Advertisement

The Limits of Partisan Loyalty

  • Jonathan Mummolo
  • Erik Peterson
  • Sean WestwoodEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

While partisan cues tend to dominate political choice, prior work shows that competing information can rival the effects of partisanship if it relates to salient political issues. But what are the limits of partisan loyalty? How much electoral leeway do co-partisan candidates have to deviate from the party line on important issues? We answer this question using conjoint survey experiments that characterize the role of partisanship relative to issues. We demonstrate a pattern of conditional party loyalty. Partisanship dominates electoral choice when elections center on low-salience issues. But while partisan loyalty is strong, it is finite: the average voter is more likely than not to vote for the co-partisan candidate until that candidate takes dissonant stances on four or more salient issues. These findings illuminate when and why partisanship fails to dominate political choice. They also suggest that, on many issues, public opinion minimally constrains politicians.

Keywords

Party cues Public opinion Voting 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jeremy Ferwerda, Martin Gilens, Justin Grimmer, Greg Huber, Lilliana Mason, Lilla Orr, Markus Prior and Lauren Wright for helpful comments.

Supplementary material

11109_2019_9576_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (189 kb)
Electronic supplementary material 1 (PDF 190 kb)

References

  1. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J., & Snyder, J. M. (2006). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arceneaux, K. (2008). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior, 30(2), 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arceneaux, K., & Vander Wielen, R. J. (2017). Taming intuition: How reflection minimizes partisan reasoning and promotes democratic accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber, M., & Pope, J. C. (2019). Does party trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonica, A. (2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 37–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boudreau, C., Elmendorf, C., & MacKenzie, S.A. (n.d.) Roadmaps to representation: An experimental study of how voter education tools affect citizen decision making. Political Behavior (pp. 1–24).Google Scholar
  10. Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2014). Informing the electorate? How party cues and policy information affect public opinion about initiatives. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boudreau, C., & MacKenzie, S. A. (2018). Wanting what is fair: How party cues and information inequality affect public support for taxes. Journal of Politics, 80(2), 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Canes-Wrone, B., Brady, D. W., & Cogan, J. F. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1980). The two faces of issue voting. American Political Science Review, 74(1), 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chong, D., & Mullinix, K.J. (n.d.) Information and issue constraints on party cues. American Politics Research. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  18. Ciuk, D. J., & Yost, B. A. (2016). The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Political Communication, 33(2), 328–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Downs, A. (1957). An economic Theory of democracy. Manhattan: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  21. Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fowler, A. (n.d.) Partisan intoxication or policy voting? Quarterly Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1StjsBztpHTYDErcKbgjNk0ujWXXDxb7O.
  23. Gerber, A., & Green, D. (1999). Misperceptions about perceptual bias. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011). Citizens’ policy confidence and electoral punishment: A neglected dimension of electoral accountability. The Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1206–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilens, M. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gooch, A., & Huber, G. A. (2018). Exploiting Donald Trump: Using candidates’ positions to assess ideological voting in the 2016 and 2008 presidential elections. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 342–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey expeirments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395–2400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Walker, J. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jessee, S. A. (2012). Ideology and spatial voting in American elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27(2), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Key, V. O. (1961). Public opinion and American Democracy. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  36. Kim, H. A., & LeVeck, B. L. (2013). Money, reputation, and incumbency in US house elections, or why marginals have become more expensive. American Political Science Review, 107(3), 492–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kirkland, P., & Coppock, A. (2018). Candidate choice without party labels: New insights from U.S. mayoral elections 1945–2007 and conjoint survey experiments. Political Behavior, 40(3), 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lavine, H. G., Johnston, C. D., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leeper, T., & Robison, J. (n.d.) More important, but for what exactly? The insignificant role of subject issue importance in vote decisions. Political Behavior. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  41. Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levendusky, M. S. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters: A benefit of elite polarization. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Malhotra, N., & Kuo, A. G. (2008). Attributing blame: The public’s response to Hurricane Katrina. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mason, L. (2015). I disrespectfully agree: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mummolo, J. (2016). News from the other side: How topic relevance limits the prevalence of partisan selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 78(3), 763–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mummolo, J., & Nall, C. (2017). Why partisans do not sort: The constraints on political segregation. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2017). How content preferences limit the reach of voting aids. American Politics Research, 45(2), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2019). Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113, 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nicholson, S. P. (2011). Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1165–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nicholson, S. P., & Hansford, T. G. (2014). Partisans in robes: Party cues and public acceptance of supreme court decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 620–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peterson, E. (2017). The role of the information enviornment in partisan voting. Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1191–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peterson, E. (2019). The scope of partisan influence on policy opinion. Political Psychology, 40(2), 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Petty, R., & Krosnick, J. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecendents and consequences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Riggle, E. D. (1992). Cognitive strategies and candidate evaluations. American Politics Quarterly, 20(2), 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Riggle, E. D., Ottati, V., Wyer, R., & Kuklinski, J. (1992). Bases of political judgements: The role of stereotypic and nonsteroetypic information. Political Behavior, 14, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sears, D. (1975). Political socialization. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol. 2, pp. 95–153). Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  61. Tesler, M. (2015). Priming predispositions and changing policy positions: An account of when mass opinion is primed or changed. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 806–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2009). The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zaller, J. (2012). What nature and origins leaves out. Critical Review, 24(4), 569–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Dartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations