Politicians’ dual responsibilities to respect their party and also be responsive to their constituents is surprisingly lacking in studies of representation. How do politicians—especially those who function in strong-party systems—individually respond to their constituents’ preferences? We make use of an original, large-scale survey of politicians and the recent success of the Sweden Democrats in the elections in Sweden to show that important adaptation takes place within the party structure. Individual politicians are responsive to signals about voters’ preferences, and they act on these signals by internally lobbying their party leaders to change the party’s positions in the direction of their constituents’ preferences. These results provide a rationale for why niche parties invest in elections even if they are unlikely to enter government: Their electoral successes can cause change in other parties. The results also add a new angle to the discussion of how anti-immigration parties affect mainstream parties, a hotly debated issue in many advanced democracies.
Abou-ChadiT. (2014). Niche party success and mainstream party policy shifts—How green and radical right parties differ in their impact. British Journal of Political Science, 46, 417-436.
2.
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.
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.HauptA. B.StollH. (2009). What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 611-639.
5.
AdamsJ.Somer-TopcuZ. (2009). Policy adjustment by parties in response to rival parties’ policy shifts: Spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five post-war democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 825-846.
6.
American Political Science Association Committee on Political Parties. (1950). Toward a more responsible two-party system. American Political Science Review, 44(Suppl.) .
7.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM.LindstädtR.WielenR. J. V. (2015). The influence of news media on political elites: Investigating strategic responsiveness in Congress. American Journal of Political Science, 60, 5-29.
8.
AylottN.BolinN. (2015). Polarising pluralism: The Swedish parliamentary election of September 2014. West European Politics, 38, 730-740.
9.
BafumiJ.HerronM. C. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in Congress. American Political Science Review, 104, 519-542.
10.
BaleT.Green-PedersenC.KrouwelA.LutherK. R.SitterN. (2010). If you can’t beat them, join them? Explaining social democratic responses to the challenge from the populist radical right in Western. Political Studies, 58, 410-426.
11.
BelangerE.MeguidB. M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27, 477-491.
12.
BergL.OscarssonH. H. (Eds.). (2012). Omstritt omval. Gothenburg [Disputed reelection], Sweden: SOM-institutet, Göteborgs universitet.
13.
BowlerS. (2010). Private members’ bills in the UK parliament: Is there an “electoral connection”?Journal of Legislative Studies, 16, 476-494.
14.
BroockmanD. E. (2016). Approaches to studying policy representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 41, 181-215.
15.
BroockmanD. E.ButlerD. M. (2015). The Causal Effects of Elite Position-Taking on Voter Attitudes: Field Experiments with Elite Communication. American Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/ajps.12243
16.
BudgeI. (1994). A new theory of party competition. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 443-467.
17.
BudgeI.EzrowL.McDonaldM. D. (2010). Ideology, party factionalism and policy change: An integrated dynamic theory. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 781-804.
18.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550-558.
19.
BurdenB. C. (2007). Personal roots of representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
ButlerD. M.NickersonD. W. (2011). Can learning constituency opinion affect how legislators vote? Results from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 6, 55-83.
21.
CareyJ. M. (1996). Parties, incentives, and term limits in Costa Rica. In GrofmanB. (Ed.), Term limits: Public choice perspectives (pp. 321-346). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
22.
CareyJ. M. (2007). Political institutions, competing principals, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 92-107.
23.
CareyJ. M. (2009). Legislative voting and accountability. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
24.
CareyJ. M.ShugartM. S. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies, 14, 417-439.
25.
DahlströmC.EsaiassonP. (2013). The immigration issue and anti-immigrant party success in Sweden 1970-2006: A deviant case analysis. Party Politics, 19, 343-364.
26.
DancygierR.LindgrenK.-O.OskarssonS.VernbyK. (2015). Why are immigrants underrepresented in politics? Evidence from Sweden. American Political Science Review, 109, 703-724.
27.
DemkerM. (2012). Scandinavian right-wing parties. In MammoneA.GodinE.JenkinsB. (Eds.), Mapping the extreme right in contemporary Europe (pp. 239-253). London, England: Routledge.
28.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
29.
DudzinskaA.PoyetC.CostaO.WesselsB. (2014). Representational roles. In DeschouwerK.DepauwS. (Eds.), Representing the people: A survey among members of statewide and substate parliaments (pp. 19-38). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
ErlingssonG.KöllnA.-K.ÖhbergP. (2016). Swedish party organisations. In PierreJ. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of Swedish politics (pp. 169-187). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
EzrowL.HellwigT. (2014). Responding to voters or responding to markets? Political parties and public opinion in an era of globalization. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 816-827.
33.
FagerholmA. (2015). Why do political parties change their policy positions? A review. Political Studies Review, 14, 501-511.
34.
GaujaA. (2013). Policy development and intra-party democracy. In CrossW. P.KatzR. S. (Eds.), The challenges of intra-party democracy (pp. 116-135). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
35.
GolderM.StramskiJ. (2010). Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 90-106.
