Simon Otjes
@simonotjes.bsky.social
Political Scientist | Associate Professor of Dutch Politics at Leiden University | Editor Acta Politica | Political Parties | Voting | Parliaments | Interest Groups | Electoral Systems | Local Politics
Political science
71%
Business
9%
Pinned
Simon Otjes
@simonotjes.bsky.social
· Feb 12
10 Predictions about the coming five years:
1) All Palestinians will be forced to leave Gaza by the Israelis with US support. It will be occupied by Israeli colonists.
1) All Palestinians will be forced to leave Gaza by the Israelis with US support. It will be occupied by Israeli colonists.
I could only smile and say: "No, we had not proven that yet in comparative politics but now we have".
"OK, so now you have showed that conservative parties vote more similarly on migration and differently from progressive parties. You did not already know this, I can see that when I read the news paper."
I can remember after all methodological and theoretical work, all the coding and data wrangling, I presented the paper at @polscileiden.bsky.social and a dear colleague who works on International Relations raised her hand and asked something like:
We wanted to offer a method that allows one to integrate all these different ideas into one analysis to really evaluate to what extent and under what conditions the coalition-opposition division, ideological considerations and ant-elitism matter more.
To sell the paper we focused on the division between anti-elitist ('populist') parties and apparent unclarity in the literature but that idea is not really the reason we wrote this.
b) based on the paper of Tom and me: on legislation anti-elitist parties vote differently from other parties.
c) based on my work in the EP: on specific issues (in the paper we look at new cultural, economics and EU issues) specific dimensions matter more.
c) based on my work in the EP: on specific issues (in the paper we look at new cultural, economics and EU issues) specific dimensions matter more.
The idea is that we now look at different characteristics of votes to see which features activate which divisions
a) based on the original paper of Harmen and me: opposition proposals elicit coalition-opposition voting in particular coalition unity.
a) based on the original paper of Harmen and me: opposition proposals elicit coalition-opposition voting in particular coalition unity.
This required quite some coding from Luc who did not know R before we decided that he would not just replicate Harmen's method but actually build on it further. Luc wrote a solid master thesis with me which we have now build on for this article.
For a while these ideas were separate but when Luc Vorsteveld wrote his master thesis with me, we developed the idea of bringing these streams together: the basic idea of the paper is what we originally dubbed "triadic" method but we renamed proposal-specific dyadic method.
Party‐Political Contestation of European Trade Policy. An Analysis of Roll Call Votes in the European Parliament
We examine the dimensionality of the EU external relations space by analysing trade policy votes in the European Parliament (1999–2019). As it contains the EU's full geographical and ideological dive...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Harmen and I worked on bunch of papers using the dyadic method in the EP. We looked at voting on institutional matters, foreign policy, trade (the latter two with @wolfgangwagner.bsky.social). We showed that on specific issues specific dimensions matter. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
Digital Academic Repository - University of Amsterdam
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library, or send a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
dare.uva.nl
Harmen developed a way to look at voting in the European Parliament for his dissertation: The dyadic method. This offered a better way to look at voting patterns by looking at the extent to which two MPs (dyads) vote the same allowing for a regression based approach. dare.uva.nl/search?ident...
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
journals.sagepub.com
In 2019, Tom and I showed that populist parties actually do vote similarly: on bills, which they vote against more often. We did not address this glaring difference between these two papers. They were just different projects. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
journals.sagepub.com
I did write more papers on parliamentary voting, not trying to offer some grand theory but showing specific patterns. In 2015 @tomlouwerse.nl and I showed that ideological divisions are more important in understanding populist voting than their shared populism. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
So in 2009 I wrote a paper with Harmen van der Veer about disentangling voting patterns. Essentially we proposed that the coalition-opposition dominates votes initiated by the opposition but not in proposals by the coalition. That paper was rejected. I focused on other projects but the idea stuck
Anyone who studies parliamentary voting in a parliamentary system knows that the coalition-opposition divide plays a major role and that if you do not account for this the votes will reflect this division.
This paper is about parliamentary voting (specifically in the Netherlands). I have been thinking about this since my dissertation where I used parliamentary voting to measure party positions.
Rebels in the house: Do anti-elitist parties vote differently? | Political Science Research and Methods | Cambridge Core
Rebels in the house: Do anti-elitist parties vote differently?
www.cambridge.org
I am incredibly proud that this paper with Luc Vorsteveld is out! I have been thinking about this paper in some form since 2009 (!). It integrates a bunch of work I have done before with dear friends and colleagues www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
Maar die hogere ambitie stond toch in hun programma?
Kan je dat aan de hand van een voorstel illustreren?
Maar even zeer zijn er oppositiepartijen als Markuszower voor wie het dan weer gunstig is om hun constructiviteit te tonen door tegen zo'n voorstel te stemmen.
Oppositie stemmen vrijwel altijd volgens hun verkiezingsprogramma. Dat geldt zeker voor CU en SGP. Mogelijk dat JA21 opportunistischer is (zoals ze ook bij de AOW-stemming waren).
haha, dat is ontegenzeggelijk waar
Je vraag is wat als GL-PvdA en PVV een amendement indienen om het eigen risico te halveren?
GL-PvdA (20), PVV (19), FVD (7), BBB (4), DENK (3), PvdD (3), SP (3), 50PLUS (2) & Markuszower (7) zouden dat steunen = 68. Maar niet D66 (26), VVD (20), CDA (18), SGP (3), en SGP (3) & Volt (1) niet = 82.
GL-PvdA (20), PVV (19), FVD (7), BBB (4), DENK (3), PvdD (3), SP (3), 50PLUS (2) & Markuszower (7) zouden dat steunen = 68. Maar niet D66 (26), VVD (20), CDA (18), SGP (3), en SGP (3) & Volt (1) niet = 82.
gaat niet gebeuren superkostbaar
Nog een aanpassing. Nu met de staatssecretaris OCW. De VVD heeft nu drie bewindslieden in domein sociaal-onderwijs-zorg, tegenover twee van D66 en een van het CDA. De sloopkogel door de verzorgingsstaat komt van de VVD.
he ja je hebt gelijk
aangeven dat ze veel met elkaar te maken hebben
Je hebt gelijk!
J&V ipv A&M. en een minister meer (W&P)