Political parties often appeal to groups. Yet, existing work does not consider how such group-based appeals are used, presumably because they are thought to have grown ineffective. Contrary to this, I argue that group-based appeals are central to party electoral strategy, and that time has only strengthened the incentive to use them. Using original data on 10,000 group-based appeals found in sentence-by-sentence coding of British election manifestos, I demonstrate an increasing use of group-based appeals from 1964 to 2015. Furthermore, I show that the range of groups emphasized, the concentration of group emphasis, and the specific group categories targeted also follow the electoral incentives prevalent over this 50-year period. These findings shed new light on how political parties appeal for votes and suggest that we view group-based appeals as a distinctive feature of party electoral strategy. I discuss the implications for our broader understanding of electoral competition.
AchenCBartelsL (2016) Democracy for Realists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
AdamsJ (2012) Causes and Electoral Consequences of Party Policy Shifts in Multiparty Elections: Theoretical Results and Empirical Evidence. Annual Review of Political Science15: 401–419.
3.
AdamsJEzrowLSomer-TopcuZ (2011) Is Anybody Listening? Evidence that Voters Do Not Respond to European Parties’ Policy Statements during Elections. American Journal of Political Science55 (2): 370–382.
4.
BaumgartnerFGreen-PedersenCJonesB (2006) Comparative Studies of Policy Agendas. Journal of European Public Policy13: 959–974.
5.
BestR (2011) The Declining Electoral Relevance of Traditional Cleavage Groups. European Political Science Review3: 279–300.
6.
BinderkrantzAFiskerHPedersenH (2016) The Rise of Citizen Groups? The Mobilization and Representation of Danish Interest Groups, 1975–2010. Scandinavian Political Studies39 (4): 291–311.
7.
BoydstunABevanSThomasH (2014) The Importance of Attention Diversity and How to Measure It. Policy Studies Journal42 (2): 173–196.
8.
BudgeI (2001) Validating the Manifesto Research Group Approach. In: LaverM (ed.) Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. London: Routledge, pp.50–65.
9.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Party Competition: Selective Emphasis or Direct Confrontation? An Alternative View with Data. In: DaalderHMairP (eds) Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change. London: SAGE, pp.267–305.
10.
BudgeIKlingemanH-DVolkensAet al. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
ButlerDStokesD (1974) Political Change in Britain. Forces Shaping Electoral Choice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWEet al. (1960) The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science10: 103–126.
ConversePE (1964) The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In: ApterDE (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. New York: The Free Press, pp.206–261.
19.
DaltonRJ (2014) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 6th edn.London: SAGE.
20.
DaltonRJKlingemannHD (2007) Citizens and Political Behavior. In: DaltonRJKlingemannHD (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.3–28.
21.
DaltonRJWattenbergMP (2000) Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
DenverDCarmanCJohnsR (2012) Elections and Voters in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
DolezalMEnnser-JedenastikLMüllerWCet al. (2014) How Parties Compete for Votes: A Test of Saliency Theory. European Journal of Political Research53 (1): 57–76.
24.
DomkeDCoeK (2008) The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
26.
EvansGTilleyJ (2017) The New Politics of Class: The Political Exclusion of the British Working Class. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
FanJGijbelsI (1996) Local Polynomial Modelling and Its Applications. London: Chapman & Hall.
28.
FranklinMNMackieTTValenH (1992) Electoral Change: Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
GreenJ (2007) When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition. Political Studies55: 629–655.
30.
Green-PedersenC (2007) The Growing Importance of Issue Competition: The Changing Nature of Party Competition in Western Europe. Political Studies55: 607–628.
31.
GrimmerJStewartBM (2013) Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts. Political Analysis21 (3): 267–297.
32.
HayesAFKrippendorffK (2007) Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data. Communication Methods and Measures1 (1): 77–89.
33.
HeathO (2015) Policy representation, Social Representation and Class Voting in Britain. British Journal of Political Science45 (1): 173–193.
34.
