Using evidence from Great Britain, the United States, Belgium and Spain, it is demonstrated in this article that in integrated and divided nations alike, citizens are more strongly attached to political parties than to the social groups that the parties represent. In all four nations, partisans discriminate against their opponents to a degree that exceeds discrimination against members of religious, linguistic, ethnic or regional out‐groups. This pattern holds even when social cleavages are intense and the basis for prolonged political conflict. Partisan animus is conditioned by ideological proximity; partisans are more distrusting of parties furthest from them in the ideological space. The effects of partisanship on trust are eroded when partisan and social ties collide. In closing, the article considers the reasons that give rise to the strength of ‘partyism’ in modern democracies.

Research on electoral choices of citizens with migration background has remained largely descriptive. What is missing is a systematic test of theories that can explain individuals with migration background's voting behavior. This article provides such a test on the basis of a post-electoral survey from the 2011 Swiss general election. It is the first study on the electoral behavior of the first and second generation in Switzerland. And it shows that specific migration background impacts considerably on vote choice. In particular, individuals with migration background belonging to outgroups have a higher propensity to vote for the Left than natives. This relationship is partly explained by the party identifications adopted by the citizens with migration background belonging to outgroups.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract