Recent research on political attitudes has emphasized that coalition preferences determine electoral choices, prompting scholars to investigate the sources of coalition preferences. While it is not surprising that coalition preferences are strongly informed by spatial considerations, several studies have drawn attention to additional nonideological factors. Relying on this insight, the present study aims to systematically investigate the nonideological or valence component of coalition preferences. In order to decompose attitudes into their principal ideological and nonideological components, we apply a Bayesian unfolding model to coalition sympathy ratings. We find that coalitions differ strongly with regard to their valence component. This surplus cannot be reconstructed as a linear combination of the coalitions’ constituent party valences and is predominantly structured by campaign valence.
AdamsJMerrillS IIISimasEN. (2011) When candidates value good character: a spatial model with applications to congressional elections. Journal of Politics73(1): 17–30.
2.
AnsolabehereSSnyderJMJr (2000) Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial election models. Public Choice103(3/4): 327–336.
3.
AragonesE (2002) Mixed equilibrium in a Downsian model with a favored candidate. Journal of Economic Theory103(1): 131–161.
AshworthSBueno de MesquitaE (2009) Elections with platform and valence competition. Games and Economic Behavior67(1): 191–216.
6.
BargstedMAKedarO (2009) Coalition-targeted Duvergerian voting: how expectations affect voter choice under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science53(2): 307–323.
7.
BartelsLM (2002) The impact of candidate traits in American presidential elections. In: AnthonyK (ed.) Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 44–69.
8.
BlaisAAldrichJHIndridasonIH. (2006) Do voters vote for Government coalitions? Testing downs’ pessimistic conclusion. Party Politics12(6): 691–705.
9.
BornschierS (2010) Cleavage Politics and the Populist Right: The New Cultural Conflict in Western Europe. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
10.
BowlerSKarpJADonovanT (2010) Strategic coalition voting: evidence from New Zealand. Electoral Studies29(3): 350–357.
11.
BowlerSGschwendTIndridasonIH (2014). Coalition policy perceptions. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April3–6.
12.
BruterMEriksonRSStraussAB (2010) Uncertain candidates, valence, and the dynamics of candidate position-taking. Public Choice144(1–2): 153–168.
13.
ButticeMKStoneWJ (2012) Candidates matter: policy and quality differences in congressional elections. Journal of Politics74(3): 870–887.
14.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWE. (1976) The American Voter: Unabridged Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
CareyJMNiemiRGPowellL (2000) Incumbency and the probability of reelection in state legislative elections. Journal of Politics62(3): 671–700.
16.
ClarkM (2009) Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies28(1): 111–122.
17.
ClarkeHDSandersDStewartMC. (2004) Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
ClarkeHDSandersDStewartMC. (2009) Performance Politics and the British Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
ClarkeHDSandersDStewartMC. (2011) Valence politics and electoral choice in Britain, 2010. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties21(2): 237–253.
20.
CoxGWKatzJN (1996) Why did the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections grow?American Journal of Political Science40(2): 478–497.
21.
DebusMMüllerJ (2013) Do voters’ coalition preferences affect Government formation?West European Politics36(5): 1007–1028.
22.
DebusMMüllerJ (2014) Expected utility or learned familiarity? the formation of voters’ coalition preferences. Electoral Studies34(1): 54–67.
23.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
DrummondAJ (2011) Assimilation, contrast and voter projections of parties in left-right space: does the electoral system matter?Party Politics17(6): 711–743.
25.
DuchRMMayJArmstrongDA II (2010) Coalition-directed voting in multiparty democracies. American Political Science Review104(4): 698–719.
26.
EcklesDLKamCDMaestasCL. (2014) Risk attitudes and the incumbency advantage. Political Behavior36(4): 731–749.
27.
ElffMKosmidisS (2013) Umfragen, wählererwartungen und strategisches wählen: ein deutsch-britischer vergleich. In: BernhardWSchoenHGabrielOW (eds) Wahlen und Wähler: Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2009. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 533–552.
28.
EnelowJMHinichMJ (1982) Nonspatial candidate characteristics and electoral competition. Journal of Politics44(1): 115–130.
29.
Falcó-GimenoA (2012) Preferences for political coalitions in Spain. South European Society and Politics17(3): 487–502.
30.
FortunatoDStevensonRT (2013) Perceptions of partisan ideologies: the effect of coalition participation. American Journal of Political Science57(2): 459–477.
31.
FowlerAHallAB (2014) Disentangling the personal and partisan incumbency advantages: evidence from close elections and term limits. Quarterly Journal of Political Science9(4): 501–531.
32.
