This article derives a theory of party–voter linkages. It uses the decision theoretic calculus of voting model to theorize about political party strategies to mobilize voters under democratic competition. I show that parties will devise categorically distinct linkage strategies to operate upon different terms in the calculus of voting model. In particular, the theory implies four strategies: programmatic, clientelist, symbolic, and vote-buying. I illustrate their empirical relevance with case narratives of four parties in Ecuador.
AbelsonRP (1996) The secret existence of expressive behavior. In: FriedmanJ (ed.) The Rational Choice Controversy: Economic Models of Politics Reconsidered. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 25–36.
2.
AggarwalVKDupontC (1999) Goods, games, and institutions. International Political Science Review20: 393–409.
3.
AldrichJH (1993) Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science37: 246–278.
4.
AldrichJH (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
AldrichJH (1997) When is it rational to vote? In: MuellerDC (ed.) Perspectives on Public Choice: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373–390.
6.
AuyeroJ (2000) The logic of clientelism in Argentina: an ethnographic account. Latin American Research Review35: 55–81.
7.
BenderJDiermeierDTingM (2003) A behavioral model of turnout. American Political Science Review97: 261–280.
BlaisALabbé St-VincentS (2011) Personality traits, political attitudes, and the propensity to vote. European Journal of Political Research50: 395–417.
10.
BrautigamDASegarraM (2007) Difficult partnerships: the World Bank, states, and NGOs. Latin American Politics and Society49: 149–181.
11.
BurgwalG (1995) Struggle of the Poor: Neighborhood Organization and Clientelist Practice in a Quito Squatter Settlement. Amsterdam: Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation.
12.
CalvoEMurilloMV (2014) Partisan linkages and social policy delivery in Argentina and Chile. In: Abente BrunDDiamondL (eds) Clientelism, Social Policy, and the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 17–38.
13.
CameronJD (2005) Municipal democratisation in Rural Latin America: methodological insights from Ecuador. Bulletin of Latin American Research24: 367–390.
14.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWE. (1960) The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15.
ChhibberPNooruddinI (2004) Do party systems count? The number of parties and government performance in the Indian states. Comparative Political Studies37: 152–187.
16.
ClagueCKeeferPKnackS. (1996) Property and contract rights under democracy and dictatorship. The Journal of Economic Growth1: 243–276.
17.
ConaghanCM (1995) Politicians against parties: discord and disconnection in Ecuador’s party system. In: ScullyTRMainwaringS (eds) Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 434–458.
18.
CoppedgeM (1998) The dynamic diversity of Latin American party systems. Party Politics4: 547–568.
19.
CoppedgeM (2012) Democratization and Research Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
CoxGW (1987) The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
CoxGW (2010) Swing voters, core voters, and distributive politics. In: ShapiroIStokesSCWoodEJ. (eds) Political Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 342–357.
22.
De la TorreC (2000) Populist Seduction in Latin America: The Ecuadorian Experience. Athens, OH: Center for International Studies Ohio University.
23.
De la TorreCConaghanC (2009) The hybrid campaign: tradition and modernity in Ecuador’s 2006 presidential election. International Journal of Press/Politics14: 335–352.
24.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
25.
FeddersenTJ (2004) Rational choice theory and the paradox of not voting. The Journal of Economic Perspectives18: 99–112.
26.
FerejohnJAFiorinaMP (1974) The paradox of not voting: a decision theoretic analysis. American Political Science Review68: 525–536.
27.
FiorinaMP (1976) The voting decision: instrumental and expressive aspects. The Journal of Politics38: 390–413.
28.
FiorinaMP (1990) Information and rationality in elections. In: FerejohnJAKuklinskiJH (eds) Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 329–343.
FreidenbergF (2001) Ecuador. In: Alcántara SáezMFreidenbergF (eds) Partidos Políticos de América Latina. Países Andinos. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 235–409.
31.
FreidenbergF (2003) Jama, Caleta y Camello: Las Estrategias de Abdalá Bucaram y del PRE para Ganar las Elecciones. Quito, Ecuador: Corporación Editora Nacional.
32.
FreidenbergF (2008) El Flautista de Hammelin: Liderazgo y Populismo en la Democracia Ecuatoriana. In: De la TorreCPeruzzottiE (eds) El Retorno del Pueblo: Populismo y Nuevas Democracias en América Latina. Quito: FLACSO, pp. 185–233.
33.
FreidenbergF (2010) La Política Se Fue de Fiesta: Estrategias Electorales, Clientelismo Político y Organización Informal de los Partidos en el Nivel Local en Ecuador. Nueva Sociedad225: 120–138.
34.
FreidenbergFAlcántara SáezM (2001) Los dueños del poder: Los partidos políticos en Ecuador (1978–2000). Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO Sede Ecuador.
35.
FreidenbergFLevitskyS (2006) Informal institutions and party organization in Latin America. In: HelmkeGLevitskyS (eds) Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 178–200.
36.
GambettaD (1988) Can we trust trust? In: GambettaD (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. New York: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 213–238.
37.
GomezBTHansfordTGKrauseGA (2007) The republicans should pray for rain: weather, turnout, and voting in U.S. presidential elections. The Journal of Politics69: 647–661.
38.
GrootaertC (2001) Does social capital help the poor? A synthesis of findings from the local level institutions studies in Bolivia, Burkina Faso and Indonesia. Local Level Institutions Working Paper No. 10, June 2001. Washington, DC: World Bank.
39.
HawkinsKA (2009) Is Chavez a populist? Measuring populist discourse in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies42: 1040–1067.
40.
HilgersT (2011) Clientelism and conceptual stretching: differentiating among concepts and among analytical levels. Theory and Society40: 567–588.
41.
HolzingerK (2003) Common goods, matrix games and institutional response. European Journal of International Relations9: 173–212.
42.
Huber StephensEStephensJD (1986) Democratic Socialism in Jamaica: The Political Movement and Social Transformation in Dependent Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
Jones WestK (2011) Programmatic or personalistic? Pachakutik strategies in Ecuador’s 2006 elections. The Latin Americanist55: 49–68.
44.
KeeferP (2007) Clientelism, credibility, and the policy choices of young democracies. American Journal of Political Science51: 804–821.
45.
KeeferPVlaicuR (2008) Democracy, credibility, and clientelism. The Journal of Law, Economics and Organization24: 371–406.
46.
KingDCWalkerJL (1992) The provision of benefits by interest groups in the United States. Journal of Politics54: 394–426.
47.
KitscheltH (2000) Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic politics. Comparative Political Studies33: 845–879.
48.
KitscheltHKselmanDM (2013) Economic development, democratic experience, and political parties’ linkage strategies. Comparative Political Studies46: 1453–1484.
49.
KitscheltHWilkinsonSI (2007) Patrons, Clients and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
LawsonK (1980) Political Parties and Linkage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
52.
LevitskyS (2003) Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America: Argentine Peronism in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
LunaJP (2014) Segmented Representation: Political Party Strategies in Unequal Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
LupiaAMcCubbinsMD (1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
MadridRL (2012) The Rise of Ethnic Politics in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
MalloyJMSeligsonMA (1987) Authoritarians and Democrats: Regime Transition in Latin America. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
57.
Menéndez-CarriónA (1986) La Conquista del Vote en el Ecudor: De Velasco a Roldós; el Suburbio Huayaquileño en las Elecciones Presidenciales del Ecuador, 1952–1978; Análisis del Comportamiento Electoral a Nivel Local en un Contexto de Control Social. Quito, Ecuador: Corporación Editora Nacional.
58.
MorganJ (2011) Bankrupt Representation and Party System Collapse. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
59.
MustilloTJungY-S (n.d.) Distinguishing territorial structure from electoral adventurism: the sources of low party nationalization. In: The 73rd annual conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 16–19 April 2015.
OlsonM (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64.
PachanoS (1998) La Representación Caótica: Análisis del Sistema Electoral Ecuatoriano. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO Sede Ecuador.
65.
PiattoniS (2001) Clientelism, Interests, and Democratic Representation: The European Experience in Historical and Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66.
RialJ (2008) Ecuador: Álvaro Noboa Pontón. In: AdrianzénARialJRoncaglioloR (eds) Países Andinos: Los Políticos. Stockholm: IDEA International, pp. 248–263.
67.
RikerWHOrdeshookPC (1968) A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review62: 25–42.
68.
RoblesS (2002) Ecuador’s Presidency Seen as ‘Up for Grabs’. Miami, FL: The Miami Herald.
69.
SánchezF (2008) ¿Democracia no lograda o democracia malograda? Un análisis del sistema político del Ecuador: 1979–2002. Quito, Ecuador: FLACSO, Sede Ecuador.
70.
SchafferFCSchedlerA (2007) What is vote buying? In: SchafferFC (ed.) Elections for Sale: The Causes and Consequences of Vote Buying. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 17–30.
71.
SchlozmanKLVerbaSBradyHE (1995) Participation’s not a paradox: the view from American activists. British Journal of Political Science25: 1–36.
72.
ShefterM (1977) Party and patronage: Germany, England and Italy. Politics and Society7: 403–451.
73.
ShefterM (1994) Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
74.
StokesSC (2005) Perverse accountability: a formal model of machine politics with evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review99: 315–325.
75.
StokesSCDunningTNazarenoM. (2013) Brokers, Voters, and Clientelism: The Puzzle of Distributive Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
SugiyamaNBHunterW (2013) Whither clientelism? Good governance and Brazil’s Bolsa Família program. Comparative Politics46: 43–62.
77.
WantchekonL (2003) Clientelism and voting behavior: evidence from a field experiment in Benin. World Politics55: 399–422.
World Bank (1999) Ecuador: Country Assistance Evaluation (ed. Department OE). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
80.
YasharDJ (2005) Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
