Abstract:We propose a framework for analysing party elite perceptions of voting behaviour based on four party competition and voting behaviour models: the Downsian proximity, saliency, competence and directional models. We analyse whether and to what extent party elite perceptions support these theories of party competition and voting behaviour. Empirical analysis is based solely on internal party documents from two Swedish parties, the Social Democrats and the Conservatives, from 1964 to 1988/1991. We demonstrate that… Show more
“…Campaign strategies and tactics may matter and in some cases be perceived as important but not as important as the substance of politics or the political leadership. In this respect, the results support research that emphasizes the importance of core political factors when explaining election outcomes, and fit with previous research on party elites' perceptions (Ekengren and Oscarsson, ).…”
Section: Results: the Importance Of Campaign Strategies And Tacticssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Despite this, there is virtually no research on party elites and their perceptions or working theories of voting behavior. The only exception is a couple of studies by Ekengren and Oscarsson (), based on internal documents from the two major Swedish parties, the Social Democratic party and the Conservative party, between 1964 and 1991. These studies suggest that both parties tend to perceive voters as mainly coherent and predictable, driven by overall rather stable predispositions, and as generally speaking well‐informed and interested in politics.…”
Section: What Matters When People Decide Which Party To Vote Formentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite this, and despite extensive research on political marketing and parties' use of different campaign strategies and tactics (Harris et al , ; Newman, ; Baines et al , ; O'Shaughnessy and Henneberg, ; Johnson, ; Lees‐Marshment, ), there is virtually no research on party elite perceptions of voting behavior or the importance of campaign strategies and tactics when explaining election outcomes (Rohrschneider, ; Ekengren and Oscarsson, ). After every election, a number of books are usually published, analyzing the campaigns and the outcomes, but to the extent that these deal with campaign strategies and techniques, they often rest on personal experiences and anecdotal, rather than systematic, evidence.…”
“…Campaign strategies and tactics may matter and in some cases be perceived as important but not as important as the substance of politics or the political leadership. In this respect, the results support research that emphasizes the importance of core political factors when explaining election outcomes, and fit with previous research on party elites' perceptions (Ekengren and Oscarsson, ).…”
Section: Results: the Importance Of Campaign Strategies And Tacticssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Despite this, there is virtually no research on party elites and their perceptions or working theories of voting behavior. The only exception is a couple of studies by Ekengren and Oscarsson (), based on internal documents from the two major Swedish parties, the Social Democratic party and the Conservative party, between 1964 and 1991. These studies suggest that both parties tend to perceive voters as mainly coherent and predictable, driven by overall rather stable predispositions, and as generally speaking well‐informed and interested in politics.…”
Section: What Matters When People Decide Which Party To Vote Formentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite this, and despite extensive research on political marketing and parties' use of different campaign strategies and tactics (Harris et al , ; Newman, ; Baines et al , ; O'Shaughnessy and Henneberg, ; Johnson, ; Lees‐Marshment, ), there is virtually no research on party elite perceptions of voting behavior or the importance of campaign strategies and tactics when explaining election outcomes (Rohrschneider, ; Ekengren and Oscarsson, ). After every election, a number of books are usually published, analyzing the campaigns and the outcomes, but to the extent that these deal with campaign strategies and techniques, they often rest on personal experiences and anecdotal, rather than systematic, evidence.…”
“…While it makes no sense for parties to endorse minority positions when facing only one competitor, in a multiparty system this may be an electorally viable strategy at least for some parties (e.g., Wagner ). Moreover, recent empirical work has challenged the view that party elites adhere to a ‘saliency perception’ of voting behaviour (Ekengren & Oscarsson ).…”
Abstract. Saliency theory is among the most influential accounts of party competition, not least in providing the theoretical framework for the Comparative Manifesto Project -one of the most widely used data collections in comparative politics. Despite its prominence, not all empirical implications of the saliency theory of party competition have yet been systematically tested. This article addresses five predictions of saliency theory, the central claim of which is that parties compete by selective issue emphasis rather than by direct confrontation. Since a fair test of the theory's assumptions needs to rely on data that measures party issue saliency and party positions independently, this article draws on new manifesto data from the Austrian National Election Study (AUTNES). Analysing all manifestos issued for the 2002, 2006 and 2008 general elections, it shows that saliency theory correctly identifies some features of party competition. For instance, parties disproportionally emphasise issues they 'own'. Yet, the core assumption of saliency theory that parties compete via selective issue emphasis rather than direct confrontation over the same issues fails to materialise in the majority of cases.
“…We must do not forget that "party elites need to have some working theory about what matters to voters when they cast their votes" (Str€ omb€ ack, Grandien, and Falasca 2013, 42). Analysis of their perception is fundamental to understand strategic actions: candidates and parties plan campaign action looking at imagined profile of electors (Ekengren and Oscarsson 2011a). It is possible also to identify and to differentiate "working theory of voting behavior" (Ekengren and Oscarsson 2011b) for single candidate.…”
The digital platform has deeply changed the electoral campaigns, producing a consequent evolution of political consulting. Social networks have become the mainstream media so that the digital strategist and the big data analysts have achieved a special place in the "war room," next to the campaign director and the pollster. In 2012, Obama's election has marked the entrance in the "Fast Politics": resulting, on one hand, in 24 hours news, a large amount of auto-generated contents produced by the voters through digital media, fragmentation, instantaneous transmission of messages and, on the other hand, a reduction of the attention threshold. Once again, similarly to the past, the evolution of the media (2.0) ends up changing the nature of election campaigns and political consulting request. What happens in Europe? The objective is to carry out a comparative analysis on the professionalization of candidates' electoral staff. We wanted to verify if the American model has been imported in Europe with special focus on the techniques and the style of election campaigns management. In particular, within a comparative approach among the European states, the study analyzed the usage of political consulting and the degree of "digitalization" during last general elections: an ancillary practice or, on the contrary, a new tool for consensus? The comparative analysis among European states exploited the data provided by Comparative Candidates Survey (CCS 2013) and constructed synthetic indexes on the professionalization and digitization campaigns, conducting a quantitative and qualitative analysis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.