IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v103y2022i5p1084-1100.html

How voter distributions, issue ownership, and position influence party emphasis

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J. Williams
  • John Ishiyama

Abstract

Background Research regarding party behavior has often be understood through one of two models, (1) the Downsian proximity model, which supposes parties will change positions in order to be most competitive, and (2) the issue salience model, which understands parties to emphasize issues on which it is more competitive. Objectives This study produces a theoretical framework explaining why parties, specifically in a two‐party system, emphasize one issue dimension over others. We argue that voter distributions differ across issue dimensions and take one of four general forms: (1) unimodal symmetrical, (2) bimodal symmetrical, (3) unimodal asymmetrical, and (4) bimodal asymmetrical. These distributions determine the nature of an issue dimension as approximating valence or positional. Combined with a party's issue ownership or positional advantage, this determines whether a party emphasizes an issue. An issue owner is expected to emphasize unimodal symmetrical issues, parties with positional advantage are expected to emphasize bimodal asymmetrical issues, and no party should emphasize a bimodal symmetrical issue. The decision to emphasize a unimodal asymmetrical issue is dependent upon whether the issue owner and the party with positional advantage are the same and the long‐versus short‐term electoral strategy of a party. Methods Data to test this theoretical approach do not yet exist. This theoretical framework is designed to apply to a two‐party system. In order to properly test the above expectations, we would need data regarding the distribution of voters along different issue dimensions, as well as the emphases placed on issues by parties. These data must be specific to a two‐party system. Conclusion This theory attempted to build a synthesized theory of party behavior based on the Downsian proximity model and the issue salience model. This theory helps explain what issues parties will seek to contest, and which issues become politicized. However, this framework can be extended to explain many questions regarding polarization, party behavior, electoral strategy and political contestation.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher J. Williams & John Ishiyama, 2022. "How voter distributions, issue ownership, and position influence party emphasis," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1084-1100, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:5:p:1084-1100
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13181
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13181?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Margit Tavits, 2007. "Principle vs. Pragmatism: Policy Shifts and Political Competition," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 151-165, January.
    2. Meguid, Bonnie M., 2005. "Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 347-359, August.
    3. James Adams & Lawrence Ezrow & Zeynep Somer‐Topcu, 2011. "Is Anybody Listening? Evidence That Voters Do Not Respond to European Parties’ Policy Statements During Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 370-382, April.
    4. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    5. Schofield, Normal & Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M. & Whitford, Andrew B., 1998. "Multiparty Electoral Competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A Model Based on Multinomial Probit," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 97(3), pages 257-293, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jelle Koedam, 2021. "Avoidance, ambiguity, alternation: Position blurring strategies in multidimensional party competition," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 655-675, December.
    2. Ellger, Fabio & Klüver, Heike, 2025. "Adopting restriction: how coalition governments respond to radical right parties," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 48(6), pages 1299-1331.
    3. Christopher Williams & Jae-Jae Spoon, 2015. "Differentiated party response: The effect of Euroskeptic public opinion on party positions," European Union Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 176-193, June.
    4. Maria Gallego & Norman Schofield & Kevin McAlister & Jee Jeon, 2014. "The variable choice set logit model applied to the 2004 Canadian election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 427-463, March.
    5. Gersbach, Hans & Tejada, Oriol, 2018. "A Reform Dilemma in polarized democracies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 148-158.
    6. Selim Jürgen Ergun, 2015. "Centrist’S Curse? An Electoral Competition Model With Credibility Constraints," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    7. Andrea Junqueira & Ali Kagalwala & Christine S. Lipsmeyer, 2023. "What's your problem? How issue ownership and partisan discourse influence personal concerns," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(1), pages 25-37, January.
    8. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Laver, 2005. "Mapping the Irish Policy Space - Voter and Party Spaces in Preferential Elections," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 36(2), pages 83-108.
    9. Gersbach, Hans & Jackson, Matthew O. & Muller, Philippe & Tejada, Oriol, 2023. "Electoral competition with costly policy changes: A dynamic perspective," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    10. Bayerlein, Michael, 2021. "Chasing the Other 'Populist Zeitgeist'? Mainstream Parties and the Rise of Right-Wing Populism," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 240403, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Catherine E. de Vries, 2007. "Sleeping Giant: Fact or Fairytale?," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(3), pages 363-385, September.
    12. Alexandre Arnout, 2024. "Flip-flopping and Endogenous Turnout," AMSE Working Papers 2423, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    13. Catherine E. De Vries & Sara B. Hobolt, 2012. "When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(2), pages 246-268, June.
    14. Jones, Philip & Dawson, Peter, 2007. "`Choice' in collective decision-making processes: Instrumental or expressive approval?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 102-117, February.
    15. Petrarca, Constanza Sanhueza & Giebler, Heiko & Weßels, Bernhard, 2022. "Support for insider parties: The role of political trust in a longitudinal-comparative perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 28(2), pages 329-341.
    16. Jae-Jae Spoon, 2012. "How salient is Europe? An analysis of European election manifestos, 1979–2004," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 558-579, December.
    17. Tim Bale & Christoffer Green‐Pedersen & André Krouwel & Kurt Richard Luther & Nick Sitter, 2010. "If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them? Explaining Social Democratic Responses to the Challenge from the Populist Radical Right in Western Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(3), pages 410-426, June.
    18. Michael Peress, 2011. "Securing the base: electoral competition under variable turnout," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 87-104, July.
    19. Silke Adam & Eva-Maria Antl-Wittenberg & Beatrice Eugster & Melanie Leidecker-Sandmann & Michaela Maier & Franzisca Schmidt, 2017. "Strategies of pro-European parties in the face of a Eurosceptic challenge," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(2), pages 260-282, June.
    20. Robert Rohrschneider & Stephen Whitefield, 2016. "Responding to growing European Union-skepticism? The stances of political parties toward European integration in Western and Eastern Europe following the financial crisis," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 138-161, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:5:p:1084-1100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.