFFECT OF MOST OF THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES IS HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Policy conflict between an MEP's two principals is not observed directly but approximated by survey-based distance measures. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the policy-conflict variables: THESE ARE PROXY MEASURES OF POLICY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTY PRINCIPALS, built from survey distances rather than observed	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The party-group coefficients do not generalise to MEPs in the largest national delegations because of how the model is specified. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the party-group results: BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE MODEL, THESE RESULTS ... APPLY ONLY TO THOSE MEPS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE FIVE LARGEST NATIONAL DELEGATIONS	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	One of the two policy-conflict predictors does not yield a clear result for national-party defection. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the national-party defection result specifically: THE EFFECT OF THE EU-INTEGRATION POLICY DISTANCE ... IS LESS CLEAR	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	A formal category is collapsed into a different one on the basis of how voters behave, not on the rule that defines it: semiopen-list systems are treated as closed-list because voters in practice choose the preordered list. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the candidate-centred versus party-centred classification of electoral systems: semiopen-list systems are placed with closed-list ones because of observed voter behaviour rather than the rule	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The key explanatory variable is measured by proxy, and the reason given is endogeneity rather than validity: the observed quantity would be caused by the thing being explained. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the conflict variable as a measure of conflict in the vote at hand: it is a proxy, adopted because conflict observed in a particular vote is endogenous to the vote decisions being explained	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	One side of the model is assumed non-strategic, and the assumption is adopted because the quantity involved is endogenous. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the party group's behaviour in this model: it is assumed not to act strategically when issuing voting instructions, while the national party is allowed to	`limitations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The arguments the article sets out to adjudicate are reported as never having been tested. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the debate over a single European electoral system: the article states the existing arguments have remained normative	`limitations[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The merged electoral-system class is a modelling decision resting on a behavioural generalisation - that parties control who gets elected, so voter preferences for individuals rarely matter - and every result for that class inherits it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[8]`	0.9	the tagger's words
controls	a vector of 1,031 dummy variables, one for every vote Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the estimate is driven by the differing defection rates and political salience of particular votes rather than by the electoral institution · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	policy conflict Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: policy conflict	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	closed-list proportional representation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: closed-list proportional representation	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	semiopen-list PR systems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semiopen-list PR systems	`concepts[2]`		the paper's words
concepts	roll-call votes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: roll-call votes	`concepts[3]`		the paper's words
concepts	closed-list Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: closed-list	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	electoral system - AS FORMAL RULE: semiopen- or ordered-list PR, where voters may vote for the list or for an individual politician Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	electoral system - AS PRACTICE: the same systems classified with closed-list PR, because votes for individual candidates rarely decide who is elected Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	policy conflict - a PROXY measure between the two party principals, preferred over the conflict actually observed in a vote precisely because the observed version is endogenous Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	policy conflict - measured by proxy ON PURPOSE: observed per-vote conflict is rejected as endogenous to the decision being explained, so the construct is measured away from the thing it predicts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Gabel and Hix (2002), "The European Parliament and Executive Politics in the EU" Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	semiopen-list PR systems —same-as→ closed-list Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: NOTHING THAT MATTERS TO THE OUTCOME, WHICH IS THE POINT: the two are formally distinct - semiopen lists let voters express a preference for individuals - but 'because parties control who gets elected, most semiopen-list PR systems are, IN PRACTICE, very similar to closed-list PR systems'. The formal distinction survives; the behavioural one does not · strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: A FORMAL CATEGORY COLLAPSED INTO ANOTHER ON THE EVIDENCE OF PRACTICE, and the record already carries both readings as senses of 'electoral system' - AS FORMAL RULE and AS PRACTICE. The analysis then treats the merged class as one, so every downstream coefficient depends on this move. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says most semiopen-list systems act like closed-list ones; same-as overstates it. also in: semiopen-list PR systems · closed-list	`concept_edges[0]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	logistic regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: logistic regression	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	fixed effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fixed effects	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	predicted probability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: predicted probability	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	confidence interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confidence interval	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	significance test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: significance test	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	MEPs elected under institutions that weaken their national party's grip — a candidate-centered electoral system, decentralized candidate selection, and large district magnitude — are less likely to vote against their European party group. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The same three institutions push in the opposite direction for the other principal: candidate-centered voting rules, decentralized candidate selection, or a large district each make an MEP more likely to vote against her own national party. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	An MEP is more likely to vote against her national party only under a candidate-centered system combined with decentralized candidate selection. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Longer service in the European Parliament lowers defection from the European party group but raises defection from the national party. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Domestic legislative-executive design and territorial structure do not affect how MEPs vote in the European Parliament. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Defection is rare overall: MEPs almost always voted with the majorities of both their European party group and their national party. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	National parties enforce their wishes best under closed-list PR, small districts or centralized candidate selection. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	closed-list proportional representation (PR) system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: closed-list proportional representation (PR) system	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	semiopen- or ordered-list PR system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semiopen- or ordered-list PR system	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	fully open-list PR system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fully open-list PR system	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	single-transferable-vote (STV) system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: single-transferable-vote (STV) system	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	electoral institutions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electoral institutions	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	an MEP's two principals Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: an MEP's two principals	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	defection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: defection	`content_tags.definitions[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	the European Parliament as a laboratory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the European Parliament as a laboratory	`content_tags.definitions[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	electoral institution variables Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electoral institution variables	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Electoral System Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Electoral System	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Candidate Selection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Candidate Selection	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	District Magnitude Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: District Magnitude	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	policy conflict Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: policy conflict	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	MEP defection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: MEP defection	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	seniority Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: seniority	`content_tags.variables[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	EPG Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: EPG	`content_tags.variables[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	NP Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: NP	`content_tags.variables[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	VOTE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: VOTE	`content_tags.variables[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	1,031 — roll-call votes held in the European Parliament between July 1999 and June 2000, cast by 626 sitting MEPs, producing 645,406 individual vote decisions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	396,167 — vote decisions left in the analysis after exclusions, made by 526 MEPs from fifty-five national parties in fourteen member states Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	more than 30 percent — reduction in the probability of voting against one's European party group for an MEP elected under the full set of institutions granting independence from the national party Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	approximately 20 percent — reduction in the probability of voting against one's national party for an MEP elected under the full set of institutions giving the national leadership control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	16 percent / 15 percent — EPP members are that much less likely, and PES members that much more likely, than the average MEP to vote against their European party group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	33 percent (± 2 percent) — extra likelihood that British Conservative MEPs vote against their European party group relative to the average MEP (Model 3); in Model 8 they are 19 percent (± 7 percent) more likely to defect from their national party Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	7,504 — double defections in which an MEP voted yes or no directly against both principals — under 2 percent of all analysed vote decisions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	One hundred ninety-five MEPs (31 percent of the 626 members) — respondents to the EPRG survey used to build the left-right and EU-integration policy-distance measures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[7]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.