Parties and Candidates in Legislatures

This section deals with political parties and candidates in the legislature. Political parties and candidates stand in elections and engage in electoral campaign in order to win seats in the legislature. Legislation and or internal party rules may deal with certain issues concerning parties and candidates in the legislature, such as the ties between elected representatives and their political party or rules concerning building of party factions and caucuses in the legislature.

After the elections are held, parties need - depending on the electoral result - to engage in government formation processes, or to form the parliamentary opposition. The following section focuses on the process of government formation, analyzing coalition talks, bargaining processes and portfolio allocation between the political parties.

Political parties inside the legislature often form parliamentary groups or caucuses. These party groups function differently from the part of the political parties mainly acting outside the parliament.Issues as joint voting, party discipline and policy formulation are often dealt with in the party caucus.

This section also discusses what happens when Members of Parliament want to leave their party and what happens to the seat. There are different ways that legislation can deal with this, one will be to allow the Members of Parliament to keep their seat and to cross the floor, others to let the party keep the seat and fill it with another person, or to hold a by-election for the seat.

Formation of Government

Unless one political party or pre-election alliance wins an absolute majority of the seats in the legislature, a new government is formed only after a bargaining process between the political parties in the post-election phase. Political parties that have not formed pre-election alliances negotiate to form coalitions in order to ensure that the government is supported by a majority of the legislators. During the coalition talks, the parties negotiate about cabinet seats, portfolio allocation, and a common policy programme.

It is not always predictable how the outcome of the elections and the allocation of seats in the new legislature will affect the formation of a government. Which political parties aspire to form the government, what alliances they can form with other parties and independent candidates, and how successful they are in the negotiations will determine the shape of the new government.

Likelihood of forming government together

• The smaller the ideological distance between political parties, the more likely it is that they will form a coalition government together. They are more likely to be able to agree on policy decisions, and their voters are more likely to accept the coalition.
• The political party occupying a core position in the policy space is able to form a coalition with more parties than any other political party. The party holding the core position has the highest bargaining power of all other actors, because it has the most alternatives to form coalitions with other parties and is therefore most likely to be part of the final government. This can lead to situations where a very small political party can have a very good bargaining situation.
• If political parties at one end of the political spectrum have large ideological differences between them, it will be more difficult for them to form government together. This also means that minority governments are more likely to succeed the larger the ideological divisions are within the opposition they are facing.

These factors are considered the most relevant in government formation:

• The major party in the legislature is most likely a part of the new government, even if it does not have an absolute majority on its own. It is also often the largest party that nominates the Prime Minister.
• Coalitions need support from a majority of the legislators, but parties forming the coalition also want as few competitors as possible for the government posts. The most likely type of coalition to form is therefore a minimal winning coalition where parties try to gain support from as many legislators as possible while involving as few political parties as possible.
• Negotiation processes often lead to situations where the political parties that in the end form the government decide to share the government positions (ministers etc) proportionally according to seats gained in the legislature. (Gamson 1961).
• In contrast to the above assumption, the formateur of the government (usually the party that has received the most votes/seats) would act as the agenda-setter and as the leader in the coalition talks and would use its power to achieve the greatest payoffs.
• Incumbency may have a positive effect on a party’s participation in the formation of a new government. It is more likely for the governing party to re-form government than for a new political party or coalition to take its place, even if the votes for the two sides are equal. This is said to be especially true for cases when the party of the incumbent prime minister obtains most of the seats in the legislature.

Moreover, they may be other determinants that in particular guide political parties in the government formation talks and the bargaining process.

• Pre-electoral announcements like pre-electoral coalitions may have a great influence on the formation of the government: If a party publicly states that it intends to form a coalition with another party in case of winning the majority of seats, the likelihood that this coalition will form government is much higher than otherwise
• Some political parties tend to aim to hold a particular ministry position, such as socialist parties bargaining for the ministry for labour and social affairs, and green parties preferring the ministry for environmental issues.
• Individual career objectives of important party members or leaders have to be taken into account.
• Mixed motives are most likely to dominate coalition formation processes in practice: neither pure office-seeking nor pure ideological policy-pursuing motives lead parties to form (part of) a government.

Party Group/Caucus

Much of what is seen of political parties is their work outside the legislature in election campaigns, policy formulation, etc. Political parties, however, work inside the legislature as well. The political party formation in the legislature is usually called the parliamentary group or caucus.

The party caucus consists of the elected representatives of the party (sometimes of a coalition of parties) and tries to solve collective problems of individual legislators, coordinate their interests, and discipline those who violate the party rules.

The major functions or tasks of parliamentary groups in the legislatures can be summarized as follows:

• Choosing floor leaders and presiding officer
• Allocating committee chairmanships and negotiating committee assignments among their members
• Deliberation among the party members
• Identifying different and distinctive interests and wings in the party group
• Formulation of party position regarding bills and wider policy principles in specialized party committees before they are introduced into parliament
• Persuasion of party members and disciplinary action to take a common position on important issues (see below)

The joint vote

The parliamentary party groups often seek to ensure that joint voting in the parliament is possible by disciplining the members to the party line and by adjusting controversial opinions and positions inside the party. The cohesiveness of political parties in the legislature varies considerably between the parliamentary democracies: in some countries, the parties strive to be highly cohesive and have almost achieved complete party discipline. Party discipline is in many cases ensured through a system of announced parliamentary whips link to glossary. In other political systems, relatively few decisions are placed under strict compulsion, depending on the content of the bill to decide on and the required majority of votes.

