Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-x5mqb Total loading time: 0.296 Render date: 2021-12-01T13:08:15.958Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

The Informational Role of Party Leader Changes on Voter Perceptions of Party Positions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2017

Abstract

According to spatial models of elections, citizen perceptions of party policy positions are a key determinant of voting choices. Yet recent scholarship from Europe suggests that voters do not adjust their perceptions according to what parties advocate in their campaigns. This article argues that voters develop a more accurate understanding of parties’ ideological positions following a leadership change because a new leader increases the credibility of party policy offerings. Focusing on Western European parties in the 1979–2012 period, it shows that having a new leader is a necessary condition for voters to more accurately perceive the left–right placements of opposition parties. Voters do not use party platforms to form perceptions of incumbent parties’ positions, regardless of whether the leader is new or veteran. These results have important implications for models of party competition and democratic representation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Carlos III – Juan March Institute (email: pablofernandez@march.es); Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin (email: zsomer@utexas.edu). We would like to thank James Adams, Alex Branham, Stefan Dahlberg, Lawrence Ezrow, Margit Tavits, Joshua Tucker, Daniel Weitzel, Christopher Wlezien and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We are also grateful to Mollie Cohen, Hilary Dennen, Matthew Layton and Claire Verville for their superb research assistance. Both authors equally contributed to this article, which has previously been presented at the 2014 MPSA annual conference, the 2014 APSA conference, Center for the Study of Democratic Citizenship at McGill University, the University of Houston and the University of Texas at Austin. Data replication sets are available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/9GFJEA and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000047.

