Shifts of meaning within explanations of voting and party competition

Rational choice models are increasingly used in explanations of voting and elections. Their adoption is often urged, rather uncritically, on the grounds that they provide a unified and exact explanation across political science. Far from doing so, however, their definitions of ‘rationality’ may differ radically even within a limited area, such as party and voting behaviour. Shifts of meaning from one model to another may be obscured by mathematical formalism, which concentrates attention on the derivation of conclusions from basic assumptions, rather than on the practical relevance of their relationship to the assumptions behind other models. A mathematical formulation may not, however, be the most relevant for purposes of electoral explanation. Rigorous verbal formulations can represent electors' and politicians' decision procedures more realistically, while remaining generally accessible and supporting detailed inter-comparisons of their working assumptions. Through these, rational choice explanations can be brought closer together and decisions between them made with a clear knowledge of what is involved, thus providing a better basis for cumulative research. The process of theoretical evaluation and assimilation is illustrated here with two original theories of voting and party competition.     

Conceptualising and measuring ‘centrism’ correctly on the Left–Right scale (RILE) - without systematic bias. A general response by MARPOR

The purpose of this response is to point out that claims of undue centrism in the MARPOR data are directly contradicted by its use to correct centrism in other leading policy measures including expert surveys.     

Jettisoning Illusions About the Median Mandate

We endorse G. Bingham Powell's cautionary corrective to challenge Paul Warwick's conclusions that the median mandate thesis needs to be jettisoned because there is not a close match between median voter and government left‐right positions. More to the point, however, we go beyond Powell's mild caution to challenge Warwick's rejection more assertively and thoroughly. We show his rejection mistakes responsiveness for congruence, misapprehends how and why the median mandate thesis distinguishes between those two concepts, and fails to take account of a measurement artifact associated with his survey data.     

Expert judgements of party policy positions: Uses and limitations in political research

European Journal of Political Research -     

Choice versus sensitivity: Party reactions to public concerns

Abstract.  Most discussions of democratic theory assume that parties should offer clear choices to voters but also show themselves sensitive to public concerns. Under certain circumstances, however, party convergence on these may preclude electoral choice, thus creating conflict between two democratic 'goods'. We examine possible tradeoffs between choice and responsiveness, and see which actually occur in 16 postwar democracies. Party policy positions turn out to be more strongly related to party ideology than popular concerns, thus privileging differentiation and choice over sensitivity and responsiveness. Implications for democratic theory and practice are considered.     

Issue Emphases,Saliency Theory and Issue Ownership: A Historical and Conceptual Analysis

Saliency approaches derive from the basic idea that political parties define their policies by emphasising certain topics more than others, particularly in public documents and debates. However, the approaches diverge on whether parties always emphasise the same ‘owned’ issues or can emphasise different ones in different elections with a view to winning votes. The article explores the way these differences developed and summarises them in a typology of ‘issue ownerships’, within which models linking ‘ownership’ to election outcomes can be located.     

Electoral volatility: Issue effects and basic change in 23 post-war democracies

Growing differences between party votes in successive elections have raised the possibility that party systems are undergoing fundamental change. This cannot be settled until aggregate vote differences are separated into those normally produced by new issues and candidates, and those reflecting an erosion of core support. A saliency theory of party competition and electoral response is used to quantify net shifts in voting produced by issues identified on the basis of campaign reports. Estimates are validated by comparison with others produced on different assumptions and through their success in predicting election results in ten countries. By ‘controlling’ these issue effects we can estimate Basic Votes for each party and election and see whether they have changed.     

Party government in 20 Democracies: an update (1990–1995)

Abstract. The country tables of the data collection 'Political Data 1945–1990. Party Government in 20 Democracies' (European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 24, No. 1 (July 1993), pp. 1–119) are updated and corrected to the end of 1995. Errors and omissions on the level of separate Ministers and/or Ministries have been corrected as well. These are listed as 'changes/corrections' in the corresponding tables in the original data collection.