Spatial analogies are ubiquitous as a concept structuring political conversation. Assuming that political parties play an important role in shaping the make-up of the political space and that depending on their combination of issue emphases they give rise to more or fewer dimensions of political competition, this article tests whether party system dimensionality leads to a trade-off implied in the relevant literature: when parties constrict the political space too much, certain preferences may not be represented anymore, leaving citizens dissatisfied with the system. At the same time, multidimensional political spaces may become too difficult to navigate and leave citizens confused. Results from hierarchical regression models (based on European Social Survey and manifesto data), however, show that such a trade-off does not exist. Higher dimensionality does not confuse voters. At the same time, there is evidence that it increases satisfaction with the political system, albeit only for the most sophisticated citizens.
AartsKThomassenJ (2008) Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?Electoral Studies27(1): 5–18.
2.
BakkerRJollySPolkJ (2012) Complexity in the European party space: exploring dimensionality with experts. European Union Politics13(2): 219–245.
3.
BaldassarriDGelmanA (2008) Partisans without constraint: political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology114(2): 408–446.
4.
BenoitKLaverM (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.
5.
BenoitKLaverM (2012) The dimensionality of political space: epistemological and methodological considerations. European Union Politics13(2): 194–218.
6.
BorgIGroenenP (2005) Modern Multidimensional Scaling. New York: Springer.
7.
BowlerSDonovanT (2002) Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science32(2): 371–390.
8.
BrandenburgHJohnsR (2014) The declining representativeness of the British party system, and why it matters. Political Studies62(4): 704–725.
9.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.
10.
BudgeI (1993) Issues, dimensions and agenda change in postwar democracies: long-term trends in party election programs and newspaper reports in twenty-three democracies. In: RikerWH (ed.) Agenda Formation, Vol. 1993. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 41–80.
11.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWE, et al. (1960) The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
12.
CarminesEStimsonJ (1986) On the structure and sequence of issue evolution. American Political Science Review80(3): 901–920.
13.
CarminesEEnsleyMJWagnerMW (2012) Who fits the left-right divide? Partisan polarization in the American electorate. American Behavioral Scientist56(12): 1631–1653.
14.
ConverseP (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In: ApterD (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press, pp. 206–261.
15.
CuriniLJouWMemoliV (2012) Satisfaction with democracy and the winner/loser debate: the role of policy preferences and past experience. British Journal of Political Science42(2): 241–261.
16.
DaltonRJ (2015) Party representation across multiple issue dimensions. Party Politics23(6): 609–622.
17.
de VriesCEMarksG (2012) The struggle over dimensionality: a note on theory and empirics. European Union Politics13(2): 185–193.
18.
DejaeghereYvan ErkelP (2017) The importance of issue-ownership and salience for voters’ knowledge of parties’ issue positions. Electoral Studies46: 15–25.
19.
Delli CarpiniMXKeeterS (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
20.
DöringHManowP (2015) Parliaments and governments database (ParlGov). Stable version 2015 12 March 2016, Available at: www.parlgov.org.
21.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
22.
DyckJJLascherELJr (2009) Direct democracy and political efficacy reconsidered. Political Behavior31(3): 401–427.
23.
EliasASzöcsikEZuberC (2015) Position, selective emphasis and framing: How parties deal with a second dimension in competition. Party Politics21(6): 839–850.
24.
ESS (2002–2012) European Social Survey, Rounds 1 - 6. Norwegian Social Science Data Services.
25.
EzrowL (2007) The variance matters: how party systems represent the preferences of voters. Journal of Politics69(1): 182–192.
26.
EzrowLXezonakisG (2011) Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies44(9): 1152–1178.
27.
FeldmanS (1988) Structure and consistency in public opinion: the role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science132(2): 416–440.
28.
FisherSDHoboltSB (2010) Coalition government and electoral accountability. Electoral Studies29(3): 358–369.
29.
FranzmannS (2011) Competition, contest, and cooperation: the analytic framework of the issue market. Journal of Theoretical Politics23(3): 317–343.
30.
FreireA (2015) Left–right ideology as a dimension of identification and of competition. Journal of Political Ideologies20(1): 43–68.
31.
GanghofSEppnerSHeeK (2014) Normative balance and electoral reform. A Finnish puzzle and a comparative analysis. West European Politics38(1): 53–72.
32.
HeathAEvansGMartinJ (1994) ‘The measurement of core beliefs and values: the development of balance socialist/laissez faire and libertarian/authoritarian scales. British Journal of Political Science24(1): 115–132.
33.
HoboltSBDe VriesCE (2015) Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies48(9): 1159–1185.
34.
HuangMHChangYTChuYH (2008) Identifying sources of democratic legitimacy: a multilevel analysis. Electoral Studies27(1): 45–62.
35.
HugS (2001) Altering Party Systems: Strategic Behavior and the Emergence of New Political Parties in Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
36.
KimM (2009) Cross-national analyses of satisfaction with democracy and ideological congruence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties19(1): 49–72.
37.
LaaksoMTaageperaR (1979) “Effective” number of parties: a measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies12(1): 3–27.
