Advertisement

Party Competition and Vote Choice

  • Dennis Christopher SpiesEmail author
  • Simon T. Franzmann
Abhandlungen
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Analyzing the relationships between political parties and voters is one of the central topics of political science. Parties are expected either to be responsive to the demands of their voters or are presumed to have the power to influence voting decisions by structuring the political discourse and thereby competition regarding political issues. These two aspects are covered in the literature by research on the way parties present themselves and by electoral research, respectively. Focusing on the latter, this state-of-the-art article reviews how recent publications have analyzed the impact of party competition (macro level) on vote choice (individual level). It does so by introducing the most prominent theories of voting and party competition, summarizing the most recent results and pointing to potential problems for international comparisons such as methodological choices and different approaches to the measurement of party positions.

Keywords

Manifesto data Vote choice Positional theory Issue salience Expert surveys 

Parteienwettbewerb und Wahlverhalten

Zusammenfassung

Die Analyse der Beziehungen zwischen politischen Parteien und Wählern ist eines der zentralen Themen der Politikwissenschaft. Hinsichtlich der Parteien wird davon ausgegangen, dass sie sich entweder responsiv gegenüber den Forderungen ihrer Wähler zeigen oder aber die Macht haben, deren Wahlentscheidung zu beeinflussen, indem sie den politischen Diskurs und damit den Wettbewerb um politische Themen strukturieren. Diese beiden Aspekte werden zum einen in der Parteien-, zum anderen in der Wahlforschung behandelt. Mit Blick auf Letztere wird in diesem State-of-the-Art-Artikel dargestellt, wie neuere Veröffentlichungen die Auswirkungen des Parteienwettbewerbs (Makroebene) auf die Wahlentscheidung (Individualebene) analysieren. Dies geschieht durch eine Einführung in die wichtigsten Theorien zur Wahlentscheidung und zum Parteienwettbewerb, auf deren Grundlage eine Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse neuerer, quantitativer Studien erfolgt. Potenzielle Probleme für den internationalen Vergleich werden hierbei ebenso erörtert wie wichtige methodische Neuerungen und die verschiedenen verfügbaren Ansätze zur Messung von Parteienpositionen.

Schlüsselwörter

Parteiprogrammdaten Wahlverhalten Räumliche Politikmodelle Themensalienz Expertenumfragen 

