IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/feemct/12165.html

Evaluation of Parties and Coalitions After Parliamentary Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Tangian, Andranik

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

  • Tangian, Andranik, 2006. "Evaluation of Parties and Coalitions After Parliamentary Elections," Coalition Theory Network Working Papers 12165, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:feemct:12165
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.12165
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/12165/files/wp060076.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.12165?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven J. Brams & William S. Zwicker & D. Marc Kilgour, 1998. "The paradox of multiple elections," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(2), pages 211-236.
    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.
    3. Miller, Nicholas R., 1983. "Pluralism and Social Choice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(3), pages 734-747, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Andranik Tangian, 2008. "A mathematical model of Athenian democracy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(4), pages 537-572, December.
    8. Andranik Tangian, 2017. "Policy Representation of a Parliament: The Case of the German Bundestag 2013 Elections," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 151-179, January.
    9. Jonathan Hodge & Peter Schwallier, 2006. "How Does Separability Affect The Desirability Of Referendum Election Outcomes?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 251-276, November.
    10. Fujun Hou, 2022. "Conditions for none to be whipped by `Rank and Yank' under the majority rule," Papers 2208.05093, arXiv.org.
    11. Jean-François Laslier & Karine Straeten, 2016. "Strategic voting in multi-winner elections with approval balloting: a theory for large electorates," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(3), pages 559-587, October.
    12. William Gehrlein, 2002. "Condorcet's paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: different perspectives on balanced preferences ," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 171-199, March.
    13. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2025. "Analysis of the 2025 Bundestag elections. Part 3 of 4: The third vote perspective Bundestag," Working Paper Series in Economics 169, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    14. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3899 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2008. "The Budget-Voting Paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(4), pages 447-478, June.
    16. Bernard GROFMAN & Joseph GODFREY, 2014. "Aspiration Models of Committee Decision Making," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2014-04-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    17. 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.
    18. Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, 2018. "Trump, Condorcet and Borda: Voting paradoxes in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-35.
    19. A. J. McGann, 2004. "The Tyranny of the Supermajority," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(1), pages 53-77, January.
    20. 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.
    21. Simon Hug & George Tsebelis, 2002. "Veto Players and Referendums Around the World," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 14(4), pages 465-515, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    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:ags:feemct:12165. 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: AgEcon Search (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.