This article investigates the ways in which parties stake out left—right positions that deviate from the mean positions of their supporters. Previous research has shown that parties tend to adopt positions that are more extreme than those of their supporters, but there are at least two arguments that also imply the presence of relative moderation—a tendency for moderate parties to be more moderate than their supporters. Using surveys covering 34 countries compiled by the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, this investigation shows that parties in coalitional systems display both phenomena.
Adams, James, and Samuel Merrill.1999. Modeling party strategies and policy representation in multiparty elections: Why are strategies so extreme? American Journal of Political Science43 (3): 765-91.
2.
Belsley, David A., Edwin Kuh, and Roy E. Welsch .1980. Regression diagnostics. New York: John Wiley.
3.
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Robert W. Jackman .1990. Regression diagnostics: An expository treatment of outliers and influential cases. In Modern methods of data analysis, ed. J. Fox and J. S. Long, 257-91. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Budge, Ian, Hans-Dieter Klingemann, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, and Eric Tannenbaum .2001. Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945-1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
Comparative Study of Electoral Systems.2003 . Comparative study of electoral systems, 1996-2001: Module 1 micro-district-macro data [data set]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor].
6.
---. 2007. Comparative study of electoral systems, 2001-2006: Module 2 full release [data set]. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor].
7.
Downs, Anthony.1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
8.
Holmberg, S.1989. Political representation in Sweden. Scandinavian Political Studies12:1-36.
9.
Huber, John D.1989. Values and partisanship in left-right orientations: Measuring ideology. European Journal of Political Research17.
10.
Huber, John D., and Bingham Powell.1994. Congruence between citizens and policy-makers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics46 (3): 291-326.
11.
Iversen, Torben.1994. The logics of electoral politics: Spatial, directional, and mobilizational effects. Comparative Political Studies27 (2): 155-89.
12.
Kedar, Orit.2005a. How diffusion of power in parliaments affects voter choice . Political Analysis13 (4): 410-29.
13.
Kedar, Orit.2005b. When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: Policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review99 (2): 185-99.
14.
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Andrea Volkens, Judith Bara, Ian Budge, and Michael McDonald .2006. Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments in Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15.
Laver, Michael, and Ian Budge.1992. Measuring policy distances and modelling coalition formation. In Party policy and government coalitions , ed. M. Laver and I. Budge, 15-40. New York: St. Martin's.
16.
Lewis, Jeffrey, and Gary King.2000. No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting. Political Analysis8 (1): 21-33.
17.
McDonald, Michael, and Ian Budge.2005. Elections, parties, democracy: Conferring the median mandate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
Powell, Bingham, and Georg Vanberg.2000. Election laws, disproportionality and median correspondence: Implications for two visions of democracy. British Journal of Political Science30:383-411.
19.
Przeworski, Adam, and John Sprague.1986. Paper stones: A history of electoral socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Rabinowitz, C., and S.E. Macdonald.1989. A directional theory of issue voting . American Political Science Review83:93-121.
21.
Sartori, Giovanni.1976. Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Schofield, Norman, and Itai Sened.2005. Modeling the interaction of parties, activists, and voters: Why is the political center so empty?European Journal of Political Research44:355-90.
23.
Schofield, Norman, and Itai Sened.2006. Multiparty democracy: Elections and legislative politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Warwick, Paul V.2001. Coalition policy in parliamentary democracies: Who gets how much and why. Comparative Political Studies34:1212-36.
25.
---. 2004. Proximity, directionality, and the riddle of relative party extremeness. The Journal of Theoretical Politics16:263-87.
26.
Westholm, Anders.1997. Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice. American Political Science Review91 (4): 865-83.
