The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modes of Political Representation: Toward a New Typology
Open accessAbstract
The mandate-independence controversy still features prominently in studies of political representation even though the problems with its theoretical foundation and empirical operationalization have long been recognized. This article proposes an alternative typology of modes of representation. By combining type of control (ex ante or ex post) with direction of the interactions (bottom-up or top-down), our study captures the most important aspects of the relationship between voters and representatives. We demonstrate how the typology can be used in a survey instrument by comparing the attitudes toward representation of Dutch members of Parliament with the attitudes held by voters, and by relating the views of the members to their behavior.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fenichel Pitkin, H. (1967) · doi:10.1525/9780520340503 · Cited by 5,162
Cited by
Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?
Aarts, K., & Thomassen, J. (2008) · Electoral Studies · doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2007.11.005 · Cited by 264
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- ANDEWEG, R. B., & THOMASSEN, J. J. A.
- Venue
- Legislative Studies Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-11
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 507-528
- ISSN
- 0362-9805 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2102861149
- Cited by
- 206
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
