Voter Polarization, Strength of Partisanship, and Support for Extremist Parties
Abstract
In this study, we evaluate how voter polarization and the level of partisanship influence electoral outcomes. We show that when the level of partisanship is low, the polarization of voter preferences translates into popular support for extreme parties. In contrast, longstanding attachments to mainstream (moderate) parties dampen the relationship between voter polarization and support for extreme parties. The implication of these findings is that the lack of voter attachment to parties contributes to extreme party competition, while strong attachment can help reduce party extremism even if electorates are polarized.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Abney R., Adams J., Clark M., Easton M., Ezrow L., Kosmidis S., Neundorf A. (2013). When does valence matter? Heightened valence effects for governing parties during election campaigns. Party Politics, 19, 61-82.
Achen C. (1978). Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 475-510.
Achen C. (2002). Parental socialization and rational party identification. Political Behavior, 24, 151-170.
Adams J. (2001a). Party competition and responsible party government. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Adams J. (2001b). A theory of spatial competition with biased voters: Party policies viewed temporally and comparatively. British Journal of Political Science, 31, 121-158.
Adams J., Merrill S. III. (2009). Policy-seeking parties in a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation: A valence-uncertainty model. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 539-558.
Adams J., Merrill S. III, Grofman B. (2005). A unified theory of party competition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ansolabehere S., Snyder J., Stewart C. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S. house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 136-159.
Bartels L. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 35-50.
Binder L. (2003, August). Identity, culture, and collective action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Brader T., Tucker J. (April, 2007). Reflective and unreflective partisans? Experimental evidence on the links between information, opinion, and party identification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
Brader T., Tucker J. (2009). What’s left behind when the party’s over: Survey experiments on the effects of partisan cues in Putin’s Russia. Politics & Policy, 37, 843-868.
Brader T., Tucker J. (2011). Follow the leader: Party cues, policy opinion, and the power of partisanship in three multiparty systems (Working Paper Series, Estudio/Working Paper 2011/256). Madrid, Spain: Juan March Foundation, Center for Advanced Study in the Social Science.
Brader T., Tucker J., Duell D. (2010, August). Who’s the life of the party? The impact of personal and party traits on partisan cue-taking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
Budge I. (1994). A new theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology, and policy equilibria viewed temporally and comparatively. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 443-467.
Burden B. (2001, March). Choices and echoes in U.S. house elections. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Public Choice Society, San Antonio, TX.
Calvo E., Hellwig T. (2011). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives under different electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 27-41.
Campbell A., Converse C., Miller W., Stokes D. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: Wiley.
Canes-Wrone B., Brady D., Cogan J. (2002). Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review, 96, 127-140.
Clark M. (2009). Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies, 28, 111-122.
Cohen G. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808-822.
Converse P. (1969). Of time and partisan stability. Comparative Political Studies, 2, 139-171.
Cox G. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 905-935.
Dalton R. (2006). Social modernization and the end of ideology debate: Patterns of ideological polarization. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 7, 1-22.
Dalton R. (2008). The quantity and the quality of party systems: Party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 899-920.
Dalton R., Weldon S. (2007). Partisanship and party system institutionalization. Party Politics, 13, 179-196.
Dow J. (2001). A comparative spatial analysis of majoritarian and proportional elections. Electoral Studies, 20, 109-125.
Dow J. (2011). Party-system extremism in majoritarian and proportional electoral systems. British Journal of Political Science, 41, 341-361.
Downs A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
Duclos J.-Y., Esteban J., Ray D. (2004). Polarization: Concepts, measurement, estimation. Econometrica, 72, 1737-1772.
Erikson R., MacKuen M., Stimson J. (2002). The macro polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Erikson R., Wright G. (1997). Voters, candidates, and issues in congressional elections. In Dodd L., Oppenheimer B. (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (6th ed.) pp. 132-162. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Ezrow L. (2005). Are moderate parties rewarded in multiparty systems? A pooled analysis of Western European elections, 1984–1998. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 881-898.
Ezrow L. (2007). The variance matters: How party systems represent the preferences of voters. Journal of Politics, 69, 182-192.
Ezrow L. (2010). Linking citizens and parties: How electoral systems matter for political representation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ezrow L., Homola J., Tavits M. (in press). When extremism pays: Policy positions, voter certainty, and party support in postcommunist Europe. Journal of Politics.
Ezrow L., Xezonakis G. (2011). Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1152-1178.
Ferejohn J., Kuklinski J. (1990). Information and democratic processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Fiorina M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fiorina M., Abrams S., Pope J. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York, IL: Pearson Education.
Frye T. (2010). Building states and markets after communism: The perils of polarized democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gallagher M., Laver M., Mair P. (2011). Representative government in modern Europe. London, England: McGraw-Hill.
Green D. P., Palmquist B., Schickler E. (2005). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Groseclose T. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 862-886.
Hibbs D. A. (1973). Mass political violence. New York, NY: Wiley.
Huber J., Kernell G., Leoni E. (2005). Institutional context, cognitive resources and party attachments across democracies. Political Analysis, 13, 365-386.
Jamieson K., Falk E. (2000). Continuity and change in civility in the house. In Bond J., Fleisher R. (Eds.), Polarized politics: Congress and the President in a Partisan era (pp. 96-108). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Jones D. (2001). Party polarization and legislative gridlock. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 125-141.
