Who Wants Checks and Balances? Endogeneity of the Balancing Perspective

  • Published : 2015.05.31


The premise of the intentional model of split-ticket voting is that some voters split their tickets simply because they prefer divided government and believe in constant "checks and balances." This article examines whether this premise stands firm in an emerging democracy like Taiwan. That is, by using survey data in Taiwan, we explore whether one's attitude toward divided or unified government is "real." We hypothesize that a citizen's attitude toward "checks and balances" is subject to change, and conditional on whether her preferred party is in power. Specifically, we speculate that a citizen would tend to hold the balancing perspective or favor divided government, if her preferred party is in opposition. However, if her preferred party becomes the ruling party, she would be more likely to oppose (hold) the balancing (non-balancing) perspective or favor unified government. We then utilize panel survey data embedded in Taiwan's Election and Democratization Studies (TEDS) to verify our hypothesis.


  1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
  2. Alesina, A., & Rosenthal, H. (1995). Partisan politics, divided government, and the economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Alvarez, R. M., & Schousen, M. M. (1993). Policy moderation or conflicting expectations? Testing the intentional models of split-ticket voting. American Politics Quarterly, 21(4), 410-38.
  4. Born, R. (1994). Split-ticket voters, divided government, and Fiorina's policy-balancing model. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 19(1), 95-115.
  5. Brady, D. W. (1993). The causes and consequences of divided government: Toward a new theory of American politics? American Political Science Review, 87(1), 189-94.
  6. Burden, B. C., & Kimball, D. C. (1998). A new approach to the study of ticket splitting. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 533-44.
  7. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2004). Policy balancing and the preferences for party control of government. Political Research Quarterly, 57(4), 541-50.
  8. Chen, T. H. Y., Liu, T-p., & Wu, C-l. (2014). Policy-balancing and ticket-splitting: Problems with "preference for checks and balances" in Taiwanese Electoral Studies. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 15(3), 317-337.
  9. Erikson, R. S. (1988). The puzzle of midterm loss. Journal of Politics, 50, 1011-29.
  10. Fiorina, M. P. (1992). An era of divided government. Political Science Quarterly, 107, 387-410.
  11. Fiorina, M. P. (1996). Divided government (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
  12. Frymer, P., Kim, T. P., & Bimes, T. L. (1997). Party elites, ideological voters, and divided party government. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22(2), 195-216.
  13. Garand, J. C., & Lichtl, M. G. (2000). Explaining divided government in the United States: Testing an intentional model of split ticket voting. British Journal of Political Science, 30(1), 173-91.
  14. Geer, J. G., Carter, A., McHenry, J., Teten, R., & Hoef, J. (2004). Experimenting with the balancing hypothesis. Political Psychology, 25(1), 49-63.
  15. Grofman, B., Koetzle, W. McDonald, M. P., & Brunell, T. L. (2000). A new look at split ticket outcomes for house and president: The comparative midpoints model. Journal of Politics, 62(1), 34-50.
  16. Hsu, S.-m. (2001). Taipei shi xuanmin de fenlie toupiao xingwei: 1998 nian shizhang xuanju fenxi. [Ticket splitting: The 1998 Taipei City mayoral election]. Journal of Electoral Studies, 8(1), 117-158.
  17. Huang, C. (2001). Yizhi yu fenlie toupiao: Fangfalun zhi tantao [Straight-and split-ticket voting: Methodological reflections]. Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy, 13(5), 541-574.
