Although the move to the center of many European Social Democratic parties in the 1990s was first rewarded with victories, these parties have since faced a remarkable electoral drought. What explains the seeming inability of these catchall parties to cast a wider but sustainable net for voters? Incorporating a temporal dimension helps explain when and why the broadening of party platforms fails and produces counterintuitive electoral outcomes. Our empirical study analyzes the votes of individuals in three European countries in the past three decades. The individual level allows us to track changes in parties’ voter structures, which are necessarily omitted from studies using aggregate vote shares. Our findings indicate that current analyses of the electoral effects of strategy shifts are misleading inasmuch as they fail to account for individual-level motivations for vote switching.
AdamsJ.ClarkM.EzrowL.GlasgowG. (2006). Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of Western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 513-529.
2.
AdamsJ.EzrowL.Somer-TopcuZ. (2011). Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy programmes. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 370-382.
3.
AdamsJ.GreenJ.MilazzoC. (2012). Has the British public depolarized along with political elites? An American perspective on British public opinion. Comparative Political Studies, 45(4), 507-530.
4.
AdamsJ.HauptA.StollH. (2009). What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions on in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 42(5), 611-639.
5.
AdamsJ.MerrillS.GrofmanB. (2005). A unified theory of party competition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
AdamsJ.Somer-TopcuZ. (2009). Moderate now, win votes later: The electoral consequences of parties’ policy shifts in 25 postwar democracies. Journal of Politics, 71(2), 678-692.
7.
AllenC. S. (2009). Empty nets: Social democracy and the “catch-all party thesis” in Germany and Sweden. Party Politics, 15(5), 635-653.
8.
AlvarezM.NaglerJ.BowlerS. (2000). Issues, economics, and dynamics of multiparty elections: The 1987 British general election. American Political Science Review, 94(1), 131-149.
9.
AlvarezM.NaglerJ.WilletteJ. (2000). Measuring the relative impact of issues and the economy in democratic elections. Electoral Studies, 19(2), 237-253.
10.
AndersonK. (2006, August–September). Labor movement visions and welfare state restructuring in Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
11.
AylottN.BolinN. (2007). Towards a two-party system? The Swedish parliamentary election of September 2006. West European Politics, 30(3), 621-633.
12.
BakkerR.de VriesC.EdwardsE.HoogheL.JollyS.MarksG.PolkJ.RovnyJ.SteenbergenM.VachudovaM. (forthcoming). Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey trend file, 1999-2010. Party Politics.
13.
BermanS. (1998). The social democratic moment: Ideas and politics in the making of interwar Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
BlairT.SchröderG. (2000). The third way/die neue mitte. Dissent, 2, 51-65.
15.
BlythM. (2003). Globalization and the limits of democratic choice: Social democracy and the rise of political cartelization. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, 3, 60-82.
16.
BudgeI.KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.TanenbaumE. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945–1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
18.
DuvergerM. (1963). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. New York, NY: John Wiley.
19.
European Parliament Election Study. (2009). Voter study: Advance release, 22/06/2011. Retrieved from http://www.piredeu.eu
20.
EzrowL. (2005). Are moderate parties rewarded in multiparty systems? A pooled analysis of Western European elections, 1984–1998. European Journal of Political Research, 44(6), 1-19.
21.
EzrowL.de VriesC.SteenbergenM.EdwardsE. (2011). Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics, 17(3), 275-301.
22.
GelmanA.PasaricaC.DodhiaR. (2002). Let’s practice what we preach: Turning tables into graphs. American Statistician, 56(2), 121-130.
23.
GreenJ. (2011). A test of core vote theories: The British conservatives, 1997–2005. British Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 735-764.
24.
HallP. A.TaylorR. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936-957.
25.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
HolmbergS.NäsmanP.WännströmK. (2010). VALU 1991–2010—SVT exit poll survey parliamentary election 1991–2010. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg, Department of Political Science, Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Safety Research, and SVT–Sveriges Television.
27.
HoogheL.BakkerR.BrigevichA.de VriesC.EdwardsE.MarksG.SteenbergenM. (2010). Reliability and validity of measuring party positions: The Chapel Hill Expert Surveys of 2002 and 2006. European Journal of Political Research, 49(5), 687-803.
28.
ImmergutE.AndersonK. (2008). Historical institutionalism and West European politics. West European Politics, 31(1), 345-369.
29.
KastellecJ. P.LeoniE. L. (2007). Using graphs instead of tables in political science. Perspectives on Politics, 5(4), 755-771.
30.
KemanH. (2011). Third ways and social democracy: The right way to go?British Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 671-680.
31.
KirchheimerO. (1966). The transformation of Western European party systems. In LapalombaraJ.WeinerM. (Eds.), Political parties and political development (pp. 177-200). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
KitscheltH. (1994). The transformation of European social democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
KitscheltH. (1999). European social democracy: Between political economy and electoral competition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.BudgeI.McDonaldM. (2006). Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments in Eastern Europe, the European Union and the OECD, 1990–2003. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
NilssonL.HolmbergS.WeibullL. (2010). National SOM 1986–2008. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg, SOM Institute.
37.
PiersonP. (2002). Coping with permanent austerity: Welfare state restructuring in affluent democracies. Revue Francaise de Sociologie, 43(2), 369-406.
38.
PiersonP. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
PoguntkeT. (2002). Party organization linkage: Parties without firm social roots? In LutherK. R.Müller-RommelF. (Eds.), Political parties in the new Europe (pp. 43-62). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40.
PowellG. B.WhittenG. D. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 391-414.
41.
ProkschS.-O.SlapinJ. B. (2006). Institutions and coalition formation: The German election of 2005. West European Politics, 29(3), 540-559.
42.
PrzeworskiA.SpragueJ. (1986). Paper stones: A history of electoral socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43.
QuinnT. (2006). Choosing the least-worst government: The British General Election of 2005. West European Politics, 29(1), 169-178.
44.
SafranW. (2009). The catch-all party revisited: Reflections of a Kirchheimer student. Party Politics, 15(5), 543-554.
45.
SchmidtV. A. (2008). European political economy: Labour out, state back in, firm to the fore. West European Politics, 31(1-2), 302-320.
46.
SchmittH.ScholzE.LeimI.MoschnerM. (2010). The Mannheim Eurobarometer trend file 1970–2002. Data set edition 2.01. Mannheim, Germany: Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung and Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden, und Analysen, Universität Mannheim.
47.
SchofieldN.SenedI. (2005). Modeling the interaction of parties, activists, and voters: Why is the political center so empty?European Journal of Political Research, 44(3), 355-390.
48.
SigelmanL. (1982). The nonvoting voter in voting research. American Journal of Political Science, 26(1), 47-56.
49.
SteenbergenM.MarksG. (2007). Evaluating expert surveys. European Journal of Political Research, 46(3), 347-366.
50.
StreeckW.ThelenK. (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51.
TavitsM. (2007). Principle versus pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 151-165.
52.
Various Principal Investigators. (2010). British election studies. Years 1979–2010. Colchester, UK: University of Essex.
53.
Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung, U. Z. K. (2010). Politbarometer 1997–2007 (Partielle Kumulation). Version 1.0.0, 13.04.2010. doi:10.4232/1.2391.
54.
ZohlnhöferR. (2007). The politics of budget consolidation in Britain and Germany: The impact of blame avoidance opportunities. West European Politics, 30(5), 1120-1138.
