Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:06:19.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issues and Party Support in Multiparty Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Stuart Elaine Macdonald ,
Ola Listhaug  and
George Rabinowitz
Stuart Elaine Macdonald
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Ola Listhaug
Affiliation:
University of Trondheim
George Rabinowitz
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate the relationship between party issue position and mass evaluation of political parties in multiparty systems. In so doing, we engage two competing theories of mass-elite linkage: the directional theory and the traditional spatial theory of elections. The alternate models are evaluated with survey data gathered in Norway in 1989. The data collection is unique in providing extensive information on the issue positions of all parties with potential for achieving representation in the parliament. Results suggest that the directional theory provides a better description of the relationship. Consistent with directional theory, we find that when parties occupy a centrist position on an issue they are not evaluated on the basis of that issue. Voters neither love nor hate a party in the middle. Thus, in order to build support on the basis of issues, parties must offer some strong stands.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 85 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 1107 - 1131
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aardal, Bernt. 1990a. “Green Politics: A Norwegian Experience.” Scandinavian Political Studies 13:147–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aardal, Bernt. 1990b. “The Norwegian Parliamentary Election of 1989.” Electoral Studies 9:151–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey. 1988. “Elections, Coalitions, and Legislative Outcomes.” American Political Science Review 82:405–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Farlie, Dennis J.. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections. Winchester, MA: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74:78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E., and Valen, Henry. 1971. “Dimensions of Cleavage and Perceived Party Distances in Norwegian Voting.” Scandinavian Political Studies 6:107–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1990. “Centripetal and Centrifugal Incentives in Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 34:903–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Otto A., Hinich, Melvin J., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1970. “An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process.” American Political Science Review 64:426–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Granberg, Donald, and Holmberg, Sören. 1986. “Political Perceptions among Voters in Sweden and the U.S.: Analysis of Issues with Explicit Alternatives.” Western Political Quarterly 39:7–28.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Jan-Erik, and Ersson, Svante. 1987. Politics and Society in Western Europe. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour M., and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction.” In Party Systems and Voter Alignments, ed. Lipset, Seymour M. and Rokkan, Stein. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Listhaug, Ola. 1989. Citizens, Parties, and Norwegian Electoral Politics, 1957–1985: An Empirical Study. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Listhaug, Ola, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Rabinowitz, George. 1990. “A Comparative Spatial Analysis of European Party Systems.” Scandinavian Political Studies 13:227–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Gregory B., and Converse, Philip E.. 1979. “A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 73:1055–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nannestad, Peter. 1989. Reactive Voting m Danish General Elections: 1971–1979. Århus, Denmark: Århus University Press.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard G., and Westholm, Anders. 1984. “Issues, Parties, and Attitudinal Stability: A Comparative Study of Sweden and the United States.” Electoral Studies 3:65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Lynda W. 1989. “Analyzing Misinformation: Perceptions of Congressional Candidates' Ideologies.” American Journal of Political Science 33:272–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83:93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, George, Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, and Listhaug, Ola. 1991. “New Players in an Old Game: Party Strategy in Multiparty Systems.” Comparative Political Studies 24:147–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Cohen, Ronald N.. 1990. “Multiparty Competition, Entry, and Entry Deterrence in Spatial Models of Elections.” In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting, ed. Enelow, James M. and Hinich, Melvin J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Valen, Henry, Aardal, Bernt, and Vogt, Gunnar. 1990. Endring og kontinuitet: Stortingsvalget 1989 [Change and continuity: The parliamentary election of 1989]. Oslo: Central Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
Valen, Henry, and Martinussen, Willy. 1977. “Electoral Trends and Foreign Politics in Norway: The 1973 Storting Election and the EEC Issue.” In Scandinavia at the Polls, ed. Cerny, Karl. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.