References

  1. Achterberg, Peter. 2006. Class voting in the new political culture. Economic, cultural and environmental voting in 20 western countries. International Sociology 21:237–261.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, James, Samuel Merrill III, and Bernard Grofman. 2005. A unified theory of party competition: A cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar. 1994. Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. The Public Opinion Quarterly 58:335–357.Google Scholar
  4. Belanger, Éric, and Bonnie M. Meguid. 2008. Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies 27:477–491.Google Scholar
  5. Benoit, Kenneth, and Michael Laver. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Benoit, Kenneth, and Michael Laver. 2007. Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand coded content analysis. Electoral Studies 26:90–107.Google Scholar
  7. Blais, André, Nadeau, Richard, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte. 2001. The formation of party preferences: Testing the proximity and directional models. European Journal of Political Research 40:81–91.Google Scholar
  8. Van der Brug, Wouter. 2004. Issue ownership and party choice. Electoral Studies 23:209–233.Google Scholar
  9. Budge, Ian. 2001. Theory and measurement of party policy positions. In Mapping policy preferences. Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945–1998, eds. Ian Budge, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric Tanenbaum, 75–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Budge, Ian. 2015. Issue emphases, saliency theory and issue ownership: A historical and conceptual analysis. West European Politics 38:761–777.Google Scholar
  11. Budge, Ian, and Dennis Farlie. 1978. The potentiality of dimensional analyses for explaining voting and party competition. European Journal of Political Research 6:203–232.Google Scholar
  12. Budge, Ian, and Paul Pennings. 2007. Missing the message and shooting the messenger: Benoit and Laver’s ‘response’. Electoral Studies 26:136–141.Google Scholar
  13. Burschner, Bjorn, Joost van Spanje, and Claes H. de Vreese. 2015. Owning the issues of crime and immigration: The relation between immigration and crime news and anti-immigrant voting in 11 countries. Electoral Studies 38:59–69.Google Scholar
  14. Dalton, Russell J. 2002. Political cleavages, issues, and electoral change. In Comparing democracies 2. New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting, eds. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa Norris, 189–209. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Dalton, Russell J. 2008. The quantity and the quality of party systems. Comparative Political Studies 41:899–920.Google Scholar
  16. Dogan, Mattei. 1995. Erosion of class voting and of the religious vote in Western Europe. International Social Science Journal 47:525–538.Google Scholar
  17. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  18. Duch, Raymond M., Jeff May, and David A. Armstrong. 2010. Coalition-directed voting in multiparty democracies. American Political Science Review 104:698–719.Google Scholar
  19. Elff, Martin. 2007. Social structure and electoral behavior in comparative perspective: The decline of social cleavages in Western Europe revisited. Perspectives on Politics 5:277–294.Google Scholar
  20. Elff, Martin. 2013. A dynamic state-space model of coded political texts. Political Analysis 21:217–232.Google Scholar
  21. Enelow, James M., and Melvin J. Hinich. 1984. The spatial theory of voting. Cambridge; University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Enyedi, Zsolt, and Kevin Deegan-Krause. 2010. Introduction: The structure of political competition in Western Europe. West European Politics 33:415–418.Google Scholar
  23. Evans, Geoffrey. 2000. The continued significance of class voting. Annual Review of Political Science 3:401–417.Google Scholar
  24. Evans, Geoffrey, and James Tilley. 2012. The depoliticization of inequality and redistribution: Explaining the decline of class voting. The Journal of Politics 74:963–976.Google Scholar
  25. Evans, Geoffrey, Anthony Heath, and C. Payne. 1999. Class: Labour as a catch-all party? In Critical elections: British parties and voters in long-term perspective, eds. Geoffrey Evans and Pippa Norris, 87–101. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Ezrow, Lawrence, Jonathan Homola, and Margit Tavits. 2014. When extremism pays: Policy positions, voter certainty, and party support in postcommunist Europe. The Journal of Politics 76:535–547.Google Scholar
  27. Fazekas, Zoltán, and Zsombor Zoltán Méder. 2013. Proximity and directional theory compared: Taking discriminant positions seriously in multi-party systems. Electoral Studies 32:693707.Google Scholar
  28. Fiorina, Morris. P. 1981. Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Franklin, Mark. N., Thomas T. Mackie, and Henry Valen. 1992. Electoral change: Responses to evolving social and attitudinal structures in western countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Franzmann, Simon T. 2011. Competition, contest, and cooperation. The analytical framework of the issue-market. Journal of Theoretical Politics 23:317–343.Google Scholar
  31. Franzmann, Simon T. 2015. Towards a real comparison of left-right indices: A comment on Jahn. Party Politics 21:821–828.Google Scholar
  32. Franzmann, Simon, and André Kaiser. 2006. Locating political parties in policy space. A reanalysis of party manifesto data. Party Politics 12:163–188.Google Scholar
  33. Franzmann, Simon T., Heiko Giebler, and Thomas Poguntke. 2018. It’s not only the economy stupid! Issue Yield at the 2017 German Federal Election. Special Issue in West European Politics 1/2019, ed. by Lorenzo De Sio, and Romain Lachat (under review).Google Scholar
