Article contents
The West German Electorate and the Party System: Continuity and Change in the 1980s
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Extract
Changes in voting behavior and the party system in the three federal elections since 1980 indicate that West German politics have entered a new transitional phase. The periods of CDU hegemony, 1949–1969, and two party competition, 1972–1980, have passed. Both major parties have lost support, turnout has declined, ticket-splitting has increased and New Politics issues such as the environment, disarmament and civil liberties have become salient to increasing numbers of voters. The influence of social class, religion and regional ties on voting behavior has declined. Electoral behavior has become more volatile and uncertain. Four major sources of these changes are identified: the postwar transformation of German social structure; the changing value priorities of mass publics; the introduction of new issues; and the electoral strategies of the parties as determined by their elites and leaders. The study concludes with a discussion of the future of the party system and the prospects for a major dealignment or realignment in West German politics.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1988
References
Notes
1. The minor party vote also increased from 0.5% to 1.3%.
2. Baker, Kendall, Dalton, Russell J., and Hildebrandt, Kai, Germany Transformed (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
3. Conradt, David P., The German Polity (New York: Longmans, 1986), pp. 131–39Google Scholar; Pappi, Franz-Urban and Terwey, Michael, “The German Electorate,” in Party Government and Political Culture in Western Germany, ed. Doering, H. and Smith, G. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Dalton, Russell J., “The German Party System Between Two Ages,” in Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, ed. Dalton, R. et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 104–33Google Scholar; Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, “West Germany,” in Electoral Change in Western Democracies, ed. Crewe, I. and Denver, D. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985), pp. 244–52.Google Scholar
4. Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth and Piel, Edgar, ed., Allensbacher Jahrbuch der Demoskopie, vol. 8, 1978–1983 (Munich and New York: K. G. Saur Verlag, 1983), pp. 685–87.Google Scholar
5. Feist, Ursula and Krieger, Hubert, “Alte und neue Scheidelinien des politischen Verhaltens,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, no. 12 (21 03 1987): 45, 47.Google Scholar
6. Ibid., pp. 38–39.
7. Institut für Demoskopie, Survey No. 061; Mannheim Election Panel, 1986–87. We are grateful to Professor Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann of the Institut für Demoskopie and to Dr. Dieter Roth, Wolfgang Gibowski and Manfred Berger of the Forschungsgruppe Wahlen in Mannheim for making these data available. Sole responsibility for their presentation and interpretation rests with the authors.
8. Bundesamt, Statistisches, Wahl zum 11. Deutschen Bundestag am 25. Januar 1987, Heft 4, Wahlbeteiligung und Stimmabgabe der Männer und Frauen nach dem Alter (Wiesbaden: Kohlhammer Verlag, 1987), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar
9. Dalton, Russell J., “Wertwandel oder Wertwende: Die neue Politik und Parteienpolarisierung,” in Wahlen und politischer Prozess: Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestags-wahl 1983, ed. Klingemann, H. D. and Kaase, M. (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1987).Google Scholar
10. Inglehart, Ronald, The Silent Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Hildebrandt, Kai and Dalton, Russell J., The New PoliticsGoogle Scholar in Beyme, K. von and Kaase, M., eds., Elections and Parties (Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications, 1978)Google Scholar; Dalton, , “Wertwandel oder Wertwende.”Google Scholar
11. Dalton, , “The German Party System Between Two Ages,” pp. 112–20.Google Scholar
12. We are grateful to Ronald Inglehart for providing us with early access to the data from Eurobarometers 26 and 27.
13. Dalton, , “Wertwandel oder Wertwende,”Google Scholar provides an extensive analysis of the process by which value priorities are being incorporated into West German voting patterns.
