Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

The Role of Party Identification in Spatial Models of Voting Choice

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
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

James Adams . 2001. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based Upon Insights from Behavioral Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

James F. Adams , Samuel Merrill III , and Bernard Grofman . 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition. A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Shelly Chaiken . 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.

Lawrence Ezrow . 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.

Susan T. Fiske , and Steven L. Neuberg . 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.

Torben Iversen . 1994. ‘Political Leadership and Representation in West European Democracies: A Test of Three Models of Voting’. American Journal of Political Science 38(1):4574.

Stephen A. Jessee 2010. ‘Partisan Bias, Political Information, and Spatial Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election’. The Journal of Politics 72(2):327340.

Richard Johnston . 2006. ‘Party Identification: Unmoved Mover or Sum of Preferences?Annual Review of Political Science 9:329351.

Kathleen Knight . 1985. ‘Ideology in the 1980 Election: Ideological Sophistication Does Matter’. Journal of Politics 47(3):828853.

Romain Lachat . 2008. ‘The Impact of Party Polarization on Ideological Voting’. Electoral Studies 27(4):687698.

Romain Lachat . 2011. ‘Electoral Competitiveness and Issue Voting’. Political Behavior 33(4):645663.

G. S Maddala . 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Samuel Merrill III , and Bernard Grofman . 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Roy Pierce . 1997. ‘Directional Versus Proximity Models: Verisimilitude as the Criterion’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 9(1):6174.

Jr. G. Bingham Powell . 2004. ‘Political Representation in Comparative Politics’. Annual Review of Political Science 7:273296.

Norman Schofield . 2004. ‘Equilibrium in the Spatial “Valence” Model of Politics’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16(4):447481.

Norman Schofield , and Itai Sened . 2005. ‘Modeling the Interaction of Parties, Activists, and Voters: Why is the Political Center So Empty?European Journal of Political Research 44(3):355390.

Norman Schofield , and Itai Sened . 2006. Multiparty Democracy: Elections and Legislative Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Shane P Singh . 2014. ‘Linear and Quadratic Utility Loss Functions in Voting Behavior Research’. Journal of Theoretical Politics 26(1):3558.

Jacques Thomassen , and Hermann Schmitt . 1997. ‘Policy Representation’. European Journal of Political Research 32(2):165184.

Cees Van der Eijk , Wouter van der Brug , Martin Kroh , and Mark Franklin . 2006. ‘Rethinking the Dependent Variable in Voting Behavior: On the Measurement and Analysis of Electoral Utilities’. Electoral Studies 25(3):424447.

Aaron C Weinschenk . 2010. ‘Revisiting the Political Theory of Party Identification’. Political Behavior 32(4):473494.

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: 3
Total number of PDF views: 49 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 205 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.