Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:00:45.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Voters are not fools, or are they? Party profile, individual sophistication and party choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2014

Dominik Gerber*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Genève, Switzerland
Sarah Nicolet
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Genève, Switzerland
Pascal Sciarini
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Genève, Switzerland
*

Abstract

This article builds on V.O. Key’s postulate that voters are not fools and that they function as an echo chamber reflecting the clarity of alternatives presented to them. We first propose a reassessment of Key’s claim by examining whether and to what extent the impact of issue preferences on the vote choice depends on the clarity of parties’ profile on these issues. Our empirical tests are based on data from the 2007 Swiss election study and cover three different issues that voters may use as decision-making criteria. Our results confirm that the clearer a party’s profile on a given issue, the higher the impact of that issue on the vote for the party. Second, we offer a refinement of Key’s argument by arguing that voters’ political sophistication conditions the strength of issue voting. Empirical evidence supports this argument, but shows that the effect of political sophistication is curvilinear: sophistication exerts a stronger mediating role when a party has a moderately clear profile than when it has a low or high profile.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

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

Alvarez, R.M. and Nagler, J. (1998), ‘When politics and models collide: estimating models of multiparty elections’, American Journal of Political Science 42(1): 5596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bambor, T., Clarks, W.R. and Golder, M. (2006), ‘Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses’, Political Analysis 14: 6382.Google Scholar
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. and MacPhee, W. (1954), Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bochsler, D. and Sciarini, P. (2010), ‘So close but so far: voting propensity and party choice for left-wing parties in the Swiss national elections 2003–2007’, Swiss Political Science Review 16(3): 373402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I. and Farlie, D.J. (1983), Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Brunner, M. and Sciarini, P. (2002), ‘L'opposition ouverture-traditions’, in S. Hug and P. Sciarini (eds), Changements de valeurs et nouveaux clivages politiques en Suisse, Paris: L'Harmattan, pp. 179206.Google Scholar
Converse, P.E. (1964), ‘The nature of belief systems in mass publics’, in D.E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, New York: Free Press, pp. 206261.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (1984), ‘Cognitive mobilization and partisan dealignment in advanced industrial democracies’, Journal of Politics 46(1): 264284.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M.X. and Keeter, S. (1996), What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
de Vries, C. (2010), ‘EU issue voting: asset or liability? How European integration affects parties’ electoral fortunes’, European Union Politics 11(1): 89117.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, J.M. and Hinich, M.J. (1984), The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, M. and de Sio, L. (2012), ‘Party matters: the surprising role of party characteristics in conditioning the bases of electoral support in Europe’. Paper prepared for presentation at the American Political Science Association annual meeting, August 2012, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Franzese, R.J. Jr., Kam, C.D. and Jamal, A.A. (2001), Modelling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Friedrich, R.J. (1982), ‘In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations’, American Journal of Political Science 26(4): 797833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. (2007), ‘The growing importance of issue competition: the changing nature of party competition in Western Europe’, Political Studies 55(3): 607628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzer, T. and Linder, W. (2003), ‘Die Wahlentscheidung im Wechselspiel zwischen Parteiidentifikation und Sachfragenorientierung’, in P. Sciarini, S. Hardmeier and A. Vatter (eds), Schweizer Wahlen 1999, Bern: Haupt, pp. 85122.Google Scholar
Huber, P.J. (1967), ‘The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions’, in Lucien M. Le Cam and Jerzy Neyman (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol. 1, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 221233.Google Scholar
Key, V.O. (1966), The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H. and Sciarini, P. (2004), ‘The impact of issue preferences on the voting choices in the Swiss federal elections 1999’, British Journal of Political Science 34: 725759.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S. and Frey, T. (2008), West European Politics in the Age of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, J.H., Quirk, P.J., Jerit, J. and Rich, R.F. (2001), ‘The political environment and citizen competence’, American Journal of Political Science 45(2): 410424.Google Scholar
Lachat, R. (2007), A Heterogeneous Electorate: Political Sophistication, Predisposition Strength, and the Voting Decision Process, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.Google Scholar
Lachat, R. and Sciarini, P. (2002), ‘When do election campaigns matter, and to whom? Results from the 1999 Swiss election panel study’, in Farrell D.R. and R. Schmitt-Beck (eds), Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign effects in elections and referendums, London: Routledge, pp. 4158.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lutz, G. Elections fédérales (2007): Participation et choix électoral, Lausanne: FORS (Swiss Foundation for Research in Social Sciences).Google Scholar
Neuman, W.R. (1986), The Paradox of Mass Politics: Knowledge and Opinion in the American Electorate, Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolet, S. and Sciarini, P. (eds) (2010), Le destin électoral de la gauche: le vote socialiste et vert en Suisse, Genève: Georg.Google Scholar
Nicolet, S. and Mendicino, C. (2010), ‘Effet des critères politiques et de la conscience politique sur la probabilité de voter pour le PS et les Verts’, in S. Nicolet and P. Sciarini (eds), Le destin électoral de la gauche: le vote socialiste et vert en Suisse, Genève: Georg, pp. 293329.Google Scholar
Page, B. and Shapiro, R.Y. (1992), The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Petrocik, J.R. (1996), ‘Issue ownership and presidential elections, with a 1980 case study’, American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, G. and MacDonald, S.E. (1989), ‘A directional theory of issue voting’, American Political Science Review 83(1): 93121.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, G., MacDonald, S.E. and Listhaug, O. (1995), ‘Political sophistication and models of issue voting’, British Journal of Political Science 25(4): 453483.Google Scholar
Rivers, D. (1988), ‘Heterogeneity in models of electoral choice’, American Journal of Political Science 32(3): 737757.Google Scholar
Schloeth, D. (1998), Vor die Wahl gestellt. Erklärungen des Wahlverhaltens bei den Eidgenössischen Wahlen 1995, Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P., Glaser, J.M. and Griffin, R. (1990), ‘Information and electoral choice’, in J.A. Ferejohn and J.H. Kuklinski (eds), Information and Democratic Processes, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 117135.Google Scholar
Stimson, J.A. (1985), ‘Regression in time and space: a statistical essay’, American Journal of Political Science 29(4): 914947.Google Scholar
Tillie, J. (1995), Party Utility and Voting Behavior, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.Google Scholar
van der Brug, W. (2004), ‘Issue ownership and party choice’, Electoral Studies 23(2): 209233.Google Scholar
van der Brug, W., van der Eijk, C. and Franklin, M. (2007), The Economy and the Vote: Electoral Responses to Economic Conditions in EU Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van der Eijk, C. and Franklin, M. (1996), Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Eijk, C., van der Brug, W., Kroh, M. and Franklin, M. (2006), ‘Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: on the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities’, Electoral Studies 25(3): 424447.Google Scholar
Vatter, A. (2009), ‘Lijphart expanded: three dimensions of democracy in advanced OECD countries?’, European Political Science Review 1(1): 125154.Google Scholar
Walczak, A. and van der Brug, W. (2012), ‘The electoral trade-off: how issues and ideology affect party preference formation in Europe’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 22(3): 245268.Google Scholar
White, H. (1980), ‘A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity’, Econometrica 48(4): 817838.Google Scholar
Zaller, J.R. (1992), The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Gerber Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Gerber Supplementary Material(File)
File 25.3 KB