HelblingMTreschA (2011) Measuring Party Positions and Issue Salience from Media Coverage: Discussing and Cross-Validating New Indicators. Electoral Studies30: 174–183.
35.
HopkinsDJKingG (2010) A Method of Automated Nonparametric Content Analysis for Social Science. American Journal of Political Science54 (1): 229–247.
36.
HuddyL (2013) From Group Identity to Political Cohesion and Commitment. In: HuddyLSearsDDLevyJS (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.737–773.
37.
KamCDKinderDR (2012) Ethnocentrism as a Short-Term Force in the 2008 American Presidential Election. American Journal of Political Science56 (2): 326–340.
38.
KinderDRKamCD (2009) Us against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
KitscheltH (1994) The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
KitscheltHMcGannAJ (1997) The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
41.
KlarS (2013) The Influence of Competing Identity Primes on Political Preferences. The Journal of Politics75 (4): 1108–1124.
42.
KleinnijenhuisJDe RidderJARietbergEM (1997) Reasoning in Economic Discourse: An Application of the Network Approach to the Dutch Press. In: RobertsCW (ed.) Text Analysis for the Social Sciences: Methods for Drawing Statistical Inferences from Texts and Transcripts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.191–207.
43.
KlingemannHDFuchsD (1995) Citizens and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
KriesiHGrandeELachatRet al. (2008) West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
KriesiHKoopmannsRDuyvendakJet al. (1995) New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
LazarsfeldPFBerelsonBGaudetH (1948) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction. In: LipsetSMRokkanS (eds) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-national Perspectives. New York: The Free Press, pp.1–64.
50.
McIlwainCCaliendoSM (2011) Race Appeal: How Candidates Invoke Race in U.S. Political Campaigns. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
51.
MairP (2013) Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy. New York: Verso Books.
52.
MairPMüllerWPlasserF (2004) Political Parties and Electoral Change: Party Responses to Electoral Markets. London: SAGE.
53.
MikhaylovSLaverMBenoitKR (2012) Coder Reliability and Misclassification in the Human Coding of Party Manifestos. Political Analysis20: 78–91.
54.
MillerAHWlezienCHildrethA (1991) A Reference Group Theory of Partisan Coalitions. The Journal of Politics53: 1134–1149.
55.
NelsonTEKinderDR (1996) Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion. Journal of Politics58: 1055–1078.
56.
Pardos-PradoSDinasE (2010) Systemic Polarisation and Spatial Voting. European Journal of Political Research49 (6): 759–786.
57.
PopkinSL (1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns, 2nd edn.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
58.
PrzeworskiASpragueJ (1986) Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
59.
RedlawskDLauR (2013) Behavioral Decision-Making. In: HuddyLSearsDDLevyJS (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.19–59.
60.
RhodesJHJohnsonKT (2017) Welcoming Their Hatred: Class Populism in Democratic Rhetoric in American Presidential Campaigns, 1932–2012. Presidential Studies Quarterly47 (1): 92–121.
61.
RohrschneiderR (2002) Mobilizing Versus Chasing: How Do Parties Target Voters In Election Campaigns?Electoral Studies21 (3): 367–382.
62.
SchattschneiderEE (1975 [1969]) The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Boston, MA: Thomson Learning.
63.
StollH (2010) Elite-level Conflict Salience and Dimensionality in Western Europe: Concepts and Empirical Findings. West European Politics33 (3): 445–473.
64.
ThomassenJ (2005) The European Voter: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
VolkensABaraJBudgeIet al. (2013) Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66.
WalshKC (2012) Putting Inequality in Its Place: Rural Consciousness and the Power of Perspective. American Political Science Review106 (3): 517–532.
67.
WebbP (2004) Party Responses to the Changing Electoral Market in Britain In: MairPMüllerWCPlasserF (eds) Political Parties and Electoral Change: Party Responses to Electoral Markets. London: SAGE, pp.20–48.
68.
WlezienCMillerAH (1997) Social Groups and Political Judgments. Social Science Quarterly78: 625–640.
69.
ZallerJR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge 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.
