This study examines how political party organizations shape campaign participation in advanced industrialized parliamentary democracies. In some parties, members directly nominate candidates to run for parliament. In others, selection is the sole responsibility of the party leadership. Two countervailing arguments are presented: one stating that member participation will increase incentives to get involved in campaigns; the other contending that democratic nominations expose internal party divisions and depress participation. The hypotheses are tested using cross-national election surveys and original candidate selection data. Participation is measured in two ways: campaign activity and political persuasion. The results suggest that partisans are more likely to participate when leaders, rather than members, select candidates. In addition, the article examines the role of party ideology, size, incumbency, and heterogeneity in shaping participation.
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.
2.
AdamsJ.MerrillS.III. (2008). Candidate and party strategies in two-stage elections beginning with a primary. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 344-359.
3.
AndersonC. J.GuilloryC. A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review, 91, 66-81.
4.
AnsolabehereS.IyengarS. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York, NY: Free Press.
5.
BenoitK.LaverM. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London, England: Routledge.
6.
BilleL. (2001). Democratizing a democratic procedure: Myth or reality? Candidate selection in Western European parties, 1960-1990. Party Politics, 7, 363-380.
7.
BlondelJ. (1978). Political parties: A genuine case for discontent?London, England: Wildwood House.
8.
BoasT. C.HidalgoF. D. (2011). Controlling the airwaves: Incumbency advantage and community radio in Brazil. American Journal of Political Science, 54(4), 1-17.
9.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: John Wiley.
10.
CampbellJ. E. (1983). The electoral consequences of issue ambiguity: An examination of the presidential candidates’ issue positions from 1968 to 1980. Political Behavior, 5, 277-291.
11.
CartyR. K.BlakeD. E. (1999). The adoption of membership votes for choosing party leaders: The experience of Canadian parties. Party Politics, 5, 211-224.
12.
CartyR. K.EaglesM. (2005). Politics is local: National politics at the grassroots. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
CaulM. (1999). Women’s representation in parliament: The role of political parties. Party Politics, 5, 79-98.
14.
ChengC.TavitsM. (2011). Informal influences in selecting female political candidates. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 460-471.
15.
ChoW. K. T.GimpelJ. G.WuT. (2006). Clarifying the role of SES in political participation: Policy threat and Arab American mobilization. Journal of Politics, 68, 977-991.
16.
ClaassenR. L. (2007). Floating voters and floating activists: Political change and information. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 124-134.
17.
ClawsonD. (2003). The next upsurge: Labor and the new social movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
18.
CoxG. W. (1997). Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
DaltonR. (1998). Democratic political culture and participation in Europe. In AlmondG.DaltonR.Powell Jr.G. B. (Eds.), European politics today (pp. 28-50). New York, NY: Longman.
20.
D’ArtD.TurnerT. (2007). Trade unions and political participation in the European Union: Still providing a democratic dividend?British Journal of Political Science, 45, 103-126.
21.
De WinterL. (1988). Belgium: Democracy or oligarchy? In GallagherM.MarshM. (Eds.), Candidate selection in comparative perspective: The secret garden of politics (pp. 20-46). London, England: Sage.
22.
DuvergerM. (1954). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state (NorthB.NorthR., Trans.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
23.
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, 275-301.
24.
Faucher-KingF.TreilleE. (2003). Managing intra-party democracy: Comparing the French socialist and British labour party conferences. French Politics, 1, 61-82.
25.
FlavinP.GriffinJ. D. (2009). Policy, preferences, and participation: Government’s impact on democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 71, 544-559.
26.
FranklinM. N. (2001). Electoral participation. In NiemiR. G.WeisbergH. F.KimballD. (Eds.), Controversies in voting behavior (pp. 83-99). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
27.
GallegoA. (2007-2008). Unequal political participation in Europe. International Journal of Sociology, 37(4), 10-25.
28.
GrayM.CaulM. (2000). Declining voter turnout in advanced industrial democracies, 1950 to 1997: The effects of declining group mobilization. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 1091-1122.
29.
GrofmanB.MerrillS.BrunellT. L.KoetzleW. (1999). The potential electoral disadvantages of a catch-all party: Ideological variance among republicans and democrats in the 50 US states. Party Politics, 5, 199-210.
30.
HazanR. Y.RahatG. (2010). Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
HeidarK. (2006). Party membership and participation. In KatzR. S.CrottyW. (Eds.), Handbook of party politics (pp. 301-316). London, England: Sage.
32.
HeidarK.SaglieJ. (2003). A decline of linkage? Intra-party participation in Norway, 1991-2000. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 761-786.
33.
HopkinJ. (2001). Bringing the members back in? Democratizing candidate selection in Britain and Spain. Party Politics, 7, 343-361.
34.
HuberJ. D.KernellG.LeoniE. L. (2005). Institutional context, cognitive resources and party attachments across democracies. Political Analysis, 13, 365-386.
35.
JackmanR. W. (1987). Political institutions and voter turnout in the industrial democracies. American Political Science Review, 81, 405-424.
36.
JackmanR. W.MillerR. A. (1995). Voter turnout in the industrial democracies during the 1980s. Comparative Political Studies, 27, 467-492.
37.
JandaK. (1980). Political parties: A Cross-National Survey. New York, NY: Free Press.
38.
KarpJ. A.BanducciS. A.BowlerS. (2007). Getting out the vote: Party mobilization in a comparative perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 91-112.
39.
KatzR. S. (2001). The problem of candidate selection and models of party democracy. Party Politics, 7, 277-296.