14. See the issue voting analysis of Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, “Der vorsichtig abwagende Wähler”Google Scholar; also Falter, Jürgen and Rattinger, Hans, “Die Bundestagswahl: Eine Normalwahlanalyse,”Google Scholar both in Klingemann, and Kaase, , Wahlen und Politischer Prozess.Google Scholar
15. See the various polls cited in Der Spiegel, no. 8 (21 02 1983): 56 ff.Google Scholar
16. In 1983 the rank order correlations of issue importance between SPD, FDP and CDU/CSU voters averaged about .90. The average correlation between voters of the established parties and the Greens was .50. See also Schultze, Rainer-Olaf, “Die Bundestagswahl 1987—eine Bestätigung des Wandels,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, no. 12 (21 03 1987): 3–17.Google Scholar
17. In 1980 the options were SPD-FDP government, CDU/CSU opposition, both parties, or neither party. In 1983 and 1987 the options were changed to compare an SPD-led government to a CDU/CSU-FDP government. See also Institut fuer angewandte Sozialforschung (INFAS), Politogramm: Bundestagswahl 1983 (Bonn-Bad Godesberg: INFAS, 1983)Google Scholar and Kaltefleiter, Werner, “Eine kritische Wahl,” Das Parlament, no. 14 (9 04 1983).Google Scholar
18. The correlation between the rankings of issue salience and CDU competence was r=.31. and the correlation with SPD competence was. 46.
19. Kuechler, Manfred, “Economic Voting in a Party-Centered Political System” (Seminar on Economics and Elections in the United States and Western Europe, Bellagio, Italy, 05 1987).Google Scholar
20. Falter, Jürgen W. and Rattinger, Hans, “Parteien, Kandidaten und politische Streitfragen bei der Bundestagswahl 1980” (unpublished manuscript, Bundeswehr Hochschule, Munich, 06 1981), p. 85.Google Scholar
21. INFAS, Politogramm: Bundestagswahl 1987 (Bonn-Bad Godesberg: INFAS, 1987).Google Scholar
22. EMNID polls cited in Der Spiegel, 40, no. 22 (1986): 42, 43.Google Scholar
23. Der Spiegel, 40, no. 27 (1986): 41.Google Scholar
24. Wahlen, Forschungsgruppe, “Bundestagswahl 1987. Eine Analyse der Wahl zum 11. Deutschen Bundestag am 25. Januar 1987,”Google ScholarMannheim, , Wahlen, Forschungsgruppe, 1987, p. 57.Google Scholar
25. Ibid., pp. 46–49.
26. Ibid., p. 52.
27. The mandates for parties receiving under 5 percent are allotted proportionately to the parties that did secure parliamentary representation. Thus a party or coalition could have an absolute majority of seats with less than 50 percent of the vote. For a description of this complex electoral system see Conradt, David P., “The 1976 Campaign and Election: An Overview,” Germany at the Polls. The Bundestag Election of 1976, ed. Cerny, Karl H. (Washington. D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1978), pp. 31–33Google Scholar
28. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27 01 1987, pp. 1, 4Google Scholar; Süddeutsche Zeitung, 27 01 1987, pp. 1, 3.Google Scholar
29. Bundesamt, Statistisches, “Wahl zum 11. Deutschen Bundestag,” p. 15.Google Scholar
30. Wahlen, Forschungsgruppe, “Bundestagswahl, 1987,” pp. 52–55.Google Scholar
31. Bundesamt, Statistisches, “Wahl zum 11. Deutschen Bundestag.”Google Scholar
32. Dalton, , “The West German Party System Between Two Ages”Google Scholar; Klingemann, , “Germany.”Google Scholar
33. Lipset, Seymour M. and Rokkan, Stein, “Cleavage Structures, Party Systems and Voter Alignments: An Introduction,” in Party Systems and Voter Alignments, ed. Lipset, and Rokkan, (New York: Free Press, 1967), p. 54.Google Scholar
34. Dalton, , “The West German Party System Between Two Ages.”Google Scholar
35. Schultze, . “Die Bundestagswahl 1987 – eine Bestätigung des Wandels,” p. 12.Google Scholar
36. Klingemann, , “West Germany,” pp. 241–53.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by