Previous comparative electoral studies using aggregate data indicate the importance of party-system variables, such as polarization and the number of parties, with regard to the level of volatility between two elections. Research using individual level data has shown elements, such as political knowledge, political disaffection and party identification, that explain why voters remained faithful to their party or not. Until now, no study has investigated these variables simultaneously on individual level data using a large set of elections. This study fills that important gap in the literature using data from 29,591 voters in 33 elections. We find polarization influences party-switching at the individual level, rather than the sheer number of parties, as aggregate-level analyses suggest.
AartsKBlaisASchmittH (2011) Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AbediA (2002) Challenges to established parties: The effects of party system features on the electoral fortunes of anti-political-establishment parties. European Journal of Political Research41(4): 551–583.
3.
AlvarezRMNaglerJ (2004) Party system compactness: Measurement and consequences. Political Analysis12(1): 46–62.
4.
AlwinDFKrosnickJA (1991) Aging, cohorts, and the stability of sociopolitical orientations over the life span. American Journal of Sociology97(1): 169–195.
5.
BardiLMairP (2008) The parameters of party systems. Party Politics14(2): 147–166.
6.
BartoliniSMairP (1990) Identity, Competition and Electoral Availability: The Stability of European Electorates 1885–1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BerelsonBRLazarsfeldPFMcPheeWN (1963) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BlaisAGschwendT (2010) Strategic defection across elections, parties and voters. In: DaltonRJAndersonCJ (eds) Citizens, Context and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 176–193.
9.
BlondelJ (1968) Party systems and patterns of government in western democracies. Canadian Journal of Political Science1(2): 180–203.
10.
BudgeIMcDonaldMD (2006) Choices parties define: Policy alternatives in representative elections, 17 countries 1945–1998. Party Politics12(4): 451–466.
11.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWE. (1963) The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
ConversePE (1962) Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. The Public Opinion Quarterly26(4): 578–599.
13.
CrepazMML (1990) The impact of party polarization and postmaterialism on voter turnout: A comparative study of 16 industrial democracies. European Journal of Political Research18(2): 183–205.
14.
CreweIDenverD (1985) Electoral Change in Western Democracies: Patterns and Sources of Electoral Volatility. London: Croom Helm.
15.
CuriniLHinoA (2012) Missing links in party-system polarization: How institutions and voters matter. The Journal of Politics74(2): 460–473. Available at: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022381611001721 (accessed 11 January 2013).
16.
DaltonRJ (2008) The quantity and the quality of party systems: Party system polarization, its measurement, and its consequences. Comparative Political Studies41: 899–920.
17.
DaltonRJAndersonCJ (2011) Citizens, context and choice. In: DaltonRJAndersonCJ (eds) Citizens, Context and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–30.
18.
DaltonRJ (2013) The Apartisan American: Dealignment and Changing Electoral Politics. Washington DC, USA: CQ Press.
19.
DaltonRJMcAllisterI (2015) Random Walk or Planned Excursion? Continuity and Change in the Left-Right Posiitons of Political Parties. Comparative Political Studies. Epub ahead of print 9 December 2014. DOI: 10.1177/0010414014558257.
20.
DaltonRJWeldonS (2005) Public images of political parties: A necessary evil?West European Politics28(5): 931–951.
21.
DaltonRJMcallisterIWattenbergMP (2002) The consequences of partisan dealignment. In: DaltonRJWattenbergMP (eds) Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 37–63.
22.
DassonnevilleR (2012) Electoral volatility, political sophistication, trust and efficacy: A study on changes in voter preferences during the Belgian regional elections of 2009. Acta Politica47(1): 18–41.
23.
DassonnevilleR (2013) Questioning generational replacement: An age, period and cohort analysis of electoral volatility in the Netherlands, 1971–2010. Electoral Studies32: 37–47.
24.
DassonnevilleRDejaeghereY (2014) Bridging the ideological space: A cross-national analysis of the distance of party switching. European Journal of Political Research53(3): 580–599.
25.
Deegan-KrauseKEnyediZ (2010) Agency and the structure of party competition: Alignment, stability and the role of political elites. West European Politics33(3): 686–710.
26.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
27.
EpperlyB (2011) Institutions and legacies: Electoral volatility in the postcommunist world. Comparative Political Studies44(7): 829–853.
