In recent decades election campaigns have shifted their focus from the local to the national level, increasingly featuring party leaders, labels, and national platforms. Despite this trend, there remains significant variation in the local/national orientation of campaigns across countries and parties. This article tests several propositions on why campaigns adopt a local or national orientation by analyzing a unique collection of more than 12,000 geocoded Thai election posters. Specialized software was used to measure the spatial proportions of visual and textual content on each poster. Using Thailand’s mixed electoral system to enable a controlled comparison of electoral rules, I demonstrate that proportional rules were associated with national campaign strategies whereas majoritarian rules fostered local strategies. In addition, large parties ran party-centered, policy-focused campaigns whereas small parties relied more on their leader’s image. This contrasts with Western countries, where large parties increasingly promote their leader’s image and small parties emphasize narrower policy objectives.
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.
BalmasM.RahatG.SheaferT.ShenhavS. R. (2014). Two routes to personalized politics centralized and decentralized personalization. Party Politics, 20, 37-51.
BartoliniS.MairP. (2001). Challenges to contemporary political parties In DiamondL.GuntherR. (Eds.), Political parties and democracy (pp. 327-343). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
5.
BowlerS.FarrellD. M. (1992). Electoral strategies and political marketing. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
CallahanW. A.McCargoD. (1996). Vote-buying in Thailand’s northeast: The July 1995 general election. Asian Survey, 36, 376-392.
7.
CareyJ. M.ShugartM. S. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies, 14, 417-439.
8.
CatalinacA. (2016). From pork to policy: The rise of programmatic campaigning in Japanese elections. Journal of Politics, 78, 1-18.
9.
ChambersP. W. (2008). Factions, parties and the durability of parliaments, coalitions and cabinets: The case of Thailand (1979-2001). Party Politics, 14, 299-323.
10.
ChambersP. W.CroissantA. (2010). Monopolizing, mutualizing, or muddling through: Factions and party management in contemporary Thailand. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 29, 3-33.
11.
ChattharakulA. (2010). Thai electoral campaigning: Vote-canvassing networks and hybrid voting. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 4, 67-95.
12.
CheesemanN.PagetD. (2014). Programmatic politics in comparative perspective. In Politics meets policies: The emergence of programmatic political parties (pp. 75-97). Stockholm, Sweden: International IDEA.
13.
CroissantA.ChambersP. (2010). Unravelling intra-party democracy in Thailand. Asian Journal of Political Science, 18, 195-223.
14.
CrossW.YoungL. (2015). Personalization of campaigns in an SMP system: The Canadian case. Electoral Studies, 39, 306-315.
15.
D’AlimonteR. (1999). Party behavior in a polarized system: The Italian Communist Party and the historic compromise. In MüllerW. C.StromK. (Eds.), Policy, office, or votes? (pp. 141-171). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DaltonR. J.McAllisterI.WattenbergM. P. (2000). The consequences of partisan dealignment. In DaltonR. J.WattenbergM. P. (Eds.), Parties without partisans: Political change in industrial democracies (pp. 37-63). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
18.
DumitrescuD. (2010). Know me, love me, fear me: The anatomy of candidate poster designs in the 2007 French legislative elections. Political Communication, 27, 20-43.
19.
DumitrescuD. (2012). The importance of being present: Election posters as signals of electoral strength, evidence from France and Belgium. Party Politics, 18, 941-960.
20.
EderN.JennyM.MüllerW. C. (2015). Winning over voters or fighting party comrades? Personalized constituency campaigning in Austria. Electoral Studies, 39, 316-328.
21.
FarrellD. M.WebbP. (2002). Political parties as campaign organizations. In DaltonR. J.WattenbergM. P. (Eds.), Parties without partisans: Political change in industrial democracies (pp. 102-128). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
FoxC. A. (2014). Appealing to the masses understanding ethnic politics and elections in Indonesia. Doctoral dissertation. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
23.
GreenD. P.SmithJ. K. (2003). Professionalization of campaigns and the secret history of collective action problems. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15, 321-339.
24.
GuntherR.DiamondL. (2003). Species of political parties: A new typology. Party Politics, 9, 167-199.
25.
HewisonK. (2013). Weber, Marx and contemporary Thailand. TRaNs: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 1, 177-198.
26.
HickenA. D. (2006). Party fabrication: Constitutional reform and the rise of Thai Rak Thai. Journal of East Asian Studies, 6, 381-407.
27.
HickenA. D. (2007). How do rules and institutions encourage vote buying? In SchafferF. C. (Ed.), Elections for sale: The causes, consequences, and reform of vote buying (pp. 47-60). Boulder, CO : Lynne Rienner.
28.
HickenA. D. (2009). Building party systems in developing democracies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HickenA. D. (2013). Late to the party: The development of partisanship in Thailand. TRaNs: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 1, 199-213.
30.
HickenA.SelwayJ. S. (2012). Forcing the genie back in the bottle: Sociological change, institutional reform, and health policy in Thailand. Journal of East Asian Studies, 12, 57-88.
31.
KamC. D.ZechmeisterE. J. (2013). Name recognition and candidate support. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 971-986.
32.
KarlsenR.SkogerboE. (2015). Candidate campaigning in parliamentary systems: Individualized vs. localized campaigning. Party Politics, 21, 428-439.
33.
KarvonenL. (2010). The personalisation of politics: A study of parliamentary democracies. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
34.
KatzR. S. (1980). A theory of parties and electoral systems. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
35.
KatzR. S. (1986). Intraparty Preference Voting. In GrofmanG.LijphartA. (Eds.), Electoral laws and their political consequences (pp. 85–103). New York, NY: Agathon Press Inc.
36.
KatzR. S.MairP. (1995). Changing models of party organization and party democracy the emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics, 1, 5–28.
37.
KirchheimerO. (1966). The transformation of the Western European party systems. In LaPalombaraJ.WeinerM. (Eds.), Political parties and political development (pp. 177-200). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
KitscheltH. (1994). The transformation of European social democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
KongkiratiP. (2014). The rise and fall of electoral violence in Thailand: Changing rules, structures and power landscapes, 1997–2011. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 36, 386-416.
40.
KriesiH. (2012). Personalization of national election campaigns. Party Politics, 18, 825-844.
41.
KuhontaE. M. (2015). Thailand’s feckless parties and party system: A path-dependent analysis. In HickenA.KuhontaE. M. (Eds.), Party system institutionalization in asia: Democracies, autocracies, and the shadows of the past (pp. 280-306). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
KuhontaE. M. (2008). The paradox of Thailand’s 1997 “people’s constitution”: Be careful what you wish for. Asian Survey, 48, 373-392.
43.
LangK.LangG. E. (2002). Television and politics. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
44.
LaothamatasA. (1996). A tale of two democracies: Conflicting perceptions of elections and democracy in Thailand. In TaylorR. H. (Ed.), The politics of elections in Southeast Asia (pp. 201-223). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
LipsetS. M.RokkanS. (1967). Cleavage structures party systems and voter alignments: An introduction. In LipsetS. M.RokkanS. (Eds.), Party systems and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives (pp. 1-64). New York, NY: The Free Press.
46.
ManciniP.SwansonD. L. (1996). Introduction. In SwansonD. L.ManciniP. (Eds.), Politics, media, and modern democracy. Westport, CT: Praeger.
47.
McAllisterI. (2007). The personalization of politics. In DaltonR. J.KlingemannH.-D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 571-588). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48.
McCargoD. (1997). Thailand’s political parties: Real, authentic and actual. In HewisonK. (Ed.), Political change in Thailand: Democracy and participation (pp. 114-131). London, UK: Routledge.
49.
MoserR. G.ScheinerE. (2004). Mixed electoral systems and electoral system effects: Controlled comparison and cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies, 23, 575-599.
50.
NishizakiY. (2011). Political Authority and Provincial Identity in Thailand: The Making of Banharn-buri. Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Studies Program.
51.
NorrisP. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in post-industrial societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
OckeyJ. (1994). Political parties, factions, and corruption in Thailand. Modern Asian Studies, 28, 251-277.
53.
OckeyJ. (2003). Change and continuity in the Thai political party system. Asian Survey, 43, 663-680.
54.
OckeyJ. (2004). Making democracy: Leadership, class, gender, and political participation in Thailand. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
55.
OckeyJ. (n.d.). The iconography of election posters and Thai democracy in the new millennium. Unpublished manuscript.
56.
PanagopoulosC. (2009). Street fight: The impact of a street sign campaign on voter turnout. Electoral Studies, 28, 309-313.
57.
PanebiancoA. (1988). Political parties: Organization and power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
PhongpaichitP.BakerC. (2008). Thaksin’s populism. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38, 62-83.
59.
PhongpaichitP.BakerC. (2013). Reviving democracy at Thailand’s 2011 election. Asian Survey, 53, 607-628.
60.
PlasserF.PlasserG. (2002). Global political campaigning: A worldwide analysis of campaign professionals and their practices. Westwood, CT: Greenwood.
61.
PoguntkeT.WebbP. (2005). The presidentialization of politics: A comparative study of modern democracies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
62.
PopkinS. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential elections. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
63.
RahatG.SheaferT. (2007). The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication, 24, 65-80.
64.
RoperJ.Holtz-BachaC.MazzoleniG. (2004). The politics of representation: Election campaigning and proportional representation. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
65.
SamuelsD. J. (1999). Incentives to cultivate a party vote in candidate-centric electoral systems: Evidence from Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 32, 478-518.
66.
ShugartM. S.ValdiniM. E.SuominenK. (2005). Looking for locals: Voter information demands and personal vote-earning attributes of legislators under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 437-449.
67.
ShugartM. S.WattenbergM. P. (2003). Mixed-member electoral systems: The best of both worlds?New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
68.
SinpengA.KuhontaE. M. (2012). From the street to the ballot box: The July 2011 elections and the rise of social movements in Thailand. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 34, 389-415.
69.
SiripanN. S. (2006). Thai political parties in the age of reform. Bangkok, Thailand: Institute of Public Policy Studies.
70.
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.
71.
ThabchumponN.McCargoD. (2011). Urbanized villagers in the 2010 Thai redshirt protests. Asian Survey, 51, 993-1018.
72.
ThalangC. N. (2012). Parliamentary elections in Thailand, July2011. Electoral Studies, 31, 633-636.
73.
van AelstP.SheaferT.StanyerJ. (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13, 203-220.
74.
WagnerM. (2011). When do parties emphasise extreme positions? How strategic incentives for policy differentiation influence issue importance. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 64-88.
75.
WalkerA. (2012). Thailand’s political peasants: Power in the modern rural economy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
76.
ZittelT.GschwendT. (2008). Individualised constituency campaigns in mixed-member electoral systems: Candidates in the 2005 German elections. West European Politics, 31, 978-1003.
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.
