Research Note: On the inverse relationship between votes and proximity for niche parties | European Journal of Political Research | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

Do niche parties occupying left‐right policy positions that diverge sharply from the centre of the voter distribution gain more popular support than those moderately positioned along the left‐right continuum? Cross‐sectional analyses, based on observations from twelve Western European countries from 1984–1998, are presented that suggest the answer is ‘yes’. By contrast, these analyses strongly suggest that for mainstream parties, policy radicalism depresses popular support. The implication of these findings is that for niche parties, it is the distinctiveness of their left‐right positions that enhances their competitiveness in democratic elections. While this finding runs counter to the intuition of standard spatial theory, it is consistent with recent dynamic accounts of niche party responsiveness to shifts in public opinion and electoral support for niche parties. These findings have implications for party strategies, spatial theories and the understanding of political representation.

References

Adams, J. (2001). Party competition and responsible party government: A theory of spatial competition based upon insights from behavioral voting research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. & Merrill, S. III (1999). Party policy equilibrium for alternative spatial voting models: An application to the Norwegian Storting. European Journal of Political Research 36: 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. & Merrill, S. III (2000). Spatial models of candidate competition and the 1988 French presidential election: Are presidential candidates vote‐maximizers? Journal of Politics 62: 729–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, J. & Merrill, S. III (2005). Parties' policy platforms and elections outcomes: The three faces of policy representation. European Journal of Political Research 44(6): 899–918.CrossRef. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 513–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alvarez, R.M., Nagler, J. & Bowler, S. (2000). Issues, economics and the dynamics of multiparty elections: The 1997 British general election. American Political Science Review 42: 55–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alvarez, R.M., Nagler, J. & Willette, J. (2000). Measuring the relative impact of issues and the economy in democratic elections. Electoral Studies 19: 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andrews, J. & Money, J. (2005). Champions and Challengers: Ideology and the Success of Non‐established Parties in Established Party Systems. Unpublished typescript.Google Scholar

Budge, I. (1994). A new theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science 24: 443–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Budge, I. et al. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors and governments, 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cox, G. (1990). Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science 34: 905–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Palma, A., Hong, G. & Thisse, J.‐F. (1990). Equilibria in multiparty competition under uncertainty. Social Choice and Welfare 7: 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Enelow, J. & Hinich, M. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ezrow, L. (2005). Are moderate parties rewarded in multiparty systems? A pooled analysis of Western European elections, 1984–1998. European Journal of Political Research 44: 881–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huber, J. & Inglehart, R. (1995). Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics 1: 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laakso, M. & Taagepera, R. (1979). ‘Effective’ number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laver, M. (2005). Policy and the dynamics of political competition. American Political Science Review 99(2): 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lin, T.‐M., Enelow, J. & Dorussen, H. (1999). Equilibrium in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting. Public Choice 98: 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mackie, T.T. & Rose, R. (1991). The international almanac of electoral history. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mackie, T.T. & Rose, R. (1997). A decade of election results: Updating the international almanac. Glasgow: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde.Google Scholar

Meguid, B. (2005). Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy and niche party success. American Political Science Review 99(3): 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schofield, N. & Sened, I. (2006). Multiparty democracy: Elections and legislative politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schofield, N. et al. (1998a). Multiparty electoral competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A model based on multinomial probit. Public Choice 97(3): 257–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schofield, N. et al. (1998b). Nash equilibrium in multiparty competition with ‘stochastic’ voters. Annals of Operations Research 84: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stokes, D. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review 57: 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar