‘Importing’ the personal vote to maximise the party vote? ‘Parachute personalization’ in an intraparty preference electoral system
| Published date | 01 November 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/02633957241267754 |
| Author | David Arter,Corentin Poyet |
| Date | 01 November 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957241267754
Politics
2024, Vol. 44(4) 688 –704
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02633957241267754
journals.sagepub.com/home/pol
‘Importing’ the personal vote
to maximise the party vote?
‘Parachute personalization’
in an intraparty preference
electoral system
David Arter
Tampere University, Finland
Corentin Poyet
University of Bergen, Norway
Abstract
This article seeks to contribute to the electoral and party politics debate in three main ways. The
first is the claim that parachuting politicians into districts in which they have no prior connections
is not a nomination practice that is the exclusive preserve of plurality electoral systems, nor does
it necessarily engender the critical reaction of carpetbagging in the United States or ‘captain’s
picks’ in Australia. Second, the practice of parachutage is tied to the personalisation literature
but, in contrast to this literature, the article views [parachute] personalisation and party as
complementary and mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory. Parachute personalisation
serves party-based representative democracy rather than attenuates it. Third, the article questions
the undue focus in the personal vote literature on a candidate’s personal-vote-seeking attributes.
Rather, in concentrating on the transferability of the parachute vote as an electoral resource, the
generic term ‘personal vote’ is viewed as comprising a mélange of party-vote-earning attributes
– inter alia name-recognition and reputational status as a party office-holder – and personal-vote-
earning attributes – name-recognition from outside party politics (sport, music, etc.). The central
question addressed runs: When and why in an intraparty preference voting system – Finland is the
focus – is parachute personalisation practised and with what result?
Keywords
Finland, parachutage, party nomination strategies, personalisation, the personal vote, ‘safe seats’
Received: 6th November 2023; Revised version received: 21st May 2024; Accepted: 2nd June 2024
Introduction
Parachuting candidates at the behest of the party leadership into ‘safe seats’ in constituen-
cies (districts) in which the parachuted candidate has little or no prior association is a prac-
tice routinely associated with single-member plurality systems such as Australia (Evans and
McDonnell, 2022), Canada (Koop and Bittner, 2011), France (Dolez and Hastings, 2003),
Corresponding author:
Corentin Poyet, Department of Government, University of Bergen, PO Box 7802, Bergen 5020, Norway.
Email: corentin.poyet@uib.no
1267754POL0010.1177/02633957241267754PoliticsArter and Poyet
research-article2024
Article
Arter and Poyet 689
the United Kingdom (Baxter, 2014), and the United States (Galdieri, 2019), where they are
known as carpetbaggers. In contrast, this article explores the strategy of ‘parachute person-
alisation’ – that is, the redeployment of the personal vote of politicians from their ‘home
constituency’, where they will have an established personal support base, into open-list,
multi-member constituencies in which they will have had little or no prior association, and
in which they will face competition from candidates of the same party (co-partisans) with
established local roots. The focus in short is on the transferability of the personal vote and
the extent to which it will ‘travel’ across districts. Drawing on the Finnish case, the central
question runs: When and why in an intraparty preference voting system is parachutage
personalisation practised and with what result?
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to set the practice of parachuting
politicians in the context of an intraparty preference voting system and to tie the phenom-
enon to the personalisation literature. It proceeds from the supposition that the incentive
for parties to parachute preferred candidates into constituencies in which they have had
no prior association will be greatest in single-member, plurality voting systems where
there is a supply of ‘safe seats’. In contrast to plurality system parachutage, open-list PR
voting systems – Finland is the case-study – would seem to represent a least likely case
for parachutage since in multi-member constituencies parachuted candidates will face
competition not only from rival partisans but fellow-party candidates on the party slate
who will likely have strong local roots. In short, there are no safe seats and the outcome
cannot be guaranteed.
Drawing on the experience of parachutage over the nine Finnish general elections
between 1991 and 2023, the case made is that as a nomination strategy, it is in the party’s
interests to parachute the personal vote when (1) it is likely better to realise the politi-
cian’s full vote potential to the benefit of the party list in the constituency of transference
and (2) it is likely to produce an electoral increment in maintaining or increasing a party’s
level of representation in the constituency of transference. However, the electoral value
attached to candidate ‘localness’ will mean that in practice only the personal vote of high-
profile politicians – in particular party chairs – is likely to be successfully parachuted.
The structure of the article follows the tried and trusted path. The first section sets
parachute personalisation in a broad electoral system context, tying it to the wider litera-
ture, while the case selection explains the focus on Finland as an intraparty preference
voting system. A section on party nomination strategies leads to two hypotheses on para-
chutage, which are tested in the ‘Methods and results’ section where the main results are
also presented. The discussion profiles a number of high-impact parachutes while the
‘Concluding remarks’ section revisits open-list systems as a least likely case of para-
chutage and sum up on the Finnish case. Note that throughout this article, the American
term ‘district’ and British term ‘constituency’ are used interchangeably.
Parachute personalisation in its electoral system context
Plurality system parachutage
The practice of parachuting candidates is by no means new. The term parachutage, it
appears, was first used in France in 1951 (Chemin, 2022; Dolez and Hastings, 2003)
although the practice existed long before that. However, it needs to be understood in its
electoral system context. Thus, the starting point in this article is the presumption that the
incentive for parties to parachute preferred candidates into constituencies in which they
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