38.
LagoIMartínezF (2011) Why new parties?Party Politics17(1): 3–20.
39.
LefkofridiZWagnerMWillmannJE (2014) Left-authoritarians and policy representation in Western Europe: Electoral choice across ideological dimensions. West European Politics37(1): 65–90.
40.
LijphartA (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
41.
LindbergSI (2016) Ordinal versions of V-Dem’s indices: when interval measures are not useful for classification, description, and sequencing analysis purposes. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations8(2): 76111.
42.
LindeJEkmanJ (2003) Satisfaction with democracy: a note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research42(3): 391–408.
43.
LipsetSRokkanS (1967) Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: An introduction. In: LipsetSRokkanS (eds) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press, pp. 1–64.
44.
LupiaA (1994) Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review88(1): 63–76.
45.
McGannA (2008) Why unidimensionality: Party systems as constraints on choice. Paper Prepared for the Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association.
46.
McMannKPemsteinDTeorellJ, et al. (2015) Complementary Strategies of Validation: Assessing the Validity of V-Dem Corruption Index and Indicators. Varieties of Democracy Institute: Working Paper Series, No. 23.
47.
MorrellM (2003) Survey and experimental evidence for a reliable and valid measure of internal political efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly67(4): 589–602.
48.
NetjesCEBinnemaHA (2007) The salience of the European integration issue: three data sources compared. Electoral Studies26(1): 39–49.
49.
NybladeB (2004) The “effective” number of issue dimensions: a measure with application to West Europe. In Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association.
50.
PopkinSL (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
ReherS (2015) Explaining cross-national variation in the relationship between priority congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research54(1): 160–181.
52.
RikerW (1982) Liberalism against Populism. A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Long Grove: Waveland Press.
53.
RobertsonD (2006) On the dimensionality of political space and on its inhabitants. In: BaraJWealeA (eds) Democratic Politics and Party Competition: Essays in Honour of Ian Budge. London: Routledge, pp. 159–178.
54.
RovnyJ (2012) Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party competition in multiple dimensions. European Union Politics13(2): 269–292.
55.
RovnyJ (2015) Riker and Rokkan: remarks on the strategy and structure of party competition. Party Politics21(6): 912–918.
56.
RovnyJEdwardsEE (2012) Struggle over dimensionality: party competition in Western and Eastern Europe. East European Politics and Societies26(1): 56–74.
57.
RuthSP (2016) Clientelism and the utility of the left-right dimension in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society58(1): 72–97.
58.
SartoriG (2005 [1976]) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Colchester: ECPR Press.
59.
SchattschneiderEE (1975) The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. Boston: Dryden Press.
60.
Schmidt-CatranAWFairbrotherM (2016) The random effects in multilevel models: getting them wrong and getting them right. European Sociological Review32(1): 23–38.
61.
SinghSP (2010) Contextual influences on the decision calculus: a cross-national examination of proximity voting. Electoral Studies29(3): 425–434.
62.
SinghSP (2012) Where do parties live? Electoral institutions, party incentives, and the dimensionality of politics. Social Science Quarterly93(4): 950–967.
63.
SnidermanPMBullockJG (2004) A consistency theory of public opinion and political choice: the hypothesis of menu dependence. In: SarisWESnidermanPM (eds) Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, measurement error, and change. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 337–357.
64.
SteckerCTausendpfundM (2016) Multidimensional government-citizen congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research55(3): 492–511.
65.
StollH (2011) Dimensionality and the number of parties in legislative elections. Party Politics17(3): 405–429.
66.
TaageperaRGrofmanB (1985) Rethinking Duverger’s law: predicting the effective number of parties in plurality and PR systems – parties minus issues equals one. European Journal of Political Research13(4): 341–352.
67.
TetlockPE (2000) Coping with trade-offs: psychological constraints and political implications. In: LupiaAMcCubbinsMDPopkinSL (eds) Elements of Reason: Congition, Choice and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 230–263.
68.
ValentinoNAGregorowiczKGroenendykEW (2009) Efficacy, emotions and the habit of participation. Political Behavior31(3): 307–330.
69.
Van der BrugW (1999) Voters’ perceptions and party dynamics. Party Politics5(2): 147–169.
70.
Van der BrugW (2001) Analysing party dynamics by taking partially overlapping snapshots. In: LaverM (ed.) Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. New York: Routledge, pp. 115–132.
71.
Van der BrugWvan SpanjeJ (2009) Immigration, Europe and the ‘new’ cultural dimension. European Journal of Political Research48(3): 309–334.
72.
VolkensALehmannPMatthieT, et al. (2016) The Manifesto Data Collection. Version 2016a. Berlin: WZB.
73.
Van de WardtMde VriesCHoboltSB (2014) Exploiting the cracks: wedge issues in multiparty competition. Journal of Politics76(4): 986–999.
74.
WellsJMKrieckhausJ (2006) Does national context influence democratic satisfaction? A multi-level analysis. Political Research Quarterly59(4): 569–578.
75.
ZonsG (2015) The influence of programmatic diversity on the formation of new political parties. Party Politics21(6): 919–929.
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.
