Issues and Party Support in Multiparty Systems

Abstract

We investigate the relationship between party issue position and mass evaluation of political parties in multiparty systems. In so doing, we engage two competing theories of mass-elite linkage: the directional theory and the traditional spatial theory of elections. The alternate models are evaluated with survey data gathered in Norway in 1989. The data collection is unique in providing extensive information on the issue positions of all parties with potential for achieving representation in the parliament. Results suggest that the directional theory provides a better description of the relationship. Consistent with directional theory, we find that when parties occupy a centrist position on an issue they are not evaluated on the basis of that issue. Voters neither love nor hate a party in the middle. Thus, in order to build support on the basis of issues, parties must offer some strong stands.

Adapting to party lines: the effect of party affiliation on attitudes to immigration

“…Parties that hold views that are more extreme on an issue dimension thus have the advantage of conveying messages in a more consistent and credible manner (Macdonald et al 1991;Rabinowitz and Macdonald 1989;Westholm 1997). A voter who holds the immigration issue to be one of the more salient issues might therefore choose to support a party holding a flank position on this dimension.…”

The other ‘other’: Party responses to immigration in eastern Europe

“…Here '[p]arties can be thought to differ in intensity based on how clearly they present their views and the extent to which they stress the issue. Party intensity serves as a means of exciting voter interest and attention ' (MacDonald et al, 1991' (MacDonald et al, , p. 1109. 'Intensity', can be understood as both heightened issue salience, and extreme issue positioning.…”

Is Consensual Politicizing Being Punished in Switzerland?

“…The directional model, first proposed by Rabinowitz and Macdonald (1989) (see also Macdonald et al 1991Macdonald et al , 1998Macdonald et al , 2001, assumes, on the other hand, that the voters prefer candidates or parties that lie "on their side" of the political spectrum, even if the candidates or parties might hold a rather extreme position. 4 The development of this theory had been motivated by the stylized fact that successful candidates were not always choosing moderate policy platforms.…”

“…Most prominent, in this regard, is the series of articles that evolved as a reaction to the introduction of the challenging theory by Rabinowitz and Macdonald (1989) and subsequent empirical confirmation based on survey data measuring the evaluation of parties' positions ("thermometer scores"). The series of articles on this new approach (Macdonald et al 1991(Macdonald et al , 1995Listhaug et al 1994aListhaug et al , 1994bMacdonald and Rabinowitz 1993) received fundamental critic by Westholm (1997) (see also Westholm 2001). Since both sides examined multiparty elections they had to come up with a data-matrix that contains for each individual as many observations as there are parties.…”

“…Since both sides examined multiparty elections they had to come up with a data-matrix that contains for each individual as many observations as there are parties. Macdonald et al (1991) assume that voters' evaluations of parties can be compared across voters. Therefore, they employ mean candidate placements and try to control for party fixed-effects.…”