  34. Gabel, Matthew J., and John D. Huber. 2000. Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left-right ideological positions from party manifesto data. American Journal of Political Science 44:94–103.Google Scholar
  35. Gomez, Raul, Laura Morales, and Luis Ramiro. 2016. Varieties of radicalism: Examining the diversity of radical left parties and voters in Western Europe. West European Politics 39:351–379.Google Scholar
  36. Green, Jane, and Sara B. Hobolt. 2008. Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies 27:460–476.Google Scholar
  37. Gómez-Reino, Margarita, and Iván Llamazares. 2013. The populist radical right and European integration: A comparative analysis of party-voter links. West European Politics 36:789–816.Google Scholar
  38. Han, Kyung Joon. 2016. Income inequality and voting for radical right-wing parties. Electoral Studies 42:54–64.Google Scholar
  39. Harteveld, Eelco. 2016. Winning the ‘losers’ but losing the ‘winners’? The electoral consequences of the radical right moving to the economic left. Electoral Studies 44:225–234.Google Scholar
  40. Hernández, Enrique, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2016. Turning your back on the EU. The role of Eurosceptic parties in the 2014 European Parliament elections. Electoral Studies 44:515–524.Google Scholar
  41. Hobolt, Sara B., and Jae-Jae Spoon. 2012. Motivating the European voter: Parties, issues and campaigns in European Parliament elections. European Journal of Political Research 51:701–727.Google Scholar
  42. Hong, Geeyoung. 2015. Explaining vote switching to niche parties in the 2009 European Parliament elections. European Union Politics 16:514–535.Google Scholar
  43. Inglehart, Ronald. 1984. The changing structure of political cleavages in western society. In Electoral change in advanced industrial democracies: Realignment or dealignment? Eds. Russell J. Dalton, Scott C. Flanagan, and Paul A. Beck, 25–69. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press–Google Scholar
  44. Jahn, Detlef. 2011. Conceptualizing left and right in comparative politics: Towards a deductive approach. Party Politics 17:745–765.Google Scholar
  45. Jansen, Giedo, Nan Dirk de Graaf, and Ariana Need. 2012. Explaining the breakdown of the religion-vote relationship in The Netherlands. 1971–2006. West European Politics 35:756–783.Google Scholar
  46. Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The transformation of European social democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Knutsen, Oddbjørn. 2004. Religious denomination and party choice in Western Europe: A comparative longitudinal study from eight countries, 1970–97. International Political Science Review 25:97–128.Google Scholar
  48. Koenig, Thomas, Moritz Marbach, and Moritz Osanbrügge. 2013. Estimating party positions across countries and time—a dynamic latent variable model for manifesto data. Political Analysis 21:468–491.Google Scholar
  49. Kramer, Jürgen, and Hans Rattinger. 1997. The proximity and the directional theories of issue voting: comparative results for the US and Germany. European Journal of Political Research 32:1–29.Google Scholar
  50. Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2010. Restructuration of partisan politics and the emergence of a new cleavage based on values. West European Politics Volume 33:673–685.Google Scholar
  51. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Edgar Grande, Romain Lachat, Martin Dolezal, Simon Bornschier, and Timotheos Frey. 2006. Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: Six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research 45:921–956.Google Scholar
  52. Lachat, Romain. 2008. The impact of party polarization on ideological voting. Electoral Studies 27:687–698.Google Scholar
  53. Laver, Michael, and W. Ben Hunt. 1992. Policy and party competition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Laver, Michael, Kenneth Benoit, and John Garry. 2003. Estimating the policy positions of political actors using words as data. American Political Science Review 97:311–331.Google Scholar
  55. Lewis-Beck, Michael, and Mary Stegmaier. 2007. Economic models of voting. In The Oxford handbook of political behavior, eds. Russell J. Dalton, and Hans-Dieter Klingemann, pp. 518–537, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan. Eds. 1967. Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives. Toronto: Free Press.Google Scholar
  57. Lowe, Will. 2008. Understanding wordscores. Political Analysis 16:356–371.Google Scholar
  58. Lowe, Will, Kenneth Benoit, Slava Mikhailov, and Michael Laver. 2011. Scaling policy positions from coded units of political texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36:123–155.Google Scholar
  59. Meguid, Bonnie M. 2008. Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Milazzo, Caitlin, James Adams, and Jane Green. 2012. Are voter decision rules endogenous to parties’ policy strategies? A model with applications to elite depolarization in Post-Thatcher Britain. The Journal of Politics 74:262–276.Google Scholar
  61. Miller, Warren E, and J. Merrill Shanks. 1996. The new American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Nadeau, Richard, André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, and Neil Nevitte. 2001. Perceptions of party competence in the 1997 election. In Party politics in Canada, eds. Hugh G. Thorburn, and Alan Whitehorn, 413–430. Prentence Hill, Toronto.Google Scholar
  63. Neundorf, Anja, and James Adams. 2016. The micro-foundations of party competition and issue ownership: The reciprocal effects of citizens’ issue salience and party attachments. British Journal of Political Science 48:385–406.Google Scholar