Floor-Crossing

The term floor-crossing can be used in two different ways. The definition used here is the process when one Member of Parliament (or Council) ultimately leaves his or her political party in order to join another party or become an independent candidate.

The term was first used to describe the process when Members of the British House of Commons crossed the floor to join the group of people (members of another political party) that was seated on the opposite site of the floor.

In some cases, the term floor-crossing is used to denote the singular event of voting with another party on one particular and special question. This is the case in a few countries, where the Members of Parliament vote through their seating position and are allowed to change their seat for every vote, particularly in decisions without required party discipline.

When Members of Parliament leave their political party, the question is what happens to the seat. There are three main ways that legislation can deal with this:

The seat belongs to the political party

• If this is the case, the person who leaves (or is expelled from) his/her political party will lose their seat, and the party can decide whom they want to give it to. This strengthens the party organisation and keeps the political balance that voters decided on in the last election. This system is most common in countries with List PR electoral systems.
• One can argue that internal party democracy and consensus-building are strengthened if the seat is kept by the political party. If there are disagreements in the party or parliamentary group, the individual Member of Parliament may be more inclined to try to solve the problem if the seat is held by the party and does not belong to the Member of Parliament. Political party members are also empowered by this system, given that they have a say in deciding who gets the seat. In practice, it is often the next person on the list of the last election who gets the seat.
• On the other hand, party discipline may go too far, and individual Members of Parliament may be threatened with expulsion from the party (and thereby the parliament) if they do not vote according to the party line.

The seat belongs to the individual Member of Parliament, and he or she can keep the seat regardless of if they stay in the same political party

• This strengthens the role of the individual and also his or her links to the constituency. In this case, party discipline may be weakened, and some argue that individual Members of Parliament are less likely to seek consensus with party members and in the parliamentary group if they have the option to leave the party but to keep their seat at the same time. Floor-crossing is also seen by some as a justified way to respond to a changing political context and something that should be part of a dynamic and vivid party democracy.
• Floor-crossing tends to favour the ruling party and thus the government. An already weak opposition may shrink considerably through floor-crossing, which can have a negative impact on the balance of power and foster a climate of political instability and insecurity. Intensive floor-crossing of Members of Parliament leads to a low accountability in politics and may affect the legitimacy of the government.
• Floor-crossing practices have historically fostered bribery and corruption when parties try to convince other Members of Parliament to switch parties. Floor-crossers are also often disliked by the general public and accused of political opportunism and corruption. They are often perceived as having their own agenda outside the political party, trying to pursue their personal career objectives.
• Extensive floor-crossing undermines the principle of Proportional Representation, where votes are proportionally translated into seats. When a Member of Parliament crosses the floor, the balance of representation that is determined by the voters is distorted (Faull 2005). It is sometimes argued that floor-crossing violates the will of the voters and their right to choose between the candidates of one particular party. Voters do in fact rather elect candidates on the basis of party affiliation than on the basis of pure candidate preferences in most of the cases. The representatives should therefore not be free to choose party membership by themselves without regard to the voters (Faull 2005). Others say that those who claim that floor-crossing is violating the will of the voters do not understand the concept of a mandate and representation (Rapoo 2002a). They say that representation in fact means that Members of Parliament have a clear mandate to make decisions in the name of their constituents without having to seek approval of the voters between the elections.
• A high level of floor-crossing may reinforce alienation towards politics, mirrored in a decreasing voter turnout (Faulls 2005) among the population in a country. Voters may feel unrepresented and ignored and have no trust in the accountability and honesty of politicians. A lack of trust of the citizens in politics and the political system is fostered, and the ongoing process of democratization may be threatened. The legitimacy of a newly established political system may be in danger if the citizens lack trust in it. This is less true in cases where floor-crossing is allowed but not widespread.

The seat belongs neither to the party nor to the individual Member of Parliament.

• A by-election must be held to fill the seat. This system is used in countries with majority/plurality electoral systems. A by-election offers the opportunity to fill the vacant seat with a fresh candidate, and it allows the voters to express their will again. Voters may vote differently and thereby express discontent with the ruling parties.
• By-elections are smaller and therefore less costly than normal elections, but in some countries they will nevertheless put a significant burden on the budget, and seats are sometimes left vacant for long periods because of a lack of capacity to arrange by-elections.
• In some circumstances, by-elections can have a wider political impact than merely replacing individual members, and are seen as a mid-term test of the performance of the government. In addition, if the number of vacancies to be filled during a parliamentary term is large, this can lead to a change in the composition of the legislature and an altered power base for the government, or even a change in government.