References

Adams, James. 2012. Causes and Electoral Consequences of Party Policy Shifts in Multiparty Elections: Theoretical Results and Empirical Evidence. Annual Review of Political Science 15 (1):401419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Green, Jane, and Milazzo, Caitlin. 2012a. Who Moves? Elite Depolarization in Britain, 1987–2001. Electoral Studies 31 (4):653655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Green, Jane, and Milazzo, Caitlin. 2012b. Has the British Public Depolarized Along with Political Elites? An American Perspective on British Public Opinion. Comparative Political Studies 45 (4):507530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2011. Is Anybody Listening? Evidence that Voters do not Respond to European Parties’ Policy Programmes. American Journal of Political Science 55 (2):370382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2014. Do Voters Respond to Party Manifestos or to A Wider Information Environment? An Analysis of Mass-Elite Linkages on European Integration. American Journal of Political Science 58 (4):967978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2006. Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):512529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John, Dorabantu, Sinziana Popa, Fernandez, Marco Antonio, Ley, Sandra, and Schober, Gregory. 2011. When Does the Left-Right Dimension Have Meaning to Voters in an Election? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA, 1–4 September 2011.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Nagler, Jonathan, and Bowler, Shaun. 2000. Issues, Economics, and the Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: The British 1987 General Election. American Political Science Review 94 (1):131149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, Staffan, Bergman, Torbjörn, and Ersson, Svante. 2014. The European Representative Democracy Data Archive, Release 3. Main sponsor: Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. Available from http://www.erdda.se/index.php/projects/erd/data-archive, accessed 14 December 2016.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., and Pischke, Jorn-Steffen. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
APSA, Committee on Political Parties. 1950. Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System: A Report. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey. 1990. A Model of Electoral Competition with Incomplete Information. Journal of Economic Theory 50 (2):309325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabas, Jason, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2009. Estimating the Causal Effects of Media Coverage on Policy-Specific Knowledge. American Journal of Political Science 53 (1):7389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1993. Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure. American Political Science Review 87 (2):267285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1996. Uninformed Voters: Information Effects in Presidential Elections. American Journal of Political Science 40 (1):194230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. Beyond the ‘Running Tally’: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions. Political Behavior 24 (2):117150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2012. Government versus Opposition at the Polls: How Governing Status Affects the Impact of Policy Positions. American Journal of Political Science 56 (2):433446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2009. Treating Words as Data with Error: Uncertainty in Text Statements of Policy Positions. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2):495513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Conway, Drew, Lauderdale, Benjamin E., Laver, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2016. Crowd-Sourced Coding of Political Text. American Political Science Review 110 (2):278295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergounioux, Alan, and Grunberg, Gérard. 2005. L’Ambition et le Remords: Les Socialistes Français et le Pouvoir (1905–2005). Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Bittner, Amanda. 2011. Platform or Personality?: The Role of Party Leaders in Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockington, David. 2009. It’s About the Benefits: Choice Environments, Ideological Proximity, and Individual Participation in 28 Democracies. Party Politics 15 (4):435454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Tannenbaum, Eric, and Bara, Judith. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 19451998 . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Callander, Steven, and Wilkie, Simon. 2007. Lies, Damned Lies, and Political Campaigns. Games and Economic Behavior 60 (2):262286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Colin A., Gelbach, Jonah B., and Miller, Douglas L.. 2008. Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors. The Review of Economics and Statistics 90 (3):414427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Sungdai, and Endersby, James W.. 2003. Issues, Spatial Models of Voting and British General Election: A Comparison of Proximity and Directional Models. Public Choice 114 (3):275293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Michael, and Leiter, Debra. 2014. Does the Ideological Dispersion of Parties Mediate the Electoral Impact of Valence? A Cross-National Study of Party Support in Nine Western European Democracies. Comparative Political Studies 47 (2):171202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa-Lobo, Marina, and Curtice, John (eds). 2015. Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., and McAllister, Ian. 2015. Random Walk or Planned Excursion? Continuity and Change in the Left-Right Positions of Political Parties. Comparative Political Studies 48 (6):759787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, J. Russell, and Wattenberg, Martin P. (eds). 2000. Parties without Partisans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Esarey, Justin, and Menger, Andrew. 2015. Practical and Effective Approaches to Dealing with Clustered Data. Department of Political Science, Rice University, Houston, TX. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey, and Andersen, Robert. 2006. The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions. The Journal of Politics 68 (1):194207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence, de Vries, Catherine, Steenbergen, Marco, and Edwards, Erica. 2011. Mean Voter Representation and Partisan Constituency Representation: Do Parties Respond to the Mean Voter Position or to Their Supporters? Party Politics 17 (3):275301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence, and Xezonakis, Georgios. 2016. Satisfaction with Democracy and Voter Turnout: A Temporal Perspective. Party Politics 22 (1):314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo. 2014. And Yet It Moves: The Effect of Election Platforms on Party Policy Images. Comparative Political Studies 47 (14):19191944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo. 2015. Signaling Policy Positions in Election Campaigns. Vanderbilt University: Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep, 2017. Replication Data for: The Informational Role of Party Leader Changes on Voter Perceptions of Party Positions, doi:10.7910/DVN/9GFJEA, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:9uPfHxgaUxjY7avuPhbd2g==CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, David, and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2013. Perceptions of Partisan Ideologies: The Effect of Coalition Participation. American Journal of Political Science 57 (2):459477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Charles H. 1991. Eschewing Obfuscation? Campaigns and the Perception of U.S. Senate Incumbents. American Political Science Review 85 (4):11931214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, Paul, Franz, Michael, and Goldstein, Kenneth. 