Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:32:48.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partisan choices in a direct-democratic campaign

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Peter Selb ,
Hanspeter Kriesi ,
Regula Hänggli  and
Mirko Marr
Peter Selb*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and Management, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
Hanspeter Kriesi
Affiliation:
Institute for Political Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Regula Hänggli
Affiliation:
Institute for Political Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Mirko Marr
Affiliation:
Institute for Media Studies, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ever since Lazarsfeld and his colleagues’ (1944) seminal study, it has become common wisdom that election campaigns, if anything, serve the activation of voters’ fundamental predispositions. However, disagreement emerges on the role of partisan orientations. Although some authors consider them as fundamental predispositions, which are activated during the campaign and subsequently act as filters for incoming information, others argue that party attachments are simple running tallies of political assessments, which are constantly updated in response to campaign events, or decision shortcuts for voters innocent of substantial information. In this study, we scrutinize the role of partisan orientations in a direct-democratic campaign using data from a panel survey fielded during the run-up to the 2006 Swiss asylum law referendum. We find that, as voters accumulate knowledge in the course of the campaign, vote intentions dramatically converge on pre-campaign partisan orientations. Moreover, voters, whose earlier issue-specific and partisan orientations collide, tend to resolve their ambivalence in favour of their partisan leanings. These results corroborate the view of partisanship as a fundamental predisposition.

Keywords

direct democracypartisanshipactivationambivalence
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 155 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2009

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.Brehm, J. (1995), ‘American ambivalence towards abortion policy: development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values’, American Journal of Political Science 39: 1055–1082.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R.M.Brehm, J. (2002), Hard Choices, Easy Answers Values, Information, and American Public Opinion, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R.M.Franklin, C.H. (1994), ‘Uncertainty and political perceptions’, Journal of Politics 56: 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R., Tilley, J.Heath, A.F. (2005), ‘Political knowledge and enlightened preferences: party choice through the electoral cycle’, British Journal of Political Science 35: 285–302.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, K. (2006), ‘Do campaigns help voters learn? A cross-national analysis’, British Journal of Political Science 36: 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, L.M. (1993), ‘Messages received: the political impact of media exposure’, American Political Science Review 87: 267–285.Google Scholar
Bartels, L.M. (2002), ‘Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions’, Political Behavior 24: 117–150.Google Scholar
Bartels, L.M. (2006), ‘Priming and persuasion in presidential election campaigns’, in H.E. Brady and R. Johnston (eds), Capturing Campaign Effects, Ann Arbor, MI, USA: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 78–112.Google Scholar
Braumoeller, B.F. (2006), ‘Explaining variance; or, stuck in a moment we can’t get out of’, Political Analysis 14: 268–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C.H. (1964), A Theory of Data, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1997), An Economic Theory of Democracy, Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Finkel, S.E. (1993), ‘Reexamining the “Minimal Effects” model in recent presidential campaigns’, Journal of Politics 55: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, S.E. (1995), Causal Analysis with Panel Data, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Finkel, S.E.Schrott, P.R. (1995), ‘Campaign effects on voter choice in the German election of 1990’, British Journal of Political Science 25: 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. (2002), ‘Parties and partisanship: a 40-year retrospective’, Political Behavior 24: 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A.King, G. (1993), ‘Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable?’, British Journal of Political Science 23: 409–451.Google Scholar
Green, D., Palmquist, B.Schickler, E. (2002), Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters, New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, S. (2005), ‘The structure of partisan attitudes: reexamining partisan dimensionality and ambivalence’, Political Psychology 26: 809–822.Google Scholar
Harvey, A.C. (1976), ‘Estimating regression models with multiplicative heteroscedasticity’, Econometrica 44: 461–465.Google Scholar
Hillygus, D.S.Jackman, S. (2003), ‘Voter decision making in election 2000: campaign effects, partisan activation, and the Clinton legacy’, American Journal of Political Science 47: 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, S.B. (2006), ‘How parties affect vote choice in European integration referendums’, Party Politics 12: 623–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, S.B. (2007), ‘Taking cues on Europe? Voter competence and party endorsements in referendums on European integration’, European Journal of Political Research 46: 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Th.M. (1996), Do Campaigns Matter?, Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Holt, T. (1989), ‘Panel conditioning: discussion’, in D. Kasprzyk, G.J. Duncan and M.P. Singh (eds), Panel Surveys, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S.Petrocik, J.R. (1998), ‘Basic rule voting: the impact of campaigns on party and approval based voting’. Presented at Conference on Political Advertising and Electoral Campaigns, American University, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S.Simon, A.F. (2000), ‘New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects’, Annual Review of Psychology 51: 149–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kriesi, H. (2005), Direct Democratic Choice. The Swiss Experience, Lanham, MD, USA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B.Gaudet, H. (1944), The People’s Choice. How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
LeDuc, L. (2002), ‘Opinion change and voting behavior in referendums’, European Journal of Political Research 41: 711–732.Google Scholar
Matsusaka, J.G. (1995), ‘Explaining voter turnout patterns. An information theory’, Public Choice 84: 91–117.Google Scholar
Rasch, G. (1980), Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rudolph, T.J. (2005), ‘Group attachment and the reduction of value-driven ambivalence’, Political Psychology 26: 905–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, T.J.Popp, E. (2007), ‘An information processing theory of ambivalence’, Political Psychology 28: 563–585.Google Scholar
Skrondal, A.Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004), Generalized Latent Variable Modeling: Multilevel, Longitudinal and Structural Equation Models, Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P.M.Levendusky, M. (2007), ‘An institutional theory of political choice’, in R. Dalton, H.-D. Klingemann (eds), Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, Oxford: Oxford University, pp. 437–456.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P.M., Hagendoorn, L.Prior, M. (2004), ‘Predisposing factors and situational triggers: exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities’, American Political Science Review 98: 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, M.R.Brewer, P.R. (2004), ‘The not-so-ambivalent public: policy attitudes in the political culture of ambivalence’, in W.E. Saris (ed.), Studies in Public Opinion Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tillie, J. (1995), Party Utility and Voting Behavior, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.Google Scholar
Van der Eijk, C., Van der Brug, W., Kroh, M.Franklin, M. (2006), ‘Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: on the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities’, Electoral Studies 25: 424–447.Google Scholar
Van Schuur, W.H. (1987), ‘Constraint in European party activists’ sympathy scores for interest groups. The left-right dimension as dominant structuring principle’, European Journal of Political Research 15: 347–362.Google Scholar
Van Schuur, W.H. (1993), ‘Nonparametric unfolding models for multicategory data’, Political Analysis 4: 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Schuur, W.H.Kiers, H.A.L. (1994), ‘Why factor analysis often is the incorrect model for analyzing bipolar concepts and what model to use instead’, Applied Psychological Measurement 18: 97–110.Google Scholar
Van Schuur, W.H.Post, W.J. (1998), MUDFOLD. A program for multiple unidimensional unfolding, Version 4.0, Groningen: iec ProGAMMA.Google Scholar
Vella, F. (1998), ‘Estimating models with sample selection bias: a survey’, Journal of Human Resources 33: 127–169.Google Scholar
Vella, F.Verbeek, M. (1994), Two-step estimation of simultaneous equation panel data models with censored endogenous variables, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research, Tilburg.Google Scholar
Weisberg, H.F. (1980), ‘A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification’, Political Behavior 2: 33–60.Google Scholar
Zaller, J.Feldman, S. (1992), ‘The political culture of ambivalence: ideological responses to the welfare state’, American Journal of Political Science 36: 268–307.Google Scholar