I elaborate a model of cross-bloc party support in deeply divided places. The model expects that the variation in the level of electoral support that citizens in Community A have for parties in Community B is a function of citizens' evaluations of the relative ability of parties in Community B to represent the interests of all communities. This ‘ethnic catch-all’ model of cross-bloc party support is tested in the context of consociational Northern Ireland, using data from a representative survey conducted directly after the 2010 Westminster general election. The findings are asymmetric: the model explains Protestant support for nationalist parties but not Catholic support for unionist parties. The findings, and their implications, are discussed.
BenoitK. and LaverM. (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies.London: Routledge.
2.
CoakleyJ. (2008) ‘Ethnic Competition and the Logic of Party System Transformation’, European Journal of Political Research, 47 (6), 766–93.
3.
DownsA. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy.New York: Harper Collins.
4.
ElliotS. (2009) ‘The Electoral Dynamics of the Belfast Agreement’, in BartonB. and RocheP. (eds), The Northern Ireland Question: The Peace Process and the Belfast Agreement.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 105–30.
5.
EvansE. and DuffyM. (1997) ‘Beyond the Sectarian Divide: The Social Bases and Political Consequences of Nationalist and Unionist Party Competition in Northern Ireland’, British Journal of Political Science, 27 (1), 47–81.
6.
EvansJ. and TongeJ. (2009) ‘Social Class and Party Choice in Northern Ireland's Ethnic Blocs’, West European Politics, 32 (5), 1012–30.
7.
GarryJ. (2007) ‘Making Party Identification More Versatile’, Electoral Studies, 26 (2), 346–58.
8.
GarryJ. (2009) ‘Consociationalism and Its Critics: Evidence from the Historic Northern Ireland Assembly Election of 2007’, Electoral Studies, 28 (3), 458–66.
9.
GarryJ. (2012) ‘Consociationalism, Regional Integration and Vote Choice: Northern Ireland and the 2009 European Parliament Election’, Acta Politica, 47, 113–27.
10.
LutzK. Gilland and FarringtonC. (2006) ‘Alternative Ulster? Political Parties and the Non-constitutional Policy Space in Northern Ireland’, Political Studies, 54 (4), 715–42.
11.
Gormley-HeenanC. and Mac GintyR. (2008) ‘Ethnic Outbidding and Party Modernisation: Understanding the Democratic Unionist Party's Electoral Success in the Post-Agreement Environment’, Ethnopolitics, 7 (1), 43–61.
12.
GschwendT. (2005) ‘Analysing Quota Sample Data and the Peer-Review Process’, French Politics, 3, 88–91.
13.
HorowitzD. (1985) Ethnic Groups in Conflict.Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
14.
KirchheimerO. (1966) ‘The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems’, in LaPalombaraJ. and WeinerM. (eds), Political Parties and Political Development.Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 177–200.
15.
McGarryJ. and O'LearyB. (2009) ‘Power Shared after the Death of Thousands’, in TaylorR. (ed.), Consociational Theory: McGarry/O'Leary and the Northern Ireland Conflict.London: Routledge, pp. 15–84.
16.
McLoughlinP. (2009) ‘The SDLP and the Europeanization of the Northern Ireland Problem’, Irish Political Studies, 24 (4), 603–19.
17.
MitchellP. and EvansG. (2009) ‘Ethnic Party Competition and the Dynamics of Power Sharing in Northern Ireland’, in TaylorR. (ed.), Consociational Theory: McGarry/O'Leary and the Northern Ireland Conflict.London: Routledge, pp. 146–64.
18.
MitchellP.EvansG. and O'LearyB. (2009) ‘Extremist Outbidding in Ethnic Party Systems is Not Inevitable: Tribune Parties in Northern Ireland’, Political Studies, 57 (2), 379–421.
19.
RabuskaA. and ShepsleK. (1972) Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability.Columbus OH: Charles E. Merrill.
20.
SandersD.ClarkeH. D.StewartM. C. and WhiteleyP. (2011) ‘Downs, Stokes and the Dynamics of Electoral Choice’, British Journal of Political Science, 41 (2), 287–314.
21.
StokesD. (1963) ‘Spatial Models of Party Competition’, American Political Science Review, 57 (2), 368–77.
22.
TilleyJ.EvansG. and MitchellC. (2008) ‘Consociationalism and the Evolution of Political Cleavages in Northern Ireland, 1989–2004’, British Journal of Political Science, 38 (4), 699–717.
23.
Van der BrugW.Van der EijkC. and FranklinM. (2007) The Economy and the Vote: Economic Conditions and Elections in Fifteen Countries.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Van der EijkC. (2002) ‘Design Issues in Electoral Research: Taking Care of (Core) Business’, Electoral Studies, 21, 189–206.
25.
Van der EijkC. and FranklinM. (1996) Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union.Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.
26.
Van der EijkC. and FranklinM. (2009) Elections and Voters.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
Van der EijkC.Van der BrugW.KrohM. and FranklinM. (2006) ‘Rethinking the Dependent Variable in Voting Behavior: On the Measurement and Analysis of Electoral Utilities’, Electoral Studies, 25 (3), 424–47.
28.
WolinetzS. (2002) ‘Beyond the Catch-All Party: Approaches to the Study of Parties and Party Organization in Contemporary Democracies’, in LinzJ.MonteroJ. and GuntherR. (eds), The Future of Political Parties.Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 136–65.
