This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Closeness Counts If It Matters for Electoral Victory: Some Empirical Results for the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
 Kirchgassner, Gebhard
Schimmelpfenning, Jorg

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

It has been argued that closeness counts not only with respect to the overall decision of a (general) election but also with respect to the outcome in subelectorates. This proposition is tested using data both from the last German Bundestagswahl as well as the U.K. general election in 1987. The authors find that (expected) closeness counts for turnout on the level of the individual electoral district but not on any level below, e.g., on the level of precincts. Therefore, closeness seems to count only if it is relevant for electoral victories or defeats. Copyright 1992 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Springer in its journal Public Choice.

Volume (Year): 73 (1992)
Issue (Month): 3 (April)
Pages: 283-99
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:73:y:1992:i:3:p:283-99

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100332

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
  1. Serguei Kaniovski & Dennis C. Mueller, . "Community Size, Heterogeneity and Voter Turnouts," WIFO Working Papers 248, WIFO. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Christine Fauvelle-Aymar & Abel François, 2006. "The impact of closeness on turnout: An empirical relation based on a study of a two-round ballot," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 461-483, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. John Ashworth & Benny Geys & Bruno Heyndels, 2006. "Everyone likes a winner: An empirical test of the effect of electoral closeness on turnout in a context of expressive voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 383-405, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Andrew Worthington & Brian Dollery, 1998. "The political determination of intergovernmental grants in Australia," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 299-315, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  5. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2003. "Abstention because of Indifference and Alienation, and Its Consequences for Party Competition: A Simple Psychological Model," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2003 2003-12, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Use the JEL tree to browse through the database by subfields.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-22.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.