Legislator Preferences, Party Desires: The Impact of Party Switching on Legislative Party Positions

Author(s):  
William B. Heller ◽  
Carol Mershon
2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (6) ◽  
pp. 1259-1282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert N. Lupton ◽  
Judd R. Thornton

The concept of ambivalence is important to the study of political psychology and behavior. We examine the causes of partisan ambivalence following the passage of major civil rights legislation to test our argument that the correlates of ambivalence will change following the alteration of long-standing party positions on a highly salient issue. We find support for this hypothesis for White Southerners during this time period—Indeed, our results demonstrate that the strength of one’s partisan attachment is unrelated to partisan evaluations for such individuals immediately following the passage of major civil rights legislation, but is again a predictor by the early 1970s.


Author(s):  
Russell J. Dalton

This chapter examines the impact of the economic and cultural cleavages on Europeans’ voting choices over time. There is a strong and persisting influence of the economic cleavage on voting choices with little change after the 2008 financial crisis. There is also a growing importance of the cultural cleavage. In recent elections, the cultural cleavage outweighs the influence on the economic cleavage. The polarization of party positions on the cultural cleavage increases the influence of this cleavage, but the same pattern is not apparent for the economic cleavage. The salience of each cleavage also affects its weight in voting decisions. European voters and parties have realigned their positions so that both cleavages are now important for electoral choice. The analyses are based on the European Election Studies in 1979, 2009, and 2014.


2020 ◽  
pp. 135406882097628
Author(s):  
Eric Guntermann ◽  
Stephen Quinlan

Ultimately, electoral democracy is about governments doing what citizens want. However, considerable evidence shows that parties influence citizens’ preferences. Most studies on party influence rely on experimental designs that present participants with parties’ positions. The disadvantage of experiments is that many citizens are already aware of those positions, thus underestimating party influence. Very few studies assess reactions to real changes in party positions, which avoids this limitation. We break new ground by assessing the impact of changes in coalition governments, which lead parties to express different positions for reasons that are partly exogenous to elite and mass preferences, on partisans’ attitudes. Using panel data from the German Longitudinal Election Study (GLES), we leverage a major coalition change by Angela Merkel in Germany in 2013. We find that this change influenced the preferences of partisans of the coalition parties. Our findings have significant implications for how we think about democratic representation in multi-party contexts.


2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 664-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M Meyer ◽  
Markus Wagner

The left-right dimension is widely used by voters and parties as a ‘super-issue’ with flexible, varying meaning. Hence, it is important to know how voters place parties on the left-right dimension. We argue that voters infer left-right party positions from their positions on two key ideological subdimensions: economic and cultural issues. However, a subdimension should influence party placements on the left-right dimension more if the subdimension is important (1) to the party and (2) in the party system as a whole. In aggregate-level models using voter data from the 2014 European Election Study and party data from the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey, we show that perceived left-right position of a party reflects in particular party positions on issue dimensions that are (1) more important to the party and (2) more salient in the party system. This finding provides insight into the sources of voter perceptions and has wider implications for our understanding of party competition, as we show how parties’ salience strategies can have consequences for position-based ideological perceptions and voting decisions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (50) ◽  
pp. e2102145118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Perrings ◽  
Michael Hechter ◽  
Robert Mamada

The network of international environmental agreements (IEAs) has been characterized as a complex adaptive system (CAS) in which the uncoordinated responses of nation states to changes in the conditions addressed by particular agreements may generate seemingly coordinated patterns of behavior at the level of the system. Unfortunately, since the rules governing national responses are ill understood, it is not currently possible to implement a CAS approach. Polarization of both political parties and the electorate has been implicated in a secular decline in national commitment to some IEAs, but the causal mechanisms are not clear. In this paper, we explore the impact of polarization on the rules underpinning national responses. We identify the degree to which responsibility for national decisions is shared across political parties and calculate the electoral cost of party positions as national obligations under an agreement change. We find that polarization typically affects the degree but not the direction of national responses. Whether national commitment to IEAs strengthens or weakens as national obligations increase depends more on the change in national obligations than on polarization per se. Where the rules governing national responses are conditioned by the current political environment, so are the dynamic consequences both for the agreement itself and for the network to which it belongs. Any CAS analysis requires an understanding of such conditioning effects on the rules governing national responses.


2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Bornschier

This article analyzes why, despite similar transformations in the dimensions structuring political space since the late 1980s, extreme right-wing populist parties have emerged in some West European countries, but not in others. Two factors may affect the fortunes of these parties. First, if electorates remain firmly entrenched in older cleavages, new parties will find it difficult to establish themselves. Second, the positions of the established actors with respect to the new cultural divide that the extreme populist right mobilizes may be crucial. This article systematizes the various explanations regarding the impact of mainstream party positions on the electoral fortunes of the extreme right, and develops two new hypotheses that differentiate between the conditions that favor the entry of the extreme right, and its subsequent success. The various hypotheses are then tested in an empirical analysis of election campaigns in France and Germany, combining data on party positions as reflected in the news media with mass-level surveys. The results show that the diverging behavior of the established parties, rather than the strength of the traditional state-market cleavage, explains the differences between these two countries. More specifically, the differing strategy of the mainstream left in the two contexts has allowed the Front National to anchor itself in the French party system, whereas similar parties have not achieved a breakthrough in Germany.


Author(s):  
Clay Souza e Teles

O trabalho compara as migrações interpartidárias que ocorreram na Câmara dos Deputados em um período anterior (1995 a 2006) e um período posterior (2007 a 2014) à decisão do Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (TSE) a favor da fidelidade partidária. São confrontados os padrões de migrações quanto a intensidade, sazonalidade e direção à coalizão, com base em análise quantitativa. Observa-se que, em ambos os períodos, as migrações em direção à coalizão não necessariamente predominam. Constata-se também a diminuição do volume de mudanças de partido a partir de 2007, ano da decisão do TSE. A conclusão é que o sistema político tem encontrado alternativas para que as migrações respeitem o calendário eleitoral.


1998 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
GEOFFREY EVANS

This article uses the British Election Panel Study to assess the impact of voters' and party positions vis-à-vis European integration on Conservative electoral support between 1992 and 1996. Over this period levels of public support for European integration declined markedly, so that by 1996 the Conservative party was even closer to aggregate public opinion, when compared with its main competitors, than it had been at the time of the 1992 election. However, an analysis of the proximity between individuals' positions on integration and the positions they then attributed to the parties indicates that Conservative divisions over Europe helped turn this potential electoral asset into a liability, leaving the party further from individual voters' own positions than were either of the other two main political contenders. Moreover, as issue proximity on integration predicts voting even when past vote and proximity on other issues are controlled for, it is likely that the European question will have resulted in electoral costs rather than the benefits it could have produced. One implication of these findings is that if the Conservatives hope to do well on this issue they will need to adopt a consistent Eurosceptic line, but such a strategy is unlikely to be easily maintained.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document