Party organizational change and leader effects on voting behavior: Linking the electoral and party faces of presidentialization

Silva, Frederico Ferreira da

doi:10.1177/1354068819893511

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While candidates have always been prominent in presidential regimes, a trend toward presidentialization has also been detected in parliamentary democracies (Poguntke and Webb 2007). Empirical manifestations of this can be found in the enhanced relevance of candidates in the media (Langer 2007), internal party organization, and voting decision processes (Ferreira da Silva 2021). For many voters, leaders have now become the main reference through which they relate to politics (Garzia, Ferreira da Silva, and De Angelis 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Affective Polarization toward Parties and Leaders across the Democratic World

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research indicates that affective polarization pervades contemporary democracies worldwide. Although some studies identify party leaders as polarizing agents, affective polarization has been predominantly conceptualized as a product of in-/out-party feelings. This study compares levels of party affective polarization (PAP) and leader affective polarization (LAP) cross-nationally, using data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems. Applying like–dislike scales and an identical index to both concepts, we reveal that while the two strongly correlate, LAP is systematically lower than PAP. The United States emerges as an exceptional case, being the only country where LAP significantly exceeds PAP. Drawing on regime input/output and institutions as theoretical building blocks, we explore cross-national variations and show that the relative strength of LAP vis-à-vis PAP is increased by presidential regime type, poor government performance, and low party system fragmentation. The findings of this study contribute to the thriving research on affective polarization and personalization of politics.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Affective Polarization toward Parties and Leaders across the Democratic World

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other scholars argue that it is the change in the role of party leaders in the governing process and in the electoral campaigns that drive these changes (Garzia, Ferreira Da Silva, and De Angelis 2022). According to this argument, in recent years, we witnessed a concentration of party leader's power both within the government (e.g., the position of prime minister) and the party itself (Ferreira Da Silva 2021).…”

Section: From Party To Bloc Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of social model factors on voting behavior: Uncovering and capturing bloc predisposition

Volodarsky

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do voters decide which parties to support in multi-party democracies? The prevalent explanation is that stable social model factorssocial class, residence, religiosity, and otherspredispose voters to choose a specific party. This theory is hard to reconcile with the growing rates of electoral volatility and decline of partisanship. Some scholars suggested that these changes mean that the short-term factorsevaluation of the economic performance or individual appeal of the party leaderare gaining more power while the impact of social model factors is weakening.In this research, I challenge this argument and advance a new theory that argues that social model factors can impact voters' decisions even when they do not push them to vote for a specific party. In addition to the well-known party predisposition, I argue that the social model factors can create a bloc predisposition, which is undertheorized and understudied in previous research. Specifically, I argue that social model factors can produce either strong party predisposition, bloc predisposition (e.g., left, right, center), or have no effect at all. The effect of social model factors also determines whether and how much influence the short-term factors will have on the voter's decision to switch parties. Those voters for whom the social model produces strong party predisposition would have the highest immunity to short-term factors.Those voters who have strong bloc predisposition will be somewhat sensitive to short-term considerations when choosing a party within a particular bloc. The voters whose choice is not determined by the social model will be mostly driven by short-term factors. This research advances the new conceptualization of these three types of votersparty-aligned, bloc-aligned, and de-aligned. Party-aligned voters are less likely to switch, bloc-aligned may switch parties, but only within one political bloc, and de-aligned voters are most likely to switch parties and blocs between the elections.

show abstract

Do populists practise what they preach? Intra-party democracy in populist parties

Lisi

2024

International Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Populist parties are often described as highly centralised and personalistic, with low levels of party institutionalisation. However, there have been few empirical studies to assess the features of decision-making processes within this party family. This study aims to address this gap by examining the extent to which the internal distribution of power varies within populist parties. The Political Party Database is used to systematically compare Eastern and Western European parties in terms of intra-party democracy and the powers given to party leaders. The results suggest that although populist parties differ from non-populist parties in that they grant more power to their leaders, they are less likely to rely on plebiscitary and deliberative decision-making processes. In addition, the findings reveal that while the degree of leadership centralisation and plebiscitary decision making varies by region and ideological background, there are no differences between older and new populist parties.

show abstract

Party organizational change and leader effects on voting behavior: Linking the electoral and party faces of presidentialization

Cited by 4 publications

References 40 publications

Patterns of Affective Polarization toward Parties and Leaders across the Democratic World

Patterns of Affective Polarization toward Parties and Leaders across the Democratic World

The impact of social model factors on voting behavior: Uncovering and capturing bloc predisposition

Do populists practise what they preach? Intra-party democracy in populist parties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About