Parachuted into Parliament: Candidate Nomination, Appointed Candidates, and Legislative Roles in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does a candidate's pathway to parliament affect subsequent legislative roles and behavior? Party candidate nomination processes in Canada are very decentralized, with responsibility for candidate selection allocated to the local constituency associations. However, candidates may also secure a nomination by being “parachuted” into a constituency: appointed by the party leader as the candidate who will stand for the party in the general election. This practice is most common in the Liberal Party of Canada, and as such we study this party's candidates in the six most recent elections (between 1993 and 2008) in order to explore both (a) the characteristics of parachuted and locally nominated MPs; and (b) the legislative consequences of parachuting candidates into constituencies. We find that party leaders are using the power of appointment to recruit both star candidates and women into the House of Commons, but that appointed candidates from each of these groups serve very different roles in Parliament. We find a strong link between nomination method and subsequent legislative roles and activities: parachuted candidates are much more likely to serve in high-profile legislative positions while locally nominated candidates are more likely to engage in low-profile legislative activities. The process by which candidates come to stand for election, we argue, directly affects the nature of representation by Members of Parliament in the legislature, and has implications for the study of candidate nomination and legislative roles in parties in other democracies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".