Kriesi H., Grande E., Lachat R., Dolezal M., Bornschier S., Frey T. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Laakso M., Taagepera R. (1979). “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12, 3-27.
Lau R., Redlawsk D. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951-971.
Laver M. (2005). Policy and the dynamics of political competition. American Political Science Review, 99, 263-281.
Layman G., Carsey T., Horowitz J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83-110.
Lewis-Beck M. (1988). Economics and elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Linz J. J. (1978). Crisis, breakdown and reequilibration. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lupia A., McCubbins M. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lupia A., McCubbins M., Popkin S. (2000). Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lupu N. (2012). Elite polarization and voter partisanship: A comparative perspective. Unpublished manuscript.
Lupu N. (2013). Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 49-64.
Mainwaring S., Torcal M. (2006). Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization. In Katz R. S., Crotty W. (Eds.), Handbook of party politics (pp. 204-227). London, England: Sage.
Marks G., Hooghe L., Nelson M., Edwards E. (2006). Party competition and European integration in the East and West: Different structure, same causality. Comparative Political Studies, 39, 155-175.
McCarty N., Poole K., Rosenthal H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of political ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Merolla J., Stephenson L., Zechmeister E. (2008). Can Canadians take a hint? The (in)effectiveness of party labels as information shortcuts in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41, 673-696.
Merrill S. III, Adams J. (2002). Centrifugal incentives in multi-candidate elections. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14, 275-300.
Miller W. (1991). Party identification, realignment, and party voting: Back to basics. American Political Science Review, 85, 557-568.
Miller W., Shanks J. M. (1996). The new American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nagel J., Wlezien C. (2010). Centre-party strength and major-party divergence in Britain, 1945–2005. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 279-304.
Neckerman K., Torche F. (2007). Inequality: Causes and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 335-357.
Paldam M. (1991). How robust is the vote function? A study of seventeen nations over four decades. In Norpoth H., Lewis-Beck M., Lafay J.-D. (Eds.), The economics of politics: The calculus of support (pp. 9-31). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Popkin S. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Powell B. (1982). Contemporary democracies: Participation, stability and violence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Powell B. (1986). Extremist parties and political turmoil: Two puzzles. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 357-378.
Powell B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Powell B., Whitten G. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of political context. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 391-414.
Rahn W. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472-496.
Rohrschneider R., Whitefield S. (2009). Understanding cleavages in party systems: Issue position and issue salience in 13 post-communist democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 280-313.
Rohrschneider R., Whitefield S. (2012a). Institutional context and representational strain in party–voter agreement in Western and Eastern Europe. West European Politics, 35, 1320-1340.
Rohrschneider R., Whitefield S. (2012b). The strain of representation: How parties represent diverse voters in Western and Eastern Europe. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sanders D., Norris P. (1998). Does negative news matter? The effect of television news on party images in the 1997 British general election. British Elections and Parties Yearbook, 8, 150-170.
Sani G., Sartori G. (1983). Polarization, fragmentation and competition in Western democracies. In Daalder H., Mair P. (Eds.), Western European party systems (pp. 307-340). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Shea D. (2003). Schattschneider’s dismay: Strong parties and alienated voters. In Green J., Shea D. (Eds.), The state of the parties: The changing role of contemporary American parties (pp. 287-299). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Sinclair B. (2001, August). Structure, preferences, and outcomes: Explaining when bills do and don’t become law. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
Tavits M. (2007). Principle vs. Pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 151-165.
Valenzuela A. (1978). The breakdown of democratic regimes: Chile. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zaller J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Biographies
Lawrence Ezrow is a professor in the Department of Government at the University of Essex. His research interests are in comparative political representation and party strategies in elections. He has published Linking Citizens and Parties (2010, Oxford University Press), and his articles have been published in the American Journal of Political Science, British Journal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, Journal of Politics, World Politics, and other journals.
Margit Tavits is an associate professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis. Her research interests include party politics, political institutions, postcommunist democracies, and corruption. She is the author of Presidents With Prime Ministers (2008, Oxford University Press) and Postcommunist Democracies and Party Organization (2013, Cambridge University Press). Her work has also appeared in the American Journal of Political Science, American Political Science Review, British Journal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, Journal of Politics, and other journals.
Jonathan Homola is a PhD student in Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis. He received an MA degree at the University of Essex and completed his undergraduate studies at Freie Universität Berlin, where he also worked for the Manifesto Project at the Social Science Research Centre (WZB). His previous research is forthcoming in the Journal of Politics.
Cite
Cite
Cite
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: December 31, 2013
Issue published: September 2014
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Comparative Political Studies.
View All Journal MetricsPublication usage*
Total views and downloads: 3698
*Publication usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Publications citing this one
Receive email alerts when this publication is cited
Web of Science: 52 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 60
- Representation & Compromise
- Extreme attitudes as drivers of radical-right support: analysis of PRRP electorates in the Iberian Peninsula
- IPSA Companion to Political Science
- How Bad Can It Get? Polarization and the Public Interest When It Matters
- When democratic experience distorts democracy: Citizen reactions to undemocratic incumbent behaviour
- Voter polarisation and party responsiveness: Why parties emphasise divided issues, but remain silent on unified issues
- Political polarization, state capacity, and economic growth
- Voters' Perceptions of Party Brands
- Party brands, issue salience, and electoral volatility
- ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİ DÜZEYİNDE SİYASAL KUTUPLAŞMANIN BELİRLENMESİ: BİGA İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ ÖRNEĞİ
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
