Partisan mobilization, cognitive mobilization and the changing American electorate

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

“…political interest) to apply these skills to politics. At the aggregate level, indeed, the amount of a new type of non-partisan citizensnon-aligned but also better educated and politically sophisticated -seem to increase over time, increasing volatility in the electorate (Dalton, 2007 andDalton, 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.…”

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

“…As a result, volatility is expected to be higher among well-educated voters (Dalton, 1984(Dalton, , 2007Dalton et al, 2000).…”

“…While less sophisticated voters would tend to rely on their "long-term" partisan loyalties to guide their voting decisions, cognitively mobilized voters would not have to use these partisan cues and would be more susceptible to "short-term" forces such as issues, candidates and past performances when choosing what party to vote for. Since "short-term" factors are, by definition, much more dynamic and much more erratic than partisan allegiances, voters with a high level of political sophistication should be more uncertain and more unstable in their voting preferences than less sophisticated voters (Dalton, 1984(Dalton, , 2007(Dalton, , 2013Dalton et al, 2000;Habert & Lancelot, 1988). Some studies have provided empirical evidence in support of the cognitive mobilization theory, by showing that better educated and well-informed citizens were more volatile than voters with a low level of political expertise (Dalton, 2007(Dalton, , 2013Habert & Lancelot, 1988).…”

“…Since "short-term" factors are, by definition, much more dynamic and much more erratic than partisan allegiances, voters with a high level of political sophistication should be more uncertain and more unstable in their voting preferences than less sophisticated voters (Dalton, 1984(Dalton, , 2007(Dalton, , 2013Dalton et al, 2000;Habert & Lancelot, 1988). Some studies have provided empirical evidence in support of the cognitive mobilization theory, by showing that better educated and well-informed citizens were more volatile than voters with a low level of political expertise (Dalton, 2007(Dalton, , 2013Habert & Lancelot, 1988). While the traditional floating voter theory of the Columbia school describes an apathetic floating voter, the cognitive mobilization theory puts forward a rational voter making his/her electoral choices on the basis of issues and past performances, who comes close to the image of the ideal citizen depicted in classic theories of democracy.…”