According to spatial theories of voting, voters choose parties that are ideologically close to themselves. A rich literature confirms the presence of a close connection between the positions of voters and parties, but findings from cross-sectional analyses of spatial voting might be driven by endogeneity biases. We argue that for investigating the impact of ideological distance on the vote, spatial theories of voting should be tested dynamically. Taking a Downsian perspective on voting behaviour, we assume that changes in parties’ ideological positions should cause voters to switch parties from one election to another. In doing so, we also contribute to work on responsiveness to political parties. For testing the role of spatial voting dynamically, we make use of election panel surveys in four established democracies: Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden. The results presented in this article suggest that parties’ ideological shifts may indeed cause voters to switch parties, in particular when the party closest to them changes positions, but that the overall impact remains limited.
AartsKBlaisASchmittH (2011) Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AchenCHBartelsLM (2016) Democracy for Realists – Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL, et al. (2004) Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?British Journal of Political Science34: 589–610.
4.
AdamsJEzrowLLeiterD (2012) Partisan sorting and niche parties in Europe. West European Politics35(6): 1272–1294.
5.
AdamsJEzrowLSomer-TopcuZ (2011) Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science55(2): 370–382.
6.
AdamsJEzrowLSomer-TopcuZ (2014) Do voters respond to party manifestos or to a wider information environment? An analysis of mass-elite linkages on European integration. American Journal of Political Science58(4): 967–978.
7.
AdamsJSomer-TopcuZ (2009) Moderate now, win votes later: the electoral consequences of parties’ policy shifts in 25 postwar democracies. The Journal of Politics71(2): 678–692.
8.
AlvarezMRNaglerJ (1998) When politics and models collide: estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science42(1): 55–96.
9.
BargstedMAKedarO (2009) Coalition-targeted Duvergerian voting: how expectations affect voter choice under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science53(2): 307–323.
10.
BerelsonBRLazarsfeldPFMcPheeWN (1954) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
11.
BlaisANadeauRGidengilE, et al. (2001) The formation of party preferences: testing the proximity and directional models. European Journal of Political Research40(1): 81–91.
12.
BolstadJDinasE (2017) A categorization theory of spatial voting: how the center divides the political space. British Journal of Political Science47(4): 829–850.
13.
BuschKB (2016) Estimating parties’ left-right positions: determinants of voters’ perceptions’ proximity to party ideology. Electoral Studies41: 159–178.
14.
ConversePE (1962) Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. The Public Opinion Quarterly26(4): 578599.
15.
CostelloRThomassenJRosemaM (2012) European parliament elections and political representation: policy congruence between voters and parties. West European Politics35(6): 1226–1248.
16.
DaltonRJ (1985) Political parties and political representation: party supporters and party elites in nine nations. Comparative Political Studies18(3): 267–299.
17.
DaltonRJ (2017) Party representation across multiple issue dimensions. Party Politics23(6): 609–622.
18.
DaltonRJFarrellDMMcAllisterI (2011) Political Parties and Democratic Linkage. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
DaltonRJMcAllisterI (2015) Random walk or planned excursion? Continuity and change in the left–right positions of political parties. Comparative Political Studies48(6): 759–787.
20.
DowJKEndersbyJW (2004) Multinomial probit and multinomial logit: a comparison of choice models for voting research. Electoral Studies23: 107–122.
21.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: HarperCollins.
22.
DuchRMStevensonRT (2008) The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
EzrowLde VriesCESteenbergenM, et al. (2011) Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics17(3): 275–301.
24.
FerlandB (2014) How do voters’ strategic behaviors mediate the impact of electoral systems on the effective number of electoral parties? An experimental study. Journal of Elections, Public Opinions and Parties24: 265–290.
25.
FerlandB (2020) Party responsiveness to public opinion and party supporters: Revisiting the mechanisms and motivations. Party Politics26(4): 366–378.
26.
Fernandez-VazquezPSomer-TopcuZ (2017) The informational role of party leader changes on voter perceptions of party positions. British Journal of Political Science1–20.
27.
FortunatoDStevensonRT (2013) Perceptions of partisan ideologies: the effect of coalition participation. American Journal of Political Science57(2): 459–477.
28.
GolderMFerlandB (2018) Electoral rules and citizen-elite ideological congruence. In: ErikHPekkanenRShugartM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 214–246.
29.
JesseeSA (2012) Ideology and Spatial Voting in American Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
JoestenDAStoneWJ (2014) Reassessing proximity voting: expertise, party, and choice in congressional elections. Journal of Politics76(3): 740–753.
31.
Joon HanK (2017) It hurts when it really matters: electoral effect of party position shift regarding sociocultural issues. Party Politics23(6): 821–833.
32.
KayserMAPeressM (2012) Benchmarking across borders: electoral accountability and the necessity of comparison. American Political Science Review106(3): 661–684.
33.
McDonaldMDMendesSMBudgeI (2004) What are elections for? Conferring the median mandate. British Journal of Political Science34(1): 1–26.
34.
NaurinE (2011) Election Promises, Party Behaviour and Voter Perceptions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
PitkinHF (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
36.
PowellGBJr (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy – Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven: Yale University Press.
37.
RabinowitzGMacdonaldSE (1989) A directional theory of issue voting. American Political Science Review83(1): 93–121.
38.
SeebergHBSlothuusRStubagerR (2017) Do voters learn? Evidence that voters respond accurately to changes in political parties’ policy positions. West European Politics40(2): 336–356.
39.
ShorBRogowskiJC (2018) Ideology and the US congressional vote. Political Science Research and Methods6(2): 323–341.
40.
SinghSP (2010) Contextual influences on the decision calculus: a cross-national examination of proximity voting. Electoral Studies29(3): 425–434.
41.
Somer-TopcuZ (2009) Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy change. Journal of Politics71(1): 238–248.
42.
SpoonJJKluverH (2017) Does anybody notice? How policy positions of coalition parties are perceived by voters. West European Politics40(2): 336–356.
43.
TavitsM (2007) Principle vs. pragmatism: policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 151–165.
44.
ThomsonR (2011) Citizens evaluations of the fulfillment of election pledges: evidence from Ireland. Journal of Politics73(1): 187–201.
45.
TromborgMW (2015) Space jam: are niche parties strategic or looney?Electoral Studies40: 189–199.
46.
van der BrugWvan der EijkCFranklinMN (2007) The Economy and the Vote: Economic Conditions and Elections in Fifteen Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
WarwickPV (2011) Government intentions and citizen preferences in dynamic perspective. British Journal of Political Science41: 599–619.
48.
WarwickPV (2015) Public opinion and government policy in Britain: A case of congruence, amplification or dampening. European Journal of Political Research54: 61–80.
49.
WilliamsLK (2015) It’s all relative: spatial positioning of parties and ideological shifts. European Journal of Political Research54: 141–159.
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.
