Elite Interactions and Voters’ Perceptions of Parties’ Policy Positions

Abstract

Recent research documents that voters infer that governing coalition partners share similar ideologies, independently of these parties’ actual policy statements. We argue that citizens estimate party positions from more general forms of interparty cooperation and conflict, particularly near the times of national elections. We analyze tens of thousands of media reports on elite interactions from 13 Western democracies between 2001 and 2014, and show that—controlling for coalition arrangements and for the policy tones of parties’ election manifestos—voters infer greater left–right agreement between pairs of parties that have more cooperative public relationships, but that this “cooperation effect” is only evident near the times of national elections. Our findings have implications for parties’ policy images and for mass–elite linkages.

What are we voting for? Opposition alliance joint campaigns in electoral autocracies

“…Third, opposition alliance joint campaigns can induce cross-party strategic voting among opposition supporters by reducing the uncertainty around the policy agenda and material consequences of a future opposition-controlled government (Adams et al, 2020; Larreguy et al, 2018). Seen from this perspective, joint campaigns like comprehensive alliance manifestoes are particularly useful.…”

Voter perceptions of parties’ left–right positions: The role of party strategies

“…Second, once this Rubicon is crossed, how do voters learn about party positions? Recent research substantiates that voters learn about parties' policy positions from several sources, such as the media (Somer-Topcu et al, 2020), from elite interactions and debates especially around national elections (Adams et al, 2020), from the ideological formation of governmental coalitions (Fortunato and Stevenson, 2013;Adams et al, 2016), and from party policy statements following a major leadership change (Fernandez-Vazquez and Somer-Topcu, 2019). What all these studies have in common is placing the party at the center of the voter's perception and information.…”

“…Indeed, Andersen et al (2005) introduce evidence from British elections that voters' information about party policy positions peaked around times of elections. Likewise, Adams et al (2020) demonstrate that voters pay closer attention to inter-elite rhetoric around elections times and update their perceptions of party positions accordingly (see also Hansen and Pedersen 2014). 2 Thus, even if the voter may receive information throughout the year through, for instance, following the news (Merkley and Stecula, 2020), it seems more warranted to expect the voter's attention to politics to boost around election periods.…”

“…The party that de-emphasizes or ignores a given issue (i.e., avoidance), embraces a conflicting position by emphasizing two opposite sides (i.e., ambivalence), or entirely beclouds its position on the issue say by not committing to precise policies (i.e., ambiguity) will induce the voter to pay less attention to it when making inferences about the party's left-right ideology. Since voters take their cues from parties to reduce information cost (Zaller, 1992) especially during election times (Gelman and King, 1993;Andersen et al, 2005;Adams et al, 2020), parties can manage the issues underlying their left-right position by strategically employing these tactics.…”

Legislative Review and Party Differentiation in Coalition Governments

“…These records are vital resources for understanding politics in general and the policymaking process in particular in both scholarly research (e.g., Martin and Vanberg 2011) and popular press (e.g., Lund 2013). Increasing conflict in the review process is quite likely to make for a more antagonistic tone in media reports of party interactions and new research cataloging the effects of this reporting on party interactions (such as the review process) suggests that these behaviors do, in fact, substantially shape media narrative on politics and that voters receive and assimilate these messages into their perceptions (Adams, Weschle, and Wlezien 2016). Taken together with Fortunato (2017), the research suggests that differentiation strategies may help mitigate electoral losses.…”