  64. Norris, Pippa, and Ronald Inglehart 2004. Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Pappi, Franz Urban. 2000. Zur Theorie des Parteienwettbewerbs. [On the theory of party competition] In 50 Jahre empirische Wahlforschung in Deutschland. Entwicklung, Befunde, Perspektiven, Daten, eds. Markus Klein, Wolfgang Jagodzinski, Dieter Ohr, Ekkehard Mochmann, 85–105. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  66. Pardos-Prado, Sergi. 2012. Valence beyond consensus: Party competence and policy dispersion from a comparative perspective. Electoral Studies 31:342–352.Google Scholar
  67. Pardos-Prado, Sergi. 2015. How can mainstream parties prevent niche party success? Center-right parties and the immigration issue. The Journal of Politics 77:352–367.Google Scholar
  68. Pardos-Prado, Sergi, and Elias Dinas. 2010. Systemic polarisation and spatial voting. European Journal of Political Research 49:759–786.Google Scholar
  69. Petrocik, John R. 1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40:825–850.Google Scholar
  70. Pierce, Roy. 1997. The directional theory of issue voting: directional versus proximity models: Verisimilitude as the criterion. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9:61–74.Google Scholar
  71. Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Elaine Macdonald. 1989. A directional theory of issue voting. The American Political Science Review 83:93–121.Google Scholar
  73. Robertson, David. 1976. A theory of party competition. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  74. Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Schmitt, Johannes, and Simon Franzmann. 2018. Measuring ideological polarization in party systems: An evaluation of the concept and the indicators. Manuscript, Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University.Google Scholar
  76. Singh, Shane P. 2010. Contextual influences on the decision calculus: A cross-national examination of proximity voting. Electoral Studies 29:425–434.Google Scholar
  77. De Sio, Lorenzo, and Mark N. Franklin. 2012. Strategic Incentives, Issue Proximity and Party Support in Europe. West European Politics 35:1363–1385.Google Scholar
  78. De Sio, Lorenzo de, and Till Weber. 2014. Issue yield: A model of party strategy in multidimensional space. American Political Science Review 108:870–85.Google Scholar
  79. De Sio, Lorenzo, Mark N. Franklin, and Till Weber. 2016. The risks and opportunities of Europe: How issue yield explains (non-)reactions to the financial crisis. Electoral Studies 44:483–91.Google Scholar
  80. Schmitt-Beck, Rüdiger. 2019. Political systems and electoral behavior: a review of internationally comparative multilevel research. In Cross-national comparative research - analytical strategies, results and explantations. Eds. Hans-Jürgen Andreß, Detlef Fetchenhauer and Heiner Meulemann.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-019-00608-8.
  81. Slapin, Jonathan, and Sven-Oliver Proksch. 2008. A scaling model for estimating time series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science 52:705–722.Google Scholar
  82. Spies, Dennis. 2013. Explaining working-class support for extreme right parties: A party competition approach. Acta Politica 48:296–325.Google Scholar
  83. Stokes, Donald E. 1963. Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review 57:368–377.Google Scholar
  84. Stokes, Donald E. 1992. Valence politics. In Electoral politics, ed. Dennis Kavanagh, 141–164. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  85. Strom, Kaare. 1990. A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Political Science Review 34:565–598.Google Scholar
  86. Taylor, Michael, and V.M. Herman. 1971. Party systems and government stability. American Political Science Review 65:28–37.Google Scholar
  87. Tomz, Michael, and Robert P. Van Houweling. 2008. Candidate positioning and voter choice. American Political Science Review 102:303–318.Google Scholar
  88. Tóka, Gábor, and Tania Gosselin. 2010. Persistent political divides, electoral volatility and citizen involvement: The freezing hypothesis in the 2004 European election. West European Politics 33:608–633.Google Scholar
  89. Van der Eijk, Cees, Hermann Schmitt, and Tanja Binder. 2005. Left–right orientations and party choice. In The European voter, ed. Jacques Thomassen, 167–191. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. De Vries, Catherine E., and Nathalie Giger. 2014. Holding governments accountable? Individual heterogeneity in performance voting. European Journal of Political Research 53:345–362.Google Scholar
  91. De Vries, Catherine E., and Sara B. Hobolt. 2012. When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics 13:246–268.Google Scholar
  92. De Vries, Catherine E., Erica E. Edwards, and Erik R. Tillman. 2011. Clarity of responsibility beyond the pocketbook: How political institutions condition EU issue voting. Comparative Political Studies 44:339–363.Google Scholar
  93. Wagner, Magnus. 2012. Defining and measuring niche parties. Party Politics 18:845–864.Google Scholar
  94. Walgrave, Stefaan, Jonas Lefevere, and Anke Daniela Tresch, 2012. The associative dimension of issue ownership. Public Opinion Quarterly 76:771–782.Google Scholar
  95. Wessels, Bernhard, and Hermann Schmitt. 2008. Meaningful choices, political supply, and institutional effectiveness. Electoral Studies 27:19–30.Google Scholar
  96. Westholm, Anders. 1997. Distance versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice. American Political Science Review 91:865–883.Google Scholar
  97. Williams, Laron K. 2015. Estimating the defense spending vote. Electoral Studies 39:243–255.Google Scholar
  98. Zons, Gregor. 2016. How programmatic profiles of niche parties affect their electoral performance. West European Politics 39:1205–1229.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis Christopher Spies
    • 1
    Email author
  • Simon T. Franzmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Cologne Center for Comparative PoliticsUniversity of CologneKölnGermany
  2. 2.Social Science Department, Comparative PoliticsHeinrich-Heine University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations