In this article we use concentration of electoral support for individual candidates and divergence between party and electorate preferences for candidates to test hypotheses about the party–electorate relationship. We test these using data from preferential voting in Slovak general elections between 1998 and 2010. Our results suggest that low concentration is associated with parties based on ideology and high concentration with parties based on leadership. Age of the party fails to predict the concentration or the divergence. For coalitions, type of coalition matters in regard to divergence. Furthermore, we document that divergence increases with the size of the electoral support, though this seems to be true only for larger parties.
AlvessonM (2000) Social identity and the problem of loyalty in knowledge–intensive companies. Journal of Management Studies37(8): 1107–1123.
2.
AshforthBEMaelF (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review14(1): 20–39.
3.
BaerJ (2001) Boxing and politics in Slovakia: Meciarism roots. Theory, Practice, Democratization8(2): 97–116.
4.
BergmanTMüllerWCStrømKBlomgrenM (2003) Democratic delegation and accountability: Cross-national patterns. In: StrømKMüllerWCBergmanT (eds) Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 110–220.
5.
BelloniFPBellerDC (1978) Faction Politics: Political Parties and Factionalism in Comparative Perspectives. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC–Clio Inc.
6.
BirchSMillardFPopescuMWilliamsK (2002) Embodying Democracy: Electoral System Design in Post-Communist Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
7.
BoucekF (2009) Rethinking factionalism. Typologies, intra-party dynamics and three faces of factionalism. Party Politics15(4): 1–31.
DayAJ (2002) Political Parties of the World. London: John Harper Publishing.
10.
Deegan–KrauseKD (2003) Slovakias second transition. Journal of Democracy14(2): 65–79.
11.
FitzmauriceJ (1999) The Slovak elections of 25th and 26th September 1998. Electoral Studies18: 290–296.
12.
FitzmauriceJ (2004) The parliamentary election in Slovakia, September 2002. Electoral Studies23: 160–166.
13.
HarmelRRobertsonJD (1985) Formation and success of new parties: A cross–national analysis. International Political Science Review6: 501–523.
14.
HarrisE (2010) Slovakia since 1989. In: RametSP (ed.) Central and Southeast European Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–203.
15.
HaughtonT (2001) HZDS: The ideology, organisation and support base of Slovakia’s most successful party. Europe–Asia Studies53(5): 745–769.
16.
HaughtonT (2005) Constraints and Opportunities of Leadership in Post-Communist Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.
17.
HaussCRaysideD (1978) The development of new parties in Western democracies since 1945. In: MaiselLCooperJ (eds) Political Parties: Development and Decay. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 31–57.
18.
HowellJMShamirB (2005) The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review30(1): 96–112.
19.
HugS (1996) The emergence of new political parties from a game theoretic perspective. European Journal of Political Research29: 169–190.
20.
HugS (2001) Altering Party Systems. Strategic Behavior and the Emergence of New Political Parties in Western Democracies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
21.
KatzRS (1980) A Theory of Parties and Electoral Systems. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
KatzRS (1979) Democracy and Election. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
KatzRSBardiL (1980) Preference voting and turnover in Italian parliamentary elections. American Journal of Political Science 24(1): 97–114.
24.
KatzRSMairP (1995) Changing models of party organization and party democracy: The emergence of the Cartel party. Party Politics1: 5–28.
25.
KinderDRSearsD (1985) Public opinion and political action. In: LindzeyGAronsonE (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology2. Boston, MA: Addison–Wesley, pp. 659–671.
26.
KingA (2002) Leaders’ Personalities and Outcomes of Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
KitscheltH (1988) Left-libertarian parties: Explaining innovation in competitive party systems. World Politics40: 194–234.
28.
KitscheltH (1995) The Radical Right in Western Europe. A Comparative Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
29.
KopečekL (2007) Politické strany na Slovensku: 1989 až 2006. CDK, Brno.
30.
KopečekL (2004) Institutionalization of Slovak political parties and charismatic leaders. Central European Political Studies Review1/VI.
31.
KoppellJGSSteenJA (2004) The effects of ballot position on election outcomes. Journal of Politics66(1): 267–281.
32.
KrauseKD (2006) Elected Affinities: Democracy and Party Competition in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
LijphartA (1974) The Netherlands: Continuity and change in voting behavior. In: RoseR (ed.) Electoral Behaviour. London: Free Press, pp. 227–270.
34.
LucardieP (2000) Prophets, purifiers and prolocutors. Party Politics6(2): 175–185.
35.
MarshM (1985) The voters decide? Preferential voting in European list systems. European Journal of Political Research13: 365–378.
36.
MarušiakJ (2006) Fenomén strany Smer: medzi “pragmatizmom” a sociálnou demokraciou. Středoevropské politické studieVIII (1): 19–55.
37.
MaurerTJMaherKJAsheDKMitchellDRDHeinMBVan HeinJ (1993) Leadership perceptions in relation to a presidential vote. Journal of Applied Social Psychology23: 959–979.
38.
McAllisterI (2007) The personalisation of politics. In: DaltonRJKlingemannH-D (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
NiemiRGWeisbergHF (1993) What determines the vote? In: NiemiRGWeisbergHF (eds) Controversies in Voting Behavior. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc.
42.
OrtegaC (2006) Preferential Voting Systems and their Impact on the Personalization of Politics. Presented at the CSES Conference and Planning Committee Meeting, 28–31 March 2006, Seville, Spain. Available at: http://www.cses.org/plancom/2006Seville/Ortega2006.pdf(accessed 1 May 2011).
43.
PanebiancoA (1988) Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
PedersenM (1966) Preferential voting in Denmark. Scandinavian Political Studies1: 167–187.
45.
PillaiRWilliamsEA (1998) Does leadership matter in the political arena? Voter perceptions of candidates’ transformational and charismatic leadership and the 1996 U.S. presidential vote. Leadership Quarterly9(3): 397–416.
46.
RichardsonBM (1988) Constituency candidates versus parties in Japanese voting behavior. American Political Science Review82: 695–718.
47.
RobsonCWalshB (1974) The importance of positional voting bias in the Irish general election of 1973. Political Studies22(2): 191–203.
48.
RybářMDeegan–KrauseK (2008) Slovakias Communist successor parties in comparative perspective. Communist and Post-Communist Studies41: 497–519.
49.
ShamirBM (1994) Ideological position, leaders’ charisma and voting preferences – personal vs. partisan elections. Political Behavior16: 265–287.
50.
ShamirBZakayEBreininEPopperM (1998) Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal41(4): 387–409.
51.
SikkA (2011) Newness as a winning formula for new political parties. Party Politics (March). Published online ahead of print.
52.
TaebelDA (1975) The effect of ballot position on electoral success. American Journal of Political Science19(3): 519–526.
53.
UptonGJBrookGD (1974) The importance of positional voting bias in British Elections. Political Studies22(2): 178–190.
54.
VodaPPinkM (2009) Kandidáti v poslaneckých volbách. Analýza preferenčního hlasování ve volbách do PS PČR v roce 2006. Central European Political Studies ReviewXI(2–3): 163–180.
55.
WebbP (2004) Party responses to the changing electoral market in Britain. In: MairPMullerWCPlasserF (eds) Political Parties and Electoral Change. London: Sage, pp. 20–48.
56.
WildgenJK (1985) Preference voting and intraparty competition in Italy: Some new evidence on the Communist–Christian Democrat stalemate. Journal of Politics47(3): 947–957.