  18. Huang, C. (2005). Toupiao wending yu bianqian zhi fenxi fangfa: Dingqun leibie ziliao zhi makefulian moxing [Analyzing electoral stability and change: Markov chain models for longitudinal categorical data]. Journal of Electoral Studies, 12(1), 1-37.
  19. Huang, C., and Wang, T.-y. (2009). 2008 nian liwei xuanju dui zongtong xuanju de yingxiang: Zhongbai xiaoying? Xigua xiaoying? [The effect of the 2008 legislative Yuan election on the 2008 presidential election in Taiwan: Pendulum or bandwagoning?]. In L.-h. Chen, C.-h. Yu, & C. Huang (Eds.), The 2008 presidential election in Taiwan. Taipei: Wu-nan Publication.
  20. Hung, Y.-t. (1995). Fenlie toupiao: 1994 nian Taipei shi xuanju zhi shizheng fenxi [Split vote: An analysis of the 1994 Taipei election]. Journal of Electoral Studies, 2(1), 119-146.
  21. Jacobson, G. C. (1990). The electoral origins of divided government: Competition in US house elections, 1946-1988. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  22. Jacobson, G. C. (1991). Explaining divided government: Why can't Republicans win the house. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24(4), 640-643.
  23. Lacy, D., & Paolino, P. (1998). Downsian voting and the separation of powers. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 97-112.
  24. Ladd, E. C. (1990). Public opinion and the "Congress Problem." The Public Interest, 100 (Summer), 57-67.
  25. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Nadeau, R. (2004). Split-ticket voting: The effects of cognitive Madisonianism. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 97-112.
  26. Mebane, W. R. Jr. (2000). Coordination, moderation, and institutional balancing in American presidential and house. American Political Science Review, 94(1), 37-57.
  27. Petrocik, J.. (1991). Divided government: Is it all in the campaigns? In G. Cox & S. Kernell (Eds.), The politics of divided government. Boulder CO: Westview Press.
  28. Saunders, K., Abrmowitz, A., & Williamson, J. (2005). A new kind of balancing act. Political Research Quarterly, 58(1), 69-78.
  29. Sigelman, L., Wahlbeck, P. J., & Buell, E. H. Jr. (1997). Vote choice and the preference for divided government: Lessons of 1992. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 879-94.
  30. Shyu, H.-y. (2001). 1998 nian erjie Taipei shizhang xuanju xuanmin toupiao xingwei fenxi: xuanmin de dangpai jueze yu fenlie toupiao [Voting behavior in the second Taipei mayoral elections: An analysis of partisan vote-choices and the split-ticket voting]. Soochow Journal of Political Science, 13, 77-127.
  31. Smith, C. E., Jr,. Brown, R. D., Bruce, J. M., & Overby, L. M. (1999). Party balancing and voting for Congress in the 1996 National Election. American Journal of Political Science, 34(3), 737-64.
  32. Wu, C.-l. (2000). Meiguo fenlixing zhengfu yanjiu wenxian zhi pingxi: jianlun Taiwan diqu de zhengzhi fazhan [Examination of the research on divided government in America: An analysis of political development in Taiwan]. Wenti Yu Yanjiu, 39(3), 75-101.
  33. Wu, C.-l. & Wang, H.-c. (2003). Woguo xuanmin fenli zhengfu xinli renzhi yu wendingdu: 2000 nian zongtong xuanju yu 2001 nian lifaweiyuan xuanju weili [The psychological cognition for divided government and electoral stability in Taiwan: The cases of the 2000 presidential and 2001 legislative Yuan elections]. Journal of Electoral Studies, 10(1), 81-114.
  34. Wu, Y.-m. (2001). Taipei shi xuanmin fenlie toupiao zhi yanjiu: 1998 nian shizhang shiyiyuan xuanju zhi fenxi [Split-ticket voting in 1998 Taipei mayoral and city council elections]. Journal of Electoral Studies, 8(1), 159-210.
  35. Yu, C.-h. (2004). Fenlie toupiao jieshi guandian yu Taiwan xuanju zhi yingyong: 2002 nian gaoxiong shizhang yu shiyiyuan xuanju weili [Explanation for split-ticket voting and their application to Taiwan's election: A case study of the 2002 elections for city mayor and councilors of Kaohsiung]. Taiwanese Political Science Review, 8(1), 47-97.

Cited by

  1. When the choice is made matters: voting in Japan’s 2012 House of Representatives election vol.70, pp.1, 2018,