IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2006.76.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluation of Parties and Coalitions After Parliamentary Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Andranik Tangian

    (Hans Boeckler Foundation)

Abstract

Five leading German political parties and their coalitions are evaluated with regard to party manifestos and results of the 2005 parliamentary elections. For this purpose, the party manifestos are converted into Yes/No answers to 95 topical questions (Relax the protection against dismissals? Close nuclear power plants? etc.). On each question, every party represents its adherents as well as those of the parties with the same position. Therefore, a party usually represents a larger group than its voters. The popularity of a party is understood to be the percentage of the electorate represented, averaged on all the 95 questions. The universality of a party is the frequency of representing a majority of electors. The questions are considered either unweighted, or weighted by an expert, or weighted by the number of GOOGLE-results for given keywords (the more important the question, the more documents in the Internet). The weighting however plays a negligible role because the party answers are backed up by the party ``ideology'' which determines a high intra-question correlation. The SPD (Social-Democratic Party) did not receive the highest percentage of votes, remains nevertheless the most popular and the most universal German party. A comparison of the election results with the position of German Trade Union Federation (DGB) reveals its high representativeness as well. Finally, all coalitions with two and three parties are also evaluated. The coalition CDU/SPD (which is currently in power) is the most popular, and the coalition SPD/Green/Left-Party (which failed due to personal conflicts) is the most universal.

Suggested Citation

  • Andranik Tangian, 2006. "Evaluation of Parties and Coalitions After Parliamentary Elections," Working Papers 2006.76, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2006.76
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://feem-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/NDL2006-076.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2007. "Applying relational algebra and RelView to coalition formation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 530-542, April.
    2. Agnieszka Rusinowska & Harrie de Swart & Jan-Willem van der Rijt, 2005. "A new model of coalition formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(1), pages 129-154, September.
    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. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2013. "Computing tournament solutions using relation algebra and RelView," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(3), pages 636-645.
    2. Tangian, Andranik, 2010. "Evaluation of German parties and coalitions by methods of the mathematical theory of democracy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 294-307, April.
    3. Tangian, Andranik S., 2013. "2013 election to German Bundestag from the viewpoint of direct democracy," WSI Working Papers 186, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    4. Tangian, Andranik S., 2013. "Decision making in politics and economics: 5. 2013 election to German Bundestag and direct democracy," Working Paper Series in Economics 49, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    5. Tangian, Andranik S., 2010. "Representativeness of German parties and trade unions with regard to public opinion," WSI Working Papers 173, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    6. Agnieszka Rusinowska & Harrie Swart, 2008. "Negotiating a Stable Government: An Application of Bargaining Theory to a Coalition Formation Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 445-464, September.
    7. Andranik Tangian, 2013. "German parliamentary elections 2009 from the viewpoint of direct democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 833-869, March.
    8. Tangian, Andranik S., 2006. "German parliamentary elections 2005 in the mirror of party manifestos," WSI Working Papers 139E, The Institute of Economic and Social Research (WSI), Hans Böckler Foundation.
    9. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2010. "Applying relation algebra and RelView to measures in a social network," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(1), pages 182-195, April.
    10. Jan-Willem Rijt, 2008. "An Alternative Model of the Formation of Political Coalitions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 81-101, February.
    11. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2009. "An interdisciplinary approach to coalition formation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(2), pages 487-496, June.
    12. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00756696 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Sgobbi, Alessandra & Carraro, Carlo, 2007. "Modelling Negotiated Decision Making: a Multilateral, Multiple Issues, Non-Cooperative Bargaining Model with Uncertainty," Economic Theory and Applications Working Papers 8224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Berghammer, Rudolf & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2006. "Applications of Relations and Graphs to Coalition Formation," Coalition Theory Network Working Papers 12162, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Agnieszka Rusinowska & Rudolf Berghammer & Harrie de Swart & Michel Grabisch, 2011. "Social networks: Prestige, centrality, and influence (Invited paper)," Post-Print hal-00633859, HAL.
    16. Tangian, Andranik, 2006. "Evaluation of Parties and Coalitions After Parliamentary Elections," Coalition Theory Network Working Papers 12165, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. Dinko Dimitrov & Claus-Jochen Haake, 2006. "Government versus Opposition: Who Should be Who in the 16th German Bundestag?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 115-128, November.
    18. Vito Fragnelli, 2009. "The Propensity to Disruption for Evaluating a Parliament," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 3(3), pages 243-253, October.
    19. Rudolf Berghammer & Agnieszka Rusinowska & Harrie de Swart, 2011. "Computations on Simple Games using RelView," Post-Print hal-00633857, HAL.
    20. Tangian, Andranik S., 2010. "Decision making in politics and economics: 4. Bundestag elections 2009 and direct democracy," Working Paper Series in Economics 8, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    21. Berghammer, Rudolf & Bolus, Stefan & Rusinowska, Agnieszka & de Swart, Harrie, 2011. "A relation-algebraic approach to simple games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 68-80, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Parliamentary Election; Fractions; Coalitions; Theory of Voting; Mathematical Theory of Democracy; Indices of Popularity and Universality; German Trade Union Federation (DGB);
    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:fem:femwpa:2006.76. 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: Alberto Prina Cerai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.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.