Assessing the Political Impact of Candidate Selection Rules: Britain in the 1990s

Abstract

Do candidate selection rules affect political outcomes, and if so, in what ways? Despite widespread agreement that such rules matter, observers remain divided as to whether more inclusive rules should yield candidates who are closer to or further away from a party’s likely voters. This question has seldom been investigated outside of US primary elections. This paper aims to help fill this gap by investigating British parties’ experiences with various candidate selection rules. Using data from the 1992 and 1997 British election and candidate studies to map the distance between parties’ candidates and voters, it asks whether rule differences could explain the relative proximity of the two groups. Contrary to the fears of those who worry about unrepresentative or unstrategic member activists, it finds evidence that more inclusive selection procedures may result in a closer alignment between the views of party candidates and party voters.