Implicit in theories of democratic elections is the idea of change—or at least the potential for change. Elections provide the opportunity for citizens to change their party preferences and thus alter the course of government. In addition, political parties can change their programmatic positions to attract new voters. Our research asks how much parties change their Left–Right positions between elections and what this tells us about parties’ strategic choices. We utilize data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems project and the Chapel Hill Expert Surveys. We demonstrate very high stability in parties’ Left–Right position over time. Furthermore, we find only modest evidence that parties change their Left–Right position in a conscious process of vote seeking.
AdamsJ. (2012). The causes and the electoral consequences of party policy shifts in multiparty elections: Theoretical results and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 401-419.
2.
AdamsJ.ClarkM.EzrowL.GlasgowG. (2004). Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: Do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?British Journal of Political Science, 34, 589-610.
3.
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, 513-529.
4.
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, 370-382.
5.
AdamsJ.HauptA.StollH. (2009). What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 611-639.
6.
AdamsJ.MerrillS.GrofmanB. (2005). A unified theory of party competition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
AdamsJ.Somer-TopcuZ. (2009). Moderate now, win votes later: The electoral consequences of parties’ policy shifts in 25 postwar democracies. Journal of Politics, 71, 678-692.
8.
AndrewsJ.MoneyJ. (n.d.). Parties electoral strategies: An empirical analysis. Davis: Department of Political Science, University of California, Davis.
9.
BakkerR.de VriesC.EdwardsE.HoogheL.JollyS.MarksG.. . . VachudovaM. A. (2012). Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1354068812462931
10.
BenoitK.LaverM. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London, England: Routledge.
11.
BilleL. (1997). Leadership change and party change: The case of the Danish Social Democratic Party, 1960-95. Party Politics, 3, 379-390.
12.
BirchS. (2003). Electoral systems and political transformation in post-communist Europe. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
BishoffC. S. (2013). Electorally unstable by supply or demand? An examination of the causes of electoral volatility in advanced industrial societies. Public Choice, 156, 537-561.
14.
BudgeI. (1994). A new spatial theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 443-467.
15.
BudgeI. (2000). Expert judgments of party positions: Uses and limitations in political research. European Journal of Political Research37, 103-113.
16.
BudgeI.EzrowL.McDonaldM. (2010). Ideology, party factionalism and policy change: An integrated dynamic theory. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 781-804.
17.
BudgeI.KemanH.McDonaldM.PenningsP. (2012). Organizing democratic choice: Party representation over time. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
BudgeI.KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.TanenbaumE. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors and governments 1945–1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
BurtG. (1997). Party policy: Decision rule or chance? A note on Budge’s new spatial theory of party competition. British Journal of Political Science, 27, 647-658.
20.
ClarkeH.SandersD.StewartM. C.WhiteleyF. (2008). Performance politics and the British voter. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
DaltonR. J.AndersonC. (2011). Citizens, context and choice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
DaltonR. J.FarrellD.McAllisterI. (2011). Political parties and democratic linkage. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
DinasE.GemenisK. (2010). Measuring parties’ ideological positions with manifesto data: A critical evaluation of the competing methods. Party Politics, 16, 427-450.
24.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
25.
EzrowL. (2010). Linking citizens and parties: How electoral systems matter for political representation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
FowlerB. (2004). Concentrated orange: Fidesz and the remaking of the Hungarian centre-right, 1994–2002. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 20, 80-114.
27.
GabelM. J.HuberJ. D. (2000). Putting parties in their place: Inferring party left-right ideological positions from party manifestos data. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 94-103.
28.
GrofmanB. (2004). Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 25-46.
29.
HarmelR.JandaK. (1992). Parties and their environments: Limits to reform?New York, NY: Longman.
30.
HarmelR.JandaK. (1994). An integrated theory of party goals and party change. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 259-287.
31.
HoogheL.BakkerR.BrigevichA.de VriesC.EdwardsE.MarksG.. . . VachudovaM. (2010). Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning. European Journal of Political Research, 49, 687-703.
32.
HugS. (2001). Altering party systems: Strategic behavior and the emergence of new political parties in Western democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
33.
KarpJ. A.BanducciS. A. (2007). Party mobilization and political participation in new and old democracies. Party Politics, 13, 217-234.
34.
KemanH. (2007). Experts and manifestos: Different sources—Same results for comparative research?Electoral Studies, 26, 76-89.
35.
KlingemannH.-D. (Ed.). (2009). The comparative study of electoral systems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.BudgeI.McDonaldM. (2006). Mapping policy preferences II. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
LaverM. (2005). Policy and the dynamics of political competition. American Political Science Review, 99, 263-281.
38.
LaverM.SergentiE. (2012). Party competition: An agent-based model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
LittleC.FarrellD. (2013, September). Electoral failure and organisational change. The case of Fianna Fáil. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
40.
MainwaringS.ZocoE. (2007). Political sequences and the stabilization of interparty competition. Party Politics, 13, 155-178.
41.
MairP. (2001). Searching for the positions of political actors. In LaverM. (Ed.), Estimating the policy positions of political actors (pp. 10-30). London, England: Routledge.
42.
MarksG. (Ed.). (2007). Special symposium: Comparing measures of party positioning: Expert, manifesto, and survey data. Electoral Studies, 26, 1-234.
43.
McAllisterI. (1991). Party adaptation and factionalism within the Australian party system. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 206-227.
44.
McAllisterI.WhiteS. (2007). Political parties and democratic consolidation in postcommunist societies. Party Politics, 13, 197-216.
45.
McDonaldM.BudgeI. (2005). Elections, parties, democracy: Conferring the median mandate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46.
McDonaldM.MendesS. (2001). The policy space of party manifestos. In LaverM. (Ed.), Estimating the policy positions of political actors (pp. 90-114). London, England: Routledge.
47.
MeguidB. (2005). Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
MillerW.PierceR.ThomassenJ.HerreraR.HolmbergS.EsaissonP.WesselsB. (Eds.). (1999). Policy representation in Western democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49.
PetrocikJ. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825-850.
50.
RohrschneiderR.WhitefieldS. (2012). The strain of representation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
51.
SikkA. (2005). How unstable? Volatility and the genuinely new parties in Eastern Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 44, 391-412.
52.
Somer-TopcuZ. (2009). Timely decisions: The effects of past national elections on party policy change. Journal of Politics, 71, 238-248.
53.
SvåsandL.MjeldeH. (n.d.). Fumbling in the dark: Party response to electoral shocks and the case of the Norwegian Hoyre and the U.S. Republican Party. Unpublished manuscript, University of Bergen, Norway.
54.
TavitsM. (2005). The development of stable party support: Electoral dynamics in post-communist Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 283-298.
55.
TavitsM. (2006). Party system change: Testing of model of new party entry. Party Politics, 12, 99-119.
56.
TavitsM. (2007). Principle versus pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 151-165.
57.
ThomassenJ. (2012). The blind corner of political representation. Representation, 48, 13-27.
58.
ThomassenJ.SchmittH. (1997). Policy representation. European Journal of Political Research, 32, 165-184.
59.
van der BrugW. (2006). Where’s the party? Voters’ perceptions of party positions. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
60.
WrenA.McElwainK. (2007). Voters and parties. In BoixC.StokesS. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (pp. 555-581). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
