IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/kitwps/151.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 1/4. Representativeness of the parties and the Bundestag

Author

Listed:
  • Tanguiane, Andranick S.

Abstract

This is the first out of four papers devoted to the 2021 German federal elections continuing our analysis of the 2009, 2013 and 2017 Bundestag elections by the methods of the mathematical theory of democracy. This one estimates the policy representation ability of the 39 parties that participated in the 2021 elections and the Bundestag. For this purpose, the positions of the parties on 38 topical issues are compared with the results of recent public opinion polls. Then the parties' indices of popularity (the average percentage of the population represented) and universality (frequency in representing a majority) are constructed. Assuming that the Bundestag's position on the 38 issues is determined by the Bundestag majority, the Bundestag's indices of popularity and universality are estimated as well. The main conclusion is that the representativeness of the Bundestag parties and the Bundestag (before coalition-formation) has significantly increased since 2017. In particular, the election winner, the SPD, is now ranked 4 instead of 22 in 2017, having the mean index (popularity + universality) / 2 = 65% instead of 52 % in 2017. The Bundestag's mean index is now equal to 61% instead of former 40%. As for the ruling 'Traffic light coalition', SPD+GRUNE+FDP, its compatibility is as low as 45% and the representativeness is not the best either.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 1/4. Representativeness of the parties and the Bundestag," Working Paper Series in Economics 151, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:kitwps:151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/249328/1/1786855550.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andranik Tangian, 2020. "Analytical Theory of Democracy," Studies in Choice and Welfare, Springer, number 978-3-030-39691-6, June.
    2. Frederick Mosteller & Cleo Youtz & Douglas Zahn, 1967. "The Distribution of Sums of Rounded Percentages," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 4(2), pages 850-858, June.
    3. Miller, Warren E. & Stokes, Donald E., 1963. "Constituency Influence in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(1), pages 45-56, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christopher J Williams, 2016. "Issuing reasoned opinions: The effect of public attitudes towards the European Union on the usage of the 'Early Warning System'," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(3), pages 504-521, September.
    2. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    3. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 4/4. The third vote application," Working Paper Series in Economics 154, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    4. Kim Quaile Hill & Tetsuya Matsubayashi, 2008. "Church Engagement, Religious Values, and Mass‐Elite Policy Agenda Agreement in Local Communities," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 570-584, July.
    5. Andranik Tangian, 2021. "MCDM Application of the Third Vote," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 775-787, August.
    6. Hanna Ågren & Matz Dahlberg & Eva Mörk, 2007. "Do politicians’ preferences correspond to those of the voters? An investigation of political representation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 137-162, January.
    7. Robert E. Hogan, 2008. "Policy Responsiveness and Incumbent Reelection in State Legislatures," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 858-873, October.
    8. Dennis, Christopher, 1998. "Support for campaign spending limitations in the U. S. senate: The role of party, ideology and electoral security," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 641-649.
    9. Olle Folke & Johanna Rickne, 2020. "Who wins preference votes? An analysis of party loyalty, ideology, and accountability to voters," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 32(1), pages 11-35, January.
    10. Tanya Bagashka, 2014. "Representation in Hybrid Regimes: Constituency and Party Influences on Legislative Voting in the Russian Duma 1996–1999," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(2), pages 486-506, June.
    11. Roman Senninger & Daniel Bischof, 2018. "Working in unison: Political parties and policy issue transfer in the multilevel space," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(1), pages 140-162, March.
    12. Besley, Timothy & Coate, Stephen, 2008. "Issue Unbundling via Citizens' Initiatives," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 3(4), pages 379-397, December.
    13. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 2/4. Political spectrum," Working Paper Series in Economics 152, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    14. Mark N. Franklin & Christopher Wlezien, 1997. "The Responsive Public," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 347-363, July.
    15. Karin Gilland Lutz & Christopher Farrington, 2006. "Alternative Ulster? Political Parties and the Non‐constitutional Policy Space in Northern Ireland," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(4), pages 715-742, December.
    16. Thomas J. Hayes, 2014. "Do Citizens Link Attitudes with Preferences? Economic Inequality and Government Spending in the “New Gilded Age”," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(2), pages 468-485, June.
    17. Mark Souva, 2005. "Foreign Policy Determinants: Comparing Realist and Domestic-Political Models of Foreign Policy," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(2), pages 149-163, April.
    18. Kevin Arceneaux & Johanna Dunaway & Stuart Soroka, 2018. "Elites are people, too: The effects of threat sensitivity on policymakers’ spending priorities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-8, April.
    19. Scott Sigmund Gartner & Gary M. Segura & Michael Wilkening, 1997. "All Politics Are Local," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(5), pages 669-694, October.
    20. Jamie L. Carson & Gregory Koger & Matthew J. Lebo & Everett Young, 2010. "The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 598-616, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Policy representation; representative democracy; direct democracy; elections; coalitions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:kitwps:151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwkitde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.