Social dealignment versus political frustration: Contrasting explanations of the floating vote in Germany

Abstract

Abstract. The paper contrasts two notions of the floating voter: the ‘modern floating voter’ and the ‘frustrated floating voter’. In doing so, social modernization is contrasted with macro stimuli as explanations of volatility. The ‘modern floating voter’ emerges from social dealignment theories. These claim (1) an increase in volatility, (2) more frequent vote switching among the well educated and the new middle class, and (3) an instrumental view of politics among floating voters. Empirical tests on German data do not deliver any support for these dealignment hypotheses (employing log‐linear models on cross‐sectional and pooled‐cross‐sectional data and ANOVA). On the other hand, the model of the ‘frustrated floating voter’, which denotes vote switching that takes place in a mood of protest, receives some support in the data. Thus, the degree of political dissatisfaction of an electorate emerges as a potential predictor of volatility. In a final step, I test if the drop in political satisfaction between 1990 and 1993 can he attributed to social change, thus indicating an indirect effect of social change on volatility. The data do not support this hypothesis. The drop in satisfaction (and thus the potential increase in volatility) most likely should be attributed to macro stimuli. Thus, the results indicate that macro phenomena (which might be historic events, economic conditions, or the like) might be more fruitful in explaining volatility than social modernization.

The cognitive mobilization of organizational participation: Missing evidence from Italy (1972–2006)

“…On the same line, Huber et al (2005) hold that the characteristics of the political context, such as the nature of the competition between parties, may influence individuals propensity to form party attachment more than changes in the social structure do. Moreover, Zelle (1995) shows that volatility is determined by the degree of political dissatisfaction in the electorate, which is in turn likely to be caused by macro stimuli such as historic events, economic conditions, or the like, rather than by CM. Finally, change in participation has been explained as a logical consequence of the crisis in the structure of mass-bureaucratic parties in all Western countries (Katz and Mair, 1995;Ignazi, 2012).…”

“…A first set of hypotheses looks at participatory dynamics at the aggregate level. A 1 Social modernization and CM has been investigated by looking at different phenomena: electoral behaviour and volatility (Zelle, 1995), party membership and partisanship (Dalton, 2007(Dalton, , 2012Barton and Doring, 1986) and social movements (Inglehart, 1990b), to name a few. 2 Although the latter are often connected to social movements, participation in social movements is not directly included in the analysis here.…”

“…Relevant literature is therefore divided on what plays the key role in participatory mobilization (e.g. Dalton, 2012;Zelle, 1995). While CM may not be a comprehensive explanatory theory of changes in participatory trends that excludes any other explanation, but just a contribution in terms of insight into the changed relationship between education/cognitive skills and types of mobilization over time, its advocates argue that it is the spread of education and skills in society that played a key role in the participatory change in the Western world (Inglehart, 1977;Dalton 2012).…”

Why Do Voters Change Their Mind during an Election Campaign? An Analysis of the Determinants of Campaign Volatility at the 2014 Belgian Federal Elections

“…Over the last two decades, several studies have pointed to the existence of a strong relationship between political dissatisfaction and voters' volatility. The notion of the frustrated floating voter was put forward by Zelle (1995). While the cognitive mobilization theory stresses the image of a rational and well-educated citizen whose relationship to parties is mainly grounded on instrumental considerations (e.g., Dalton, 1984), the frustrated floating voter denotes a model of a citizen who wants to preserve an affective positive relationship to his/her favourite party.…”

“…The second hypothesis, which is drawn from the traditional floating voter theory (Berelson, Lazarsfeld, & McPhee, 1963), argues that voters with a low level of political sophistication are more likely than highly sophisticated voters to change their mind in the weeks preceding the electoral contest. The third hypothesis, which is drawn from the frustrated floating voter theory developed by Zelle (1995), assumes that campaign volatility can be largely attributed to political dissatisfaction. The last hypothesis suggests that voters with a moderate ideological profile are more volatile than those with radical ideological orientations.…”