Affective polarization captures the extent to which citizens feel sympathy towards partisan in-groups and antagonism towards partisan out-groups. This is comparatively easy to assess in two-party systems, but capturing the pattern of affect towards multiple parties is more complex in multiparty systems. This paper first discusses these challenges and then presents different ways of measuring individuallevel affective polarization using like-dislike scores, a widespread measure of party sympathy. Using data for 51 countries and 166 elections from five modules of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, I then show that affective polarization adds to existing concepts as a way of understanding political participation and democratic orientations. Studying affective polarization outside the US could therefore have important consequences for our understanding of citizen perceptions of politics as well as citizen behaviour, but we need the appropriate measures to do so.

Various scholars have recently argued that niche parties are to be distinguished from mainstream parties, in particular because the two party types differ in their programmes, behaviour and strategies. However, so far there has been no attempt to provide a concise, measureable definition of the niche-party concept. In this article I argue that niche parties are best defined as parties that compete primarily on a small number of non-economic issues. The occurrence of niche parties is then operationalized and measured using issue salience information provided by expert surveys and manifesto data. After comparing the findings with existing definitions, the main characteristics of the niche parties identified are examined in a final step.

No abstract

No abstract

Parties have an incentive to take up extreme positions in order to achieve policy differentiation and issue ownership, and it would make sense for a party to stress these positions as well. These incentives are not the same for all issues and all parties but may be modified by other strategic conditions: party size, party system size, positional distinctiveness and systemic salience. Using manifesto‐based measures of salience and expert assessments of party positions, the findings in this article are that parties emphasise extreme positions if, first, they are relatively small in terms of vote share; second, the extreme position is distinctive from those of other parties; and third, other parties fail to emphasise the issue. These findings have consequences for our understanding of party strategies, party competition and the radicalisation of political debates.