GranbergDBrownTA (1992) The perception of ideological distance. Western Political Quarterly45(3): 727–750.
33.
GreenJ (2007) When voters and parties agree: valence issues and party competition. Political Studies55(3): 629–655.
34.
GreenJHoboltSB (2008) Owning the issue agenda: party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies27(3): 460–476.
35.
GreenJJenningsW (2012) Valence as macro-competence: an analysis of mood in party competence evaluations in Britain. British Journal of Political Science42: 311–343.
36.
GrosecloseT (2001) A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science45(4): 862–886.
37.
GschwendT (2007) Ticket-splitting and strategic voting under mixed electoral rules: evidence from Germany. European Journal of Political Research46(1): 1–23.
38.
HerrmannM (2010) When wenige den ausschlag geben…strategisches erststimmenwählen bei deutschen bundestagswahlen 1994–2009. Politische Vierteljahresschrift51(4): 665–689.
39.
HoboltSBKarpJA (2010) Voters and coalition Governments. Electoral Studies29(3): 299–307.
40.
HuberS (2014) Coalitions and voting behavior in a differentiating multiparty system. In: BernhardWRattingerHRoßteutscherS. (eds) Voters on the Move or on the Run?Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 65–87.
41.
IndridasonIH (2011) Proportional representation, majoritarian legislatures, and coalitional voting. American Journal of Political Science55(4): 954–970.
42.
JohnsRMitchellJDenverD. (2009) Valence politics in Scotland: towards an explanation of the 2007 election. Political Studies57(1): 207–233.
43.
KedarO (2005) When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review99(2): 185–199.
44.
Kleinen-vonKönigslöw KEberlJ-MHaselmayerM. (2015) AUTNES Manual Content Analysis of Media Coverage 2013 – Documentation. Vienna: University of Vienna.
45.
KriesiHGrandeELachatR. (2006) Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Science45(6): 921–956.
46.
KritzingerSZeglovitsEAichholzerJ. (2014) AUTNES Pre- and Post Panel Study 2013. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5859 data file version 1.0.0. DOI: 10.4232/1.11959.
47.
LaverMSchofieldN (1998) Multiparty Government: The Politics of Coalition in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
48.
MeffertMFHuberSGschwendT. (2011) More than wishful thinking: causes and consequences of voters’ electoral expectations about parties and coalitions. Electoral Studies30(4): 804–815.
MeffertMFGschwendTSchützeN (2009) Coalition preferences in multiparty systems. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Society of Political Psychology, Dublin, July 14–17.
51.
MerrillSIIIGrofmanBAdamsJ (2001) Assimilation and contrast effects in voter projections of party locations: evidence from Norway, France, and the USA. European Journal of Political Research40(2): 199–221.
52.
MeyerTMStroblD (2016) Voter perceptions of coalition policy positions in multiparty systems. Electoral Studies41: 80–91.
53.
NadeauRBlaisA (1990) Do Canadians distinguish between parties? Perceptions of party competence. Canadian Journal of Political Science23(2): 317–33.
54.
NyhuisD (2016) Electoral effects of candidate valence. Electoral Studies24(1): 33–41.
55.
PappiFU (2007) Partei- und Koalitionskriterien der österreichischen Wählerschaft für die Nationalratswahl 2006. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft36(4): 445–469.
56.
PlesciaCAichholzerJ (2016) On the nature of voters’ coalition preferences. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. DOI: 10.1080/17457289.2016.1270286.
57.
SandersDClarkeHDStewartMC. (2011) Downs, stokes and the dynamics of electoral choice. British Journal of Political Science41(2): 287–314.
58.
SchofieldN (2003) Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. Journal of Theoretical Politics15(4): 371–383.
59.
SchofieldN (2004) Equilibrium in the spatial “valence” model of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics16(4): 447–481.
60.
SerraG (2010) Polarization of what? A model of elections with endogenous valence. Journal of Politics72(2): 426–437.
61.
ShikanoSKäppnerK (2016) Valenz im ideologischen Parteienwettbewerb während des Bundestagswahlkampfes 2013. In: HaraldSWeßelsB (eds) Wahlen und Wähler: Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2013. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 245–270.
62.
ShikanoSHerronMThurnerPW (2009) Strategic voting under proportional representation: threshold insurance in German elections. West European Politics32(3): 634–656.
63.
StokesDE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review57(2): 368–377.
StollH (2010) Elite-level conflict salience and dimensionality in Western Europe: concepts and empirical findings. West European Politics33(3): 445–473.
66.
StoneWJSimasEN (2010) Candidate valence and ideological positions in U.S. house elections. American Journal of Political Science54(2): 371–388.
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.
