Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:03:23.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turnout Rates in Closed Party Leadership Primaries: Flash and Fade Out?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2014

Bram Wauters
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The organization of primaries in which all party members can participate is increasingly used by political parties to select their leader. We focus here on one of the consequences of these procedures – participation rates. Based on general participation theories (mobilization theory, instrumental motivation theory and learning theory) in combination with insights into the introduction and functioning of leadership primaries, we expect that the first time a party organizes leadership primaries, participation rates will be high, but that they will decline gradually afterwards. We have focused on direct member votes for the selection of party leaders in Belgium, Israel and Canada. Our results show that participation rates are not influenced by how many times such a contest is held in a party (only first-time participation tends to be higher), but mainly by how competitive the contest is.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 218 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Bram Wauters is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Ghent. Contact email: bram.wauters@ugent.be.

References

Blais, A.Dobrzynska, A. (1998), ‘Turnout in Electoral Democracies’, European Journal of Political Research, 33(2): 239–261.Google Scholar
Blais, A.Lago, I. (2009), ‘A General Measure of District Competitiveness’, Electoral Studies, 28(1): 94–100.Google Scholar
Cox, G.W.Munger, M.C. (1989), ‘Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in the 1982 U.S. House Elections’, American Political Science Review, 83(1): 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, W.Blais, A. (2012), ‘Who Selects the Party Leader?’, Party Politics, 18(2): 127–150.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1989), Democracy and its Critics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Denham, A. (2009), ‘From Grey Suits to Grass Roots: Choosing Conservative Leaders’, British Politics, 4(2): 217–235.Google Scholar
Deschouwer, K. (2009), The Politics of Belgium (London: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Fauvelle-Aymar, C.François, A. (2006), ‘The Impact of Closeness on Turnout: An Empirical Relation Based on a Study of a Two-round Ballot’, Public Choice, 127(3–4): 461–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, M.N. (2002), ‘The Dynamics of Electoral Participation’, in L. LeDuc, R.G. Niemi and P. Norris (eds), Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting (London: Sage): 148–168.Google Scholar
Franklin, M.N. (2004), Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Geys, B. (2006), ‘Explaining Voter Turnout: A Review of Aggregate-level Research’, Electoral Studies, 25(4): 637–663.Google Scholar
Gunther, R.Diamond, L. (2001), ‘Types and Functions of Parties’, in L. Diamond and R. Gunther (eds), Political Parties and Democracy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press): 3–39.Google Scholar
Kanazawa, S. (2000), ‘A New Solution to the Collective Action Problem: The Paradox of Voter Turnout’, American Sociological Review, 65(3): 433–442.Google Scholar
Kenig, O. (2009a), ‘Classifying Party Leaders’ Selection Methods in Parliamentary Democracies’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 19(4): 433–447.Google Scholar
Kenig, O. (2009b), ‘Democratizing Leadership Selection in Israel: A Balance Sheet’, Israel Studies Forum, 24(1): 62–81.Google Scholar
Kenig, O. (2009c), ‘Democratization of Party Leadership Selection: Do Wider Selectorates Produce More Competitive Contests?’, Electoral Studies, 28(2): 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laakso, M.Taagepera, R. (1979), ‘Effective Number of Parties: A Measure with Application to West Europe’, Comparative Political Studies, 12(1): 3–27.Google Scholar
Lawson, K. (1980) (ed.), Political Parties and Linkage: A Comparative Perspective (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
LeDuc, L. (2001), ‘Democratizing Party Leadership Selection’, Party Politics, 7(3): 323–341.Google Scholar
Lisi, M. (2010), ‘The Democratization of Party Leadership Selection: The Portuguese Experience’, Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 9(2): 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilet, J-B.Wauters, B. (2013), ‘Party Leadership Selection in Belgium’, in J-B. Pilet and W. Cross (eds), The Selection of Party Leaders in Parliamentary Systems (Oxford: Routledge): 30–46.Google Scholar
Rahat, G.Hazan, R.Y. (2001), ‘Candidate Selection Methods: An Analytical Framework’, Party Politics, 7(3): 297–322.Google Scholar
—— ——Rahat, G.Hazan, R.Y. (2006), ‘Candidate Selection Methods: Methods and Consequences’, in R. Katz and W. Crotty (eds), Handbook of Party Politics (London: Sage): 109–121.Google Scholar
Reeve, A.Ware, A. (2001), Electoral Systems: A Comparative and Theoretical Introduction (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Scarrow, S. (1999), ‘Parties and the Expansion of Direct Democracy: Who Benefits?’, Party Politics, 5(3): 341–362.Google Scholar
Wauters, B. (2010), ‘Explaining Participation in Intra-party Elections: Evidence from Belgian Political Parties’, Party Politics, 16(2): 237–259.Google Scholar
Wauters, B. (2013), ‘Democratizing Party Leadership Selection in Belgium: Motivations and Decision-makers’, Political Studies, published early online, February, doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12002.Google Scholar
Young, L.Cross, W. (2002), ‘The Rise of Plebiscitary Democracy in Canadian Political Parties’, Party Politics, 8(6): 673–699.Google Scholar