2004. Campaign Advertising and Democratic Citizenship. American Journal of Political Science 48 (4):723741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garzia, Diego. 2014. Personalization of Politics and Electoral Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gomez, Brad T., and Wilson, J. Matthew. 2001. Political Sophistication and Economic Voting in the American Electorate: A Theory of Heterogenous Attribution. American Journal of Political Science 45 (4):899914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomibuchi, Seishi. 2001. Followers and Leadership Durability: An Analysis of Leadership Support in the New Zealand Labour Party: 1990–1996. PhD Dissertation. University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Grynaviski, Jeffrey D. 2010. Partisan Bonds: Political Reputations and Legislative Accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Anthony F., Jowell, Roger, and Curtice, John (eds). 1994. Labour’s Last Chance? The 1992 Election and Beyond . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Jackman, Simon. 2003. Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy. American Journal of Political Science 47 (4):583596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, Marks, Gary, and Wilson, Carole J.. 2002. Does Left/Right Structure Party Positions on European Integration? Comparative Political Studies 35 (8):965989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ignazi, Piero. 1994. Posfascisti? Dal Movimiento Sociale Italiano ad Alleanza Nazionale. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Simon, Adam F.. 2000. New Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects. Annual Review of Psychology 51:149169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, Heemin, and Fording, Richard C.. 1998. Voter Ideology in Western Democracies, 1946–1989. European Journal of Political Research 33 (1):7397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, and Roberts, Margaret E.. 2015. How Robust Standard Errors Expose Methodological Problems They Do Not Fix, and What To Do About It. Political Analysis 23 (2):159179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, and McDonald, Michael. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lachat, Romain. 2008. The Impact of Party Polarization on Ideological Voting. Electoral Studies 27 (4):687698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Budge, Ian. 1992. Party Policy and Coalition Policy in Europe. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1968 [1944]. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, William, Benoit, Kenneth, Mikhaylov, Slava, and Laver, Michael. 2011. Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (1):123155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Matthew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam. 2014. Brand Dilution and the Breakdown of Political Parties in Latin America. World Politics 66 (4):561602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Michael D., and Budge, Ian. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meguid, Bonnie M. 2005. Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review 39 (3):347359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikhaylov, Slava, Laver, Michael, and Benoit, Kenneth R.. 2012. Coder Reliability and Misclassification in the Human Coding of Party Manifestos. Political Analysis 20 (1):7891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mughan, Anthony. 2000. Media and the Presidentialization of Parliamentary Elections. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutlu-Eren, Hande, Somer-Topcu, Zeynep, and Weitzel, Daniel. 2016. Is Change Good? The Electoral Consequences of Party Leadership Changes. University of Texas at Austin. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Helene Helboe, and Schumacher, Gijs. 2015. Do Leadership Changes Improve Electoral Performance? In The Politics of Party Leadership: A Cross-National Perspective, edited by William Cross and Jean Benoit Pilet, 149164. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, Roy. 1999. Mass-Elite Issue Linkages and the Responsible Party Model of Representation. In Policy Representation in Western Democracies, edited by Warren Miller et al., 932. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poguntke, Thomas, and Webb, Paul D. (eds). 2005. The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seyd, Patrick. 1992. Labour: The Great Transformation. In Britain at the Polls 1992, edited by Anthony King, 70100. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Slothuus, Rune, and de Vreese, Claes H.. 2010. Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects. The Journal of Politics 72 (3):630645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Martin J. 1994. Understanding the ‘Politics of Catch-Up’: The Modernization of the Labour Party. Political Studies 42 (4):708715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. Responsible Agents? Public Opinion, Uncertainty and Party Policy Change in Established Democracies. University of California: Davis.Google Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2017. Agree or Disagree: How do Party Leader Changes Affect the Distribution of Voters’ Perceptions. Party Politics 23 (1):6675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2012a. Candidate Repositioning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2012b. Policy Pledges as Credible Commitments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 2003. Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Journal of Statistical Software 8 (1):130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Brug, Wouter, Fennema, Meindert, and Tillie, Jean. 2005. Why Some Anti-immigrant Parties Fail and Others Succeed: A Two-step Model of Aggregate Electoral Support. Comparative Political Studies 38 (5):537573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Eijk, Cees, and Niemoeller, Broer. 1983. Electoral Change in the Netherlands: Empirical Results and Methods of Measurement. Amsterdam: CT Press.Google Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn. 2009. The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Laron K., and Whitten, Guy D.. 2011. Dynamic Simulations of Autoregressive Relationships. Stata Journal 11 (4):577588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Laron K. 2012. But Wait, There’s More! Maximizing Substantive Inferences from TSCS Models. Journal of Politics 74 (3):685693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1990. Political Awareness, Elite Opinion Leadership, and the Mass Survey Response. Social Cognition 8 (1):125153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Fernandez-Vazquez and Somer-Topcu Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Fernandez-Vazquez and Somer-Topcu supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Fernandez-Vazquez and Somer-Topcu supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2 MB
16
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Informational Role of Party Leader Changes on Voter Perceptions of Party Positions
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Informational Role of Party Leader Changes on Voter Perceptions of Party Positions
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Informational Role of Party Leader Changes on Voter Perceptions of Party Positions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *