Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:06:16.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Retrospective Voting and the Polarization of Available Alternatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2019

Dieter Stiers  and
Ruth Dassonneville
Dieter Stiers*
Affiliation:
Centre for Political Science Research, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45 box 3602, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
Ruth Dassonneville
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal, Département de science politique, C.P. 6128 succursale Centre-ville, MontréalQCH3C 3J7
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: dieter.stiers@kuleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Government cohesiveness is known to moderate retrospective voting. While previous work on this topic has focused on characteristics of the government, we build on the literature on clarity of responsibility and the literature on valence to argue that the extent to which government and opposition are ideologically distinct also moderates retrospective voting. Two alternative expectations follow from these two theoretical perspectives. While the clarity of responsibility framework leads to the expectation that a larger difference between government and opposition will strengthen retrospective voting, the valence literature presumes that retrospective voting is stronger when ideological differences are small. Using the data of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) project, we find evidence that is in line with the clarity of responsibility framework: the higher the degree of ideological polarization between government and opposition, the larger the effect of retrospective performance evaluations on the vote.

Résumé

Résumé

La cohésion gouvernementale est connue pour modérer le vote rétrospectif. Bien que les travaux sur ce sujet se soient concentrés sur les caractéristiques du gouvernement, nous nous prévalons de la bibliographie sur la clarté de la responsabilité et de celle de valence pour soutenir que la mesure dans laquelle le gouvernement et l'opposition sont idéologiquement distincts modère également le vote rétrospectif. Deux autres attentes découlent de ces deux perspectives théoriques. Alors que la clarté du cadre de responsabilité conduit à s'attendre à ce qu'une plus grande différence entre le gouvernement et l'opposition renforce le vote rétrospectif, la bibliographie de valence suppose que le vote rétrospectif est plus fort lorsque les différences idéologiques sont faibles. En utilisant les données du projet Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), nous trouvons des éléments probants qui correspondent à la clarté du cadre de responsabilité : plus le degré de polarisation idéologique entre le gouvernement et l'opposition est élevé, plus l'effet des évaluations rétrospectives du rendement sur le vote est important.

Keywords

Retrospective votingelectoral accountabilitypolarizationclarity of responsibilityincumbent voting
Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 99 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2019

