The Impact of Electoral Context on the Electoral Effectiveness of District-Level Campaigning: Popularity Equilibrium and the Case of the 2015 British General Election

Abstract

Campaigning at the district level can deliver electoral payoffs in a range of countries despite variations in electoral systems. However, effects may not be consistent. Campaigns do not occur in a vacuum, and contextual factors, exogenous to the campaign activity itself, may have a significant effect on the level of their electoral impact. The 2015 General Election in Britain is a particularly interesting case as there was a key contextual factor which could impact significantly on the effectiveness of the parties' campaigns; the electoral unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats. Using a unique new dataset, this article assesses the contextual impact of party equilibrium at both national and district levels on campaign effectiveness. It represents the first attempt on a large scale to systematically assess the impact of party popularity on campaign effectiveness and demonstrates at both national and district levels the importance of contextual effects on election campaigns.

Electoral integrity – The winner takes it all? Evidence from three British general elections

“…The chances of dissatisfaction in more competitive seats is likely to be higher, both because the contest is likely to be harder fought and because the outcome is uncertain. Certainly, there is clear evidence that the marginality or closeness of an electoral seat increases campaign activity (Fisher et al, 2019) and the amounts spent by candidates (Johnston & Pattie, 2014). And, as Howell and Justwan (2013: 337) suggest, elections that are non-competitive (that is, they are not marginal and the outcome is clear in advance) are likely to disconnect winners and losers from results, whereas the anxiety produced in a close contest will be more likely to impact upon levels of satisfaction.…”

“…The chances of dissatisfaction in more competitive seats is likely to be higher, both because the contest is likely to be harder fought and because the outcome is uncertain. Certainly, there is clear evidence that the marginality or closeness of an electoral seat increases campaign activity (Fisher et al, 2019) and the amounts spent by candidates (Johnston and Pattie, 2014). And, as Howell and Justwan (2013: 337) suggest, elections that are non-competitive (i.e.…”

Popularity equilibrium: Testing a general theory of local campaign effectiveness

“…Using the same logic as macro popularity equilibrium, we would expect that local campaigns might be most effective where parties are neither very strong nor very weak. Fisher et al (2018) demonstrated that district-level campaign effectiveness varied according to the level of popularity in the constituency using data from a single election. To establish whether the popularity equilibrium model applies more generally at the district level, we need to establish the relationship between district-level popularity and performance across a number of elections.…”

“…Yet, the success of campaign activity is not solely in the hands of parties or candidates. There is emerging evidence in the literature that both national and district-level conditions affect the degree to which campaign efforts are productive (Fisher et al, 2011(Fisher et al, , 2018Fisher et al, 2016;Hillygus, 2005). However, until now, there has been no systematic theory or analysis of the conditions under which local campaigns are more or less effective.…”

“…Campaigns and elections are the very lifeblood of parties in liberal democracies, and comparative evidence across a range of countries and electoral systems demonstrates that district-level campaigning tends to deliver electoral pay-offs, both in terms of voter turnout and vote share for parties and candidates (Denver and Hands, 1997; Fieldhouse and Cutts, 2009; Fisher et al, 2011; Fisher et al, 2018; Gschwend and Zittel, 2015; Karp et al, 2008). The level of success is, in part, a function of the distribution of campaign activity.…”