Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Role of Party Identification in Spatial Models of Voting Choice

  • Romain Lachat
Abstract

Party identification and issue preferences are central explanatory factors in many voting choice models. Their effects on party preferences are usually understood to be additive. That is, issue preferences’ impact on party utilities is assumed to be the same among both party identifiers and nonidentifiers. This article suggests an alternative model in which party identification moderates the impact of issues on the vote. The impact of issue preferences on party utilities should be weaker among voters who identify with a party. This hypothesis is tested using data from four recent Dutch election studies. The results show that identifying with a party substantially weakens the issue preference effect on party evaluations, particularly for the party with which a voter identifies.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Serra Húnter Professor, Department of Political and Social Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Ramon Trias Fargas 25–27, 08005 Barcelona, Spain (romain.lachat@upf.edu). This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grants PBZH1-114601 and PZ-121606). I thank Bruno Arpino, Sylvia Kritzinger, Lucas Leeman, Peter Selb, Wouter van der Brug and the anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments on previous versions. All errors remain my own. Online appendices are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.2

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Adams, James. 2001. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based Upon Insights from Behavioral Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Adams, James F., Merrill III, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Chaiken, Shelly. 1980. ‘Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(5):752766.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Duch, Raymond M., May, Jeff, and Armstrong II, David A.. 2010. ‘Coalition-Directed Voting in Multiparty Democracies’. American Political Science Review 104(4):698719.
Eagly, Alice H., and Chaiken, Shelly. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Erikson, Robert S., and Romero, David W.. 1990. ‘Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Vote’. American Political Science Review 84(4):11031126.
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2005. ‘Are Moderate Parties Rewarded in Multiparty Systems? A Pooled Analysis of Western European Elections, 1984–1998’. European Journal of Political Research 44(6):881898.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fiske, Susan T., and Taylor, Shelley E.. 1991. Social Cognition, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, Susan T., and Neuberg, Steven L.. 1990. ‘A Continuum of Impression Formation from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation’. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 23:174.
Green, Donald, Palmquist, Bradley, and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Grynaviski, Jefferey D., and Corrigan, Bryce E.. 2006. ‘Specification Issues in Proximity Models of Candidate Evaluation (with Issue Importance)’. Political Analysis 14:393420.
Iversen, Torben. 1994. ‘Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting’. American Journal of Political Science 38(1):4574.
Jessee, Stephen A. 2010. ‘Partisan Bias, Political Information, and Spatial Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election’. The Journal of Politics 72(2):327340.
Johnston, Richard. 2006. ‘Party Identification: Unmoved Mover or Sum of Preferences?Annual Review of Political Science 9:329351.
Kedar, Orit. 2005. ‘When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections’. American Political Science Review 99(2):185199.
Knight, Kathleen. 1985. ‘Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication Does Matter’. Journal of Politics 47(3):828853.
Lachat, Romain. 2008. ‘The Impact of Party Polarization on Ideological Voting’. Electoral Studies 27(4):687698.
Lachat, Romain. 2011. ‘Electoral Competitiveness and Issue Voting’. Political Behavior 33(4):645663.
Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen M., and Stroh, Patrick. 1989. ‘An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation’. American Political Science Review 83(2):399419.
Lodge, Milton, and Stroh, Patrick. 1993. ‘Inside the Mental Voting Booth: An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation’. In Shanto Iyengar and William J. McGuire (eds), Explorations in Political Psychology, 225263. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Rabinowitz, George, and Listhaug, Ola. 1995. ‘Political Sophistication and Models of Issue Voting’. British Journal of Political Science 25(4):453483.
Macdonald, Stuart Elaine, Listhaug, Ola, and Rabinowitz, George. 1991. ‘Issues and Party Support in Multiparty Systems’. American Political Science Review 85(4):11071131.
Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Merrill III, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, Warren E., and Shanks, J. Merrill. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pierce, Roy. 1997. ‘Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(1):6174.
Powell, Jr. G. Bingham. 2004. ‘Political Representation in Comparative Politics’. Annual Review of Political Science 7:273296.
Powers, Daniel A., and Xie, Yu. 2000. Statistical Methods for Categorical Data Analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rabinowitz, George, and Macdonald, Stuart Elaine. 1989. ‘A Directional Theory of Issue Voting’. American Political Science Review 83(1):93121.
Schofield, Norman. 2004. ‘Equilibrium in the Spatial “Valence” Model of Politics’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(4):447481.
Schofield, Norman, and Sened, Itai. 2005. ‘Modeling the Interaction of Parties, Activists, and Voters: Why is the Political Center So Empty?European Journal of Political Research 44(3):355390.
Schofield, Norman, and Sened, Itai. 2006. Multiparty Democracy: Elections and Legislative Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Singh, Shane P. 2014. ‘Linear and Quadratic Utility Loss Functions in Voting Behavior Research’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 26(1):3558.
Thomassen, Jacques, and Schmitt, Hermann. 1997. ‘Policy Representation’. European Journal of Political Research 32(2):165184.
Tillie, Jean. 1995. Party Utility and Voting Behavior. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Van der Eijk, Cees, and Marsh, Michael. 2007. ‘Don’t Expect Me to Vote for You Just Because I Like You, Even If You Do Make Me Feel Warm Inside: A Comparison of the Validity of Non-Ipsative Measures of Party Support’. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 29 August – 1 September 2007, Chicago, IL.
Van der Eijk, Cees, van der Brug, Wouter, Kroh, Martin, and Franklin, Mark. 2006. ‘Rethinking the Dependent Variable in Voting Behavior: On the Measurement and Analysis of Electoral Utilities’. Electoral Studies 25(3):424447.
Weinschenk, Aaron C. 2010. ‘Revisiting the Political Theory of Party Identification’. Political Behavior 32(4):473494.
Westholm, Anders. 1997. ‘Distance Versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice’. American Political Science Review 91(4):865883.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Science Research and Methods
  • ISSN: 2049-8470
  • EISSN: 2049-8489
  • URL: /core/journals/political-science-research-and-methods
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Lachat Dataset
Dataset

 Unknown

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 94 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 416 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd May 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.