40.
KatzR. S.MairP. (1992). Party organizations: A data handbook on party organizations in Western democracies, 1960-90. London, England: Sage.
41.
KenneyP. J.RiceT. W. (1987). The relationship between divisive primaries and general election outcomes. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 31-44.
42.
KerrisseyJ.SchoferE. (2013). Union membership and political participation in the United States. Social Forces, 91, 895-928.
43.
KitscheltH. (1988). Organization and strategy of Belgian and West German ecology parties: A new dynamic of party politics in Western Europe?Comparative Politics, 20, 127-154.
44.
KlofstadC. A. (2007). Talk leads to recruitment: How discussions about politics and current events increase civic participation. Political Research Quarterly, 60, 180-191.
45.
Labour Party of Britain. (2006). The labour party rule book. Available from www.labour.org.uk
46.
LeDucL. (2001). Democratizing party leadership selection. Party Politics, 7, 323-341.
47.
LundellK. (2004). Determinants of candidate selection: The degree of centralization in comparative perspective. Party Politics, 10, 25-47.
48.
MairP. (1994). Party organizations: From civil society to the state. In KatzR. S.MairP. (Eds.), How parties organize: Change and adaptation in party organizations in Western democracies (pp. 1-22). London, England: Sage.
49.
McClurgS. D. (2006). The electoral relevance of political talk: Examining expertise effects in social networks on political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 737-754.
50.
McFarlandD. A.ThomasR. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. American Sociological Review, 71, 401-425.
51.
MeguidB. M. (2008). Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
MichelsR. (1962). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York, NY: Free Press.
53.
MutzD. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838-855.
54.
NorrisP.WalgraveS.Van AelstP. (2005). Who demonstrates? Antistate rebels, conventional participants, or everyone?Comparative Politics, 37, 189-205.
55.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action. New York, NY: Schocken Books.
56.
PachecoJ. S. (2008). Political socialization in context: The effect of political competition on youth voter turnout. Political Behavior, 30, 415-436.
57.
PatemanC. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
PedersenK.BilleL.BuchR.ElklitJ.HansenB.NielsenH. J. (2004). Sleeping or active partners? Danish party members at the turn of the millennium. Party Politics, 10, 367-383.
59.
PenningsP.HazanR. Y. (2001). Democratizing candidate selection: Causes and consequences. Party Politics, 7, 267-275.
60.
PowellG. B.Jr. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
61.
RadcliffB.DavisP. (2000). Labor organization and electoral participation in industrial democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 132-141.
62.
RehmP.ReillyT. (2010). United we stand: Constituency homogeneity and comparative party polarization. Electoral Studies, 29, 40-53.
63.
RosenstoneS. J.HansenJ. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York, NY: Macmillan.
64.
ScarrowS. E. (1994). The “paradox of enrollment”: Assessing the costs and benefits of party memberships. European Journal of Political Research, 25, 41-60.
65.
ScarrowS. E. (2000). Parties without members? Party organization in a changing electoral environment. In DaltonR. J.WattenbergM. P. (Eds.), Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 79-101). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
66.
ScarrowS. E.GezgorB. (2010). Declining memberships, changing members? European political party members in a new era. Party Politics, 16, 823-843.
67.
SpoonJ-J. (2009). Holding their own: Explaining the persistence of Green Parties in France and the UK. Party Politics, 15, 615-634.
68.
SteenbergenM. R.MarksG. (2007). Evaluating expert judgements. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 347-366.
69.
StratmannT.BaurM. (2002). Plurality rule, proportional representation, and the German bundestag: How incentives to pork-barrel differ across electoral systems. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 506-514.
70.
TavitsM. (2013). Post-communist democracies and party organization. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
71.
van de WardtM. (2014). Putting the damper on: Do parties de-emphasize issues in response to internal divisions among their supporters?Party Politics, 20, 330-340.
72.
VerbaS.NieN. H.KimJ.-O. (1987). Participation and political equality: A seven-nation comparison. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
73.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK. L.BradyH. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
74.
WareA. (1996). Political parties and party systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
75.
WautersB. (2010). Explaining participation in intra-party elections: Evidence from Belgian political parties. Party Politics, 16, 237-259.
76.
WeldonS. (2006). Downsize my polity? The impact of size on party membership and member activism. Party Politics, 12, 467-481.
77.
WesselsB.SchmittH. (2008). Meaningful choices, political supply, and institutional effectiveness. Electoral Studies, 27, 19-30.
78.
WhitefieldS.VachudovaM. A.SteenbergenM. R.RohrschneiderR.MarksG.LovelessM. P.HoogheL. (2007). Do expert surveys produce consistent estimates of party stances on European integration? Comparing expert surveys in the difficult case of central and Eastern Europe. Electoral Studies, 26, 50-61.
79.
WhiteleyP. F. (2011). Is the party over? The decline of party activism and membership across the democratic world. Party Politics, 17, 21-44.
80.
WhiteleyP. F.SeydP. (1998). The dynamics of party activism in Britain: A spiral of demobilization?British Journal of Political Science, 28, 113-137.
81.
WhiteleyP. F.SeydP. (2002). High-intensity participation, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
82.
WichowskyA.NieblerS. E. (2010). Narrow victories and hard games: Revisiting the primary divisiveness hypothesis. American Politics Research, 38, 1052-1071.
83.
YoungL.WilliamC. (2002). The rise of plebiscitary democracy in Canadian political parties. Party Politics, 8, 673-699.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