28.
EzrowL (2007) The variance matters: How party systems represent the preference of voters. The Journal of Politics69(1): 182–192.
29.
EzrowL (2008) Parties’ policy programmes and the dog that didn’t bark: No evidence that proportional systems promote extreme party positioning. British Journal of Political Science38(3): 479–497.
30.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
FreireA (2008) Party polarization and citizens’ left–right orientations. Party Politics14(2): 189–209.
GallegoARicoGAnduizaE (2012) Disproportionality and voter turnout in new and old democracies. Electoral Studies31(1): 159–169.
34.
GomezR (2013) All that you can(not) leave behind: Habituation and vote loyalty in the Netherlands. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties23 (2): 134–153.
35.
HazanR (1997) Centre Parties: Polarization and Competition in European Parliamentary Democracies. London: Pinter.
36.
IndridasonIH (2011) Coalition formation and polarisation. European Journal of Political Research50: 689–718.
37.
KeyVO (1966) The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
KuhnU (2009) Stability and change in party preference. Swiss Political Science Review15(3): 463–494.
39.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) The ‘effective’ number of parties: A measure with application to west Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
40.
LachatR (2007) A Heterogeneous Electorate: Political Sophistication, Predisposition Strength and the Voting Decision Process. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
41.
LaneJErssonS (2007) Party system instability in Europe: Persistent differences in volatility between west and east?Democratization14(1): 92–110.
42.
LazarsfeldPFBerelsonBRGaudetH (1949) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.
43.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
44.
LipsetSRokkanS (1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press.
45.
LuskinRC (1990) Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior12(4): 331–361.
46.
MainwaringSZocoE (2007) Political sequences and the stabilization of interparty competition: Electoral volatility in old and new democracies. Party Politics13(2): 155–178.
47.
MairP (1995) Political parties, popular legitimacy and public privilege. West European Politics18(3): 40–57.
48.
NetoOACoxGW (1997) Electoral institutions, cleavage structures, and the number of parties. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 149–174.
49.
PedersenMN (1979) The dynamics of European party systems: Changing patterns of electoral volatility. European Journal of Political Research7(1): 1–26.
50.
RobertsKMWibbelsE (1999) Party systems and electoral volatility in Latin America: A test of economic, institutional, and structural explanations. The American Political Science Review93(3): 575–590.
51.
RoseRMcAllisterI (1986) Voters Begin to Choose: From Closed-Class to Open Elections in Europe. London: Sage.
52.
SartoriG (2005) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Colchester: ECPR Press.
53.
SinghSThorntonJ (2013) Compulsory voting and the dynamics of party identification. European Journal of Political Research52: 188–211.
54.
SöderlundP (2008) retrospective voting and electoral volatility: A Nordic perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies31(2): 217–240.
55.
SteenbergenMRJonesBS (2002) Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science46(1): 218–237.
56.
TavitsM (2005) The development of stable party support: Electoral dynamics in post-Communist Europe. American Journal of Political Science49(2): 283–298.
57.
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (2007) CSES Module 2 Full Release [dataset].
58.
The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (2012) CSES Module 3 third Advance Release [dataset].
59.
ThomassenJRosemaM (2009) Party identification revisited. In: BartleJBellucciP (eds) Political Parties and Partisanship: Social Identity and Individual Attitudes. London: Routledge, pp. 42–59.
60.
TokaG (1998) Party appeals and voter loyalty in new democracies. Political Studies46(3): 589–610.
61.
van der EijkCNiemöllerB (1983) Electoral Change in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: CT Press.
62.
van der EijkCNiemöllerB (2008) Recall accuracy and its determinants. In: ArzheimerKEvansJ (eds) Electoral Behavior. Volume 4: Debates and Methodology. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp. 232–280.
63.
VegettiF (2014) From political conflict to partisan evaluations: How citizens assess party ideology and competence in polarized elections. Electoral Studies35: 230–241.
64.
WaldahlRAardalB (2000) The accuracy of recalled previous voting: Evidence from Norwegian election study panels. Scandinavian Political Studies23
(4): 373–389.
65.
WareA (1996) Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
ZelleC (1995) Social dealignment versus political frustration: Contrasting explanations of the floating vote in Germany. European Journal of Political Research27(3): 319–345.
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.