36.
Green-PedersenC. (2007). The growing importance of issue competition: The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe. Political Studies, 55, 607-628.
37.
GrossbackL. J.PetersonD. A. M.StimsonJ. A. (2005). Comparing competing theories on the causes of mandate perceptions. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 406-419.
38.
HarmelR.JandaK. (1994). An integrated theory of party goals and party change. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 259-287.
39.
HazanR. Y.RahatG. (2010). Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
HellströmA.NilssonT.StoltzP. (2012). Nationalism vs. nationalism: The challenge of the Sweden Democrats in the Swedish public debate. Government & Opposition, 47, 186-205.
41.
HoboltS. B.de VriesC. E. (2015). Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 1159-1185.
42.
HolmbergS. (2014). Representerar riksdagen svenska folket? [Does the Riksdag represent the Swedish people?] In KarlssonD.GilljamM. (Eds.), Svenska politiker. Om de folkvalda i riksdag, landsting och kommun (pp. 93-116). Stockholm, Sweden: Santerus förlag.
43.
JensenT. K. (2000). Party cohesion. In EsaiassonP.HeidarK. (Eds.), Beyond Westminster and Congress: The Nordic experience (pp. 210-236). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
KlüverH.SpoonJ.-J. (2014). Who responds? Voters, parties and issue attention. British Journal of Political Science, 46, 633-654.
46.
KousserT.LewisJ. B.MasketS. E. (2007). Ideological adaptation? The survival instinct of threatened legislators. The Journal of Politics, 69, 828-843.
47.
KuranT. (1991). Now out of never: The element of surprise in the East European revolution of 1989. World Politics, 44, 7-48.
48.
LijphartA. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
49.
LindstädtR.Vander WielenR. J. (2014). Dynamic elite partisanship: Party loyalty and agenda setting in the US house. British Journal of Political Science, 44, 741-772.
50.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Yale Studies in Political Science: Congress: The electoral connection (Vol. 26). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51.
McDonaldM.BudgeI. (2005). Elections, parties, democracy: Conferring the median mandate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
52.
MeguidB. M. (2005). Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review, 99, 347-359.
53.
MeguidB. M. (2008). Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54.
MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1963). Constituency influence in Congress. American Political Science Review, 57, 45-56.
55.
MonroeA. D. (1979). Consistency between constituency preferences and national policy decisions. American Politics Quarterly, 12, 3-19.
56.
NordL. W. (2007). The Swedish model becomes less Swedish. In NegrineR.ManciniP.Holtz-BachaC.PapathanassopoulosS. (Eds.), The professionalisation of political communication (pp. 81-95). Bristol, UK: Intellect.
57.
ÖhbergP.NaurinE. (2015). Party-constrained policy responsiveness: A survey experiment on politicians’ response to citizen-initiated contact. British Journal of Political Science, 46, 785-797.
58.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2014). International migration outlook 2014. Paris, France: Author.
59.
PowellG. B.Jr. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
60.
PreeceJ. R. (2014). How the party can win in personal vote systems: The “selectoral connection” and legislative voting in Lithuania. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39, 147-167.
61.
ProkschS.-O.SlapinJ. B. (2012). Institutional foundations of legislative speech. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 520-537.
62.
RahatG.HazanR. Y. (2001). Candidate selection methods: An analytical framework. Party Politics, 7, 297-322.
63.
RuistJ. (2015, February). Refugee immigration and public finances in Sweden (Working Papers in Economics No. 613). Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborgs universitet.
64.
Somer-TopcuZ. (2009). Timely decisions: The effects of past national elections on party policy change. Journal of Politics, 71, 238-248.
65.
Somer-TopcuZ.ZarM. E. (2014). European parliamentary elections and national party policy change. Comparative Political Studies, 47, 878-902.
66.
SpoonJ.-J.HoboltS. B.de VriesC. E. (2014). Going green: Explaining issue competition on the environment. European Journal of Political Research, 53, 363-380.
67.
SpoonJ.-J.KlüverH. (2015). Voter polarisation and party responsiveness: Why parties emphasise divided issues, but remain silent on unified issues. European Journal of Political Research, 54, 343-362.
StimsonJ. A.MacKuenM. B.EriksonR. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89, 543-565.
70.
StratmannT. (2000). Congressional voting over legislative careers: Shifting positions and changing constraints. American Political Science Review, 94, 665-676.
71.
StrømK. (1997). Rules, reasons and routines: Legislative roles in parliamentary democracies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 3, 155-174.
van de WardtM. (2015). Desperate needs, desperate deeds: Why mainstream parties respond to the issues of niche parties. Western European Politics, 38, 93-122.
74.
WagnerM.MeyerT. M. (2014). Which issues do parties emphasise? Salience strategies and party organisation in multiparty systems. West European Politics, 37, 1019-1045.
75.
WlezienC.SorokaS. (2007). The relationship between public opinion and public policy. In DaltonR.KlingemannH.-D. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 799-817). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
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.