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, Michael R. and Franklin, Charles H.. 1994. “Uncertainty and Political Perceptions.” Journal of Politics 56 (3): 671–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. 2000. “Economic Voting and Political Context: A Comparative Perspective.” Electoral Studies 19 (2): 151–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Christopher J. 2007. “The End of Economic Voting? Contingency Dilemmas and the Limits of Democratic Accountability.” Annual Review of Political Science 10: 271–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Åsa. 2004. “Economic Voting: The Effect of Political Context, Volatility and Turnout on Voters’ Assignment of Responsibility.” European Journal of Political Research 43 (5): 749–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttice, Matthew K. and Stone, Walter J.. 2012. “Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 74 (3): 870–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Michael and Leiter, Debra. 2014. “Does the Ideological Dispersion of Parties Mediate the Impact of Valence? A Cross-National Study of Party Support in Nine Western European Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 47 (2): 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CSES (Comparative Study of Electoral Systems). 2015a. www.cses.org. CSES Module 2 Full Release [dataset]. December 15, 2015 version. doi:10.7804/cses.module2.2015-12-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CSES (Comparative Study of Electoral Systems). 2015b. www.cses.org. CSES Module 3 Full Release [dataset]. December 15, 2015 version. doi:10.7804/cses.module3.2015-12-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2008. “The Quantity and the Quality of Party Systems: Party System Polarization, Its Measurement, and Its Consequences.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (7): 899–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dassonneville, Ruth and Dejaeghere, Yves. 2014. “Bridging the Ideological Space: A Cross-National Analysis of the Distance of Party Switching.” European Journal of Political Research 53 (3): 580–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dassonneville, Ruth, Feitosa, Fernando, Hooghe, Marc, Lau, Richard R. and Stiers, Dieter. 2019. “Compulsory Voting Rules, Reluctant Voters and Ideological Proximity Voting.” Political Behavior 41 (1): 209–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, Catherine E. and Giger, Nathalie. 2014. “Holding Governments Accountable? Individual Heterogeneity in Performance Voting.” European Journal of Political Research 53 (2): 345–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, Kathleen, Kellstedt, Paul M., Key, Ellen M. and Lebo, Matthew J.. 2019. “Motivated Reasoning, Public Opinion, and Presidential Approval.” Political Behavior: 1–21. doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09539-8.Google Scholar
Döring, Holger and Manow, Philip. 2018. Parliaments and Governments Database (ParlGov): Information on Parties, Elections and Cabinets in Modern Democracies. Development version. http://www.parlgov.org (February 16, 2018).Google Scholar
Duch, Raymond. 2001. “A Developmental Model of Heterogeneous Economic Voting in New Democracies.” American Political Science Review 95 (4): 895–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, Raymond, Palmer, Harvey D. and Anderson, Christopher J.. 2000. “Heterogeneity in Perceptions of National Economic Conditions.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 635–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, Raymond and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2008. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ecker, Alejandro, Glinitzer, Konstantin and Meyer, Thomas M.. 2016. “Corruption Performance Voting and the Electoral Context.” European Political Science Review 8 (3): 333–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey and Andersen, Robert. 2006. “The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 194–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Geoffrey and Pickup, Mark. 2010. “Reversing the Causal Arrow: The Political Conditioning of Economic Perceptions in the 2000–2004 Presidential Election Cycle.” Journal of Politics 72 (4): 1236–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ensley, Michael J. 2007. “Candidate Divergence, Ideology, and Vote Choice in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Politics Research 35 (1): 103–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, Stephen D. and Hobolt, Sarah B.. 2010. “Coalition Government and Electoral Accountability.” Electoral Studies 29 (3): 358–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Michael. 2017. Election indices dataset at https://www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/people/michael_gallagher/ElSystems/index.php (March 26, 2018).Google Scholar
Gasper, John T. and Reeves, Andrew. 2011. “Make It Rain? Retrospection and the Attentive Electorate in the Context of Natural Disasters.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 340–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gélineau, François and Singer, Matthew M.. 2015. “The Economy and Incumbent Support in Latin America.” In The Latin American Voter: Pursuing Representation and Accountability in Challenging Contexts, ed. Carlin, Ryan E., Singer, Matthew M. and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Golder, Matt and Stramski, Jacek. 2010. “Ideological Congruence and Electoral Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jane. 2007. “When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition .” Political Studies 55 (3): 629–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jane and Hobolt, Sarah B.. 2008. “Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections.” Electoral Studies 27 (3): 460–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jane and Jennings, Will. 2012. “The Dynamics of Issue Competence and Vote for Parties in and out of Power: An Analysis of Valence in Britain, 1979–1997.” European Journal of Political Research 51 (4): 469–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, Andrew and Malhotra, Neil. 2013. “Retrospective Voting Reconsidered.” Annual Review of Political Science 16: 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellwig, Timothy T. 2010. “Context, Information, and Performance Voting.” In Citizens, Context, and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices, ed. Dalton, Russell J. and Anderson, Christopher J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sarah B., Tilley, James and Banducci, Susan. 2013. “Clarity of Responsibility: How Government Cohesion Conditions Performance Voting.” European Journal of Political Research 52 (2): 164–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Marc and Stiers, Dieter. 2017. “Do Reluctant Voters Vote Less Accurately? The Effect of Compulsory Voting on Party-Voter Congruence in Australia and Belgium.” Australian Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karol, David and Miguel, Edward. 2007. “The Electoral Cost of War: Iraq Casualties and the 2005 U.S. Presidential Election.” Journal of Politics 69 (3): 633–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayser, Mark A. and Peress, Michael. 2012. “Benchmarking across Borders: Electoral Accountability and the Necessity of Comparison.” American Political Science Review 106 (3): 661–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, Valdimer O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kölln, Ann-Kristin and Polk, Jonathan. 2017. “Emancipated Party Members: Examining Ideological Incongruence within Political Parties.” Party Politics 23 (1): 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachat, Romain. 2008. “The Impact of Party Polarization on Ideological Voting.” Electoral Studies 27 (4): 687–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. and Stegmaier, Mary. 2000. “Economic Determinants of Electoral Outcomes.” Annual Review of Political Science 3 (1): 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. and Stegmaier, Mary. 2007. “Economic Models of Voting.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, ed. Dalton, Russell J. and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam. 2015. “Party Polarization and Mass Partisanship: A Comparative Perspective.” Political Behavior 37 (2): 331–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2014. “‘I Disrespectfully Agree’: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 128–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, Niemi, Richard G. and Yoshinaka, Antoine. 2002. “A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context across Time and Nations.” Electoral Studies 21 (3): 403–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nannestad, Peter and Paldam, Martin. 1994. “The VP-Function: A Survey of the Literature on Vote and Popularity Functions after 25 Years.” Public Choice 79 (3): 213–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardos-Prado, Sergi. 2012. “Valence beyond Consensus: Party Competence and Policy Dispersion from a Comparative Perspective.” Electoral Studies 31 (2): 342–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plescia, Carolina and Kritzinger, Sylvia. 2017. “Retrospective Voting and Party Support at Elections: Credit and Blame for Government and Opposition.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 27 (2): 156–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, Bingham G. and Whitten, Guy D.. 1993. “A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Andrew, Stokes, Susan C. and Manin, Bernard, eds. 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, David, Clarke, Harold D., Stewart, Marianne C. and Whiteley, Paul. 2011. “Downs, Stokes and the Dynamics of Electoral Choice.” British Journal of Political Science 41 (2): 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. and Tavits, Margit. 2016. Clarity of Responsibility, Accountability, and Corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Thiago and Whitten, Guy D.. 2017. “Clarity of Responsibility and Vote Choice.” In The Sage Handbook of Political Behaviour, ed. Arzheimer, Kai, Evans, Jocelyn and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Singer, Matthew M. 2011. “Who Says ‘It's the Economy’? Cross-National and Cross-Individual Variation in the Salience of Economic Performance.” Comparative Political Studies 44 (3): 284–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiers, Dieter. 2018. “Beyond the Distinction Incumbent-Opposition: Retrospective Voting on the Level of Political Parties.” Party Politics: 1–13. doi:0.1177/1354068817744201.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E.1963. “Spatial Models and Party Competition. ” American Political Science Review 57 (2): 368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strøm, Kaare. 2000. “Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 37 (3): 261–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, James and Hobolt, Sarah B.. 2011. “Is the Government to Blame? An Experimental Test of How Partisanship Shapes Perceptions of Performance and Responsibility.” Journal of Politics 73 (3): 316–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitten, Guy D. and Palmer, Harvey D.. 1999. “Cross-National Analyses of Economic Voting.” Electoral Studies 18 (1): 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Laron K., Stegmaier, Mary and Debus, Marc. 2017. “Relaxing the Constant Economic Vote Restriction: Economic Evaluations and Party Support in Germany.” Party Politics 23 (3): 286–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Stiers and Dassonneville supplementary material

Online Appendices

Download Stiers and Dassonneville supplementary material(File)
File 409 KB