Partisanship, candidate evaluations, and prospective voting

An exploratory study of the impact of campaign marketing strategy on voting behavior — a contingency approach

“…Hetherington (1998; indicated that voters' evaluation on the president and congress would be affected by political and economic performance of the government of the party in power and he found that the voters with lower political trust tended to vote for the independent candidates out of two major parties. The empirical study of literature review showed that when government and candidate evaluations were more positive, voters' voting behavior was more likely to be affected positively (Fiorina, 1981;Rosema, 2005). Therefore, government performance was considerably influential to voters' voting behavior.…”

“…Newman (1999) extended the view of "funnel of causality" and argued that the factors influencing voters' voting behavior may include candidate characteristics, social impression, political knowledge, electoral incidents. In addition, Rosema (2004;2005) found that evaluation and preference of poetical parties, government evaluation and voters' evaluation were drives affecting voters' voting behavior. Shyu (2001) elaborated voters' voting behavior and found that voting behavior include interpersonal and social relationship orientation, political party orientation, candidate orientation and political view orientation and further establish voters' voting behavior scale.…”

“…During elections, candidates gain benefits from manipulating ongoing issues that are unfavorable to their rivals to promote voters' identification (Newman, 1999). In terms of government performance, the candidates in different political parties may signal government performance differently and thus influence the voters' voting decision (Hetherington, 1999;Rosema, 2005). Similar to marketing 4Ps (Wring, 1997), the three contingent variables are the drives for candidates to strengthen the content of their political agenda through campaign marketing strategy in order to increase public exposure through TV campaign commercials (Niffenegger, 1989) in which the voters' identification to candidates are gained through varied channels (Shyu, 2001).…”

Measuring Party Strength: A New Systematic Framework Applied to the Case of German Parties, 1991–2013

“…An alternative possibility would be to select instead forms of support measured through modern public opinion techniques such as voting intentions or approval ratings. 23 Despite the growing role played by opinion polls in guiding political decisions and the public debate, I reject the adoption of these indicators because of their numerous disadvantages: on the one hand, they are subject to statistical errors, sampling errors and misreporting by respondents; on the other hand, they reflect more superficial and volatile preferences than those expressed through the formal act of voting. Electoral strength will therefore be measured with the following indicators: in absolute terms, with the number of votes received; with reference to the party system, with the vote share (votes / total valid votes); with reference to society as a whole, with the electorate share (votes / eligible voters).…”

Voting Systems as Linear Transformation Models~!2008-10-25~!2009-09-27~!2009-12-24~!

“…Since the works of JeanCharles de Borda and Marquis de Condorcet, the voting systems attracted the attention of many authors in different scientific fields. Many scientific thoughts have been applied in voting systems, for example: weighting votes, ranking votes, running off votes, single winning, multi winnings, proportionality and others, see [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. In this paper, a voting system is introduced as a linear transformation in which the weighted populations of every political group of voters are the elements of the transformation matrix.…”