Political values count but issue ownership decides? How stable and dynamic factors influence party set and vote choice in multiparty systems

Abstract

This article addresses the relationship between latent predispositions and political campaign communication. We propose that political values are decisive in a voter's calculation of which parties she may consider voting for, constituting his or her party set. Furthermore, we argue that the theory of issue ownership contributes to explaining the choice of party within the party set. In addition to investigating salient single issue ownership, we relate issue ownership to parties presenting voters with comprehensive policy packages and study the effect of cumulative issue ownership, that is, issue ownership in several policy areas. We test the hypotheses using data from the Norwegian Election Study of 2009. Our findings support our expectations: stable elements affect which parties are included in the party set, and issue ownership affect the choice between the parties within the set. However, political values also affect the choice between parties in the set. Finally, our data show that cumulative issue ownership has a greater effect than issue ownership of one particularly salient issue. The final section of the article discusses the implications for the theory of issue ownership in general and the model presented in this article in particular.

How (often) do voters change their consideration sets?

“…Studies that applied this model to voting behaviour typically ignored the awareness set, as well as the distinction between consideration set and choice set. Consequently, two phases in the vote choice process are distinguished: a consideration stage, in which voters select one or more viable alternatives from the available options (e.g., all competing political parties or candidates), and a choice stage, in which they select one party (or candidate) from within the consideration set (see e.g., Karlsen & Aardal, 2016;Oskarson et al, 2016;Schmitt-Beck & Partheymüller, 2016). Some voters may regard only one party or candidate as a serious option and then the consideration set is identical to the final choice.…”

“…An interesting aspect of consideration set models is that in both phases consumers and voters can be influenced by different factors (Gensch, 1987;Karlsen & Aardal, 2016). On the basis of the large body of prior research on electoral behaviour (see, e.g.…”

“…Because this kind of phased decision making is most likely when the number of choice options is large, consideration set models are particularly relevant for multi-candidate and multi-party elections. Indeed, several studies show that applying these models in such contexts leads to valuable insights (e.g., Wilson, 2008;Karlsen & Aardal, 2016;Oskarson et al, 2016;Schmitt-Beck & Partheymüller, 2016;Vassik et al, 2016;Moral & Zhirnov, 2018). Given the novelty of this approach in electoral research, obviously many pivotal questions about voters' consideration sets are still unanswered.…”

Consideration and Choice: Analyzing Party Choice in the Swedish European Election 2014

“…However, voters are not believed to consider the entire supply of parties – at least not in multiparty systems. Rather, and more realistically, voters are believed to enter the election campaigns with an existing subset of alternatives from which they subsequently select the party for which they vote (Wilson ; Karlsen & Aardal ). There is, furthermore, reason to believe that this is especially the fact in low stimuli elections or in elections where multiple conflict lines might decrease the value of habitual voting, such as the EP elections.…”

A Two-Stage Theory of Discussant Influence on Vote Choice in Multiparty Systems

“…38 Karlsen and Aardal 2012;Oscarsson, Gilljam and Granberg 1997. When it comes to choosing a party out of this constrained set of alternatives, a different mechanism kicks in. It appears to be more strongly guided by cognitive processes.…”