Bilateralism or the median mandate? An examination of rival perspectives on democratic governance
Bilateralism or the median mandate? An examination of rival perspectives on democratic governance
复制标题
双边主义还是中间授权？
DOI：
10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01878.x
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
5.3
通讯作者：
Paul V. Warwick
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Paul V. Warwick
迈克尔·麦克唐纳（Michael McDonald）和伊恩·巴奇（Ian Budge）最近提出了一种基于他们所称的“中位数授权”的民主治理解释。这种观点将自由民主的关键要素定位于政府政策与中间选民在左右尺度上的政策偏好之间的密切对应。他们提出的支持这一解释的跨国证据令人印象深刻，但这在很大程度上取决于一种衡量每次选举中选民立场中位数的方法，这种方法依赖于各政党在选举中的立场和他们获得的选票份额。本文探讨了中位数任务假设的有效性时，中位数的立场更直接地从民意调查（特别是，欧洲晴雨表和选举制度的比较研究系列）。研究结果表明，不同的替代品之间的选择，而不是符合中位数，更准确地描述了民主制度的治理。
Michael McDonald and Ian Budge have recently advanced an interpretation of democratic governance based on what they term the ‘median mandate’. This perspective locates the key element of liberal democracy in a close correspondence between government policy and the policy preferences of the median voter on the left-right scale. The cross-national evidence they produce in favour of this interpretation is impressive, but it largely hinges on a method for measuring the median voter position in each election that relies on the positions of the various parties in the election and the vote shares they received. This article examines the validity of the median mandate hypothesis when median positions are measured more directly from public opinion surveys (particularly, the Eurobarometer and Comparative Study of Electoral Systems series). The findings show that choice between distinct alternatives, rather than conformity to the median, more accurately characterises governance in democratic systems.