Party elites’ perceptions of voting behaviour

Abstract

We propose a framework for analysing party elite perceptions of voting behaviour based on four party competition and voting behaviour models: the Downsian proximity, saliency, competence and directional models. We analyse whether and to what extent party elite perceptions support these theories of party competition and voting behaviour. Empirical analysis is based solely on internal party documents from two Swedish parties, the Social Democrats and the Conservatives, from 1964 to 1988/1991. We demonstrate that elements of all four party competition models have characterized Swedish party elite thinking and reasoning about voting behaviour in recent decades. Discussion in the Social Democratic elite was most in line with Downs' model. Until the mid-1970s, Downs' model tended to be combined with the competence model and thereafter with the saliency model. The Conservative elite clearly favoured the salience and competence models until the early 1970s and the saliency and Downs' models since then.

Do campaign strategies and tactics matter? Exploring party elite perceptions of what matters when explaining election outcomes

“…Campaign strategies and tactics may matter and in some cases be perceived as important but not as important as the substance of politics or the political leadership. In this respect, the results support research that emphasizes the importance of core political factors when explaining election outcomes, and fit with previous research on party elites' perceptions (Ekengren and Oscarsson, ).…”

“…Despite this, there is virtually no research on party elites and their perceptions or working theories of voting behavior. The only exception is a couple of studies by Ekengren and Oscarsson (), based on internal documents from the two major Swedish parties, the Social Democratic party and the Conservative party, between 1964 and 1991. These studies suggest that both parties tend to perceive voters as mainly coherent and predictable, driven by overall rather stable predispositions, and as generally speaking well‐informed and interested in politics.…”

“…Despite this, and despite extensive research on political marketing and parties' use of different campaign strategies and tactics (Harris et al , ; Newman, ; Baines et al , ; O'Shaughnessy and Henneberg, ; Johnson, ; Lees‐Marshment, ), there is virtually no research on party elite perceptions of voting behavior or the importance of campaign strategies and tactics when explaining election outcomes (Rohrschneider, ; Ekengren and Oscarsson, ). After every election, a number of books are usually published, analyzing the campaigns and the outcomes, but to the extent that these deal with campaign strategies and techniques, they often rest on personal experiences and anecdotal, rather than systematic, evidence.…”

How parties compete for votes: A test of saliency theory

“…While it makes no sense for parties to endorse minority positions when facing only one competitor, in a multiparty system this may be an electorally viable strategy at least for some parties (e.g., Wagner ). Moreover, recent empirical work has challenged the view that party elites adhere to a ‘saliency perception’ of voting behaviour (Ekengren & Oscarsson ).…”

In Search of the Americanization: Candidates and Political Campaigns in European General Election

“…We must do not forget that "party elites need to have some working theory about what matters to voters when they cast their votes" (Str€ omb€ ack, Grandien, and Falasca 2013, 42). Analysis of their perception is fundamental to understand strategic actions: candidates and parties plan campaign action looking at imagined profile of electors (Ekengren and Oscarsson 2011a). It is possible also to identify and to differentiate "working theory of voting behavior" (Ekengren and Oscarsson 2011b) for single candidate.…”