When and why do voters change their evaluation of party leaders? Voters’ evaluations of party leaders are an increasingly important determinant of electoral behaviour. Which factors influence these evaluations of party leaders? Do voters evaluate party leaders who hold the office of prime minister differently from other party leaders, and do electoral campaigns and issues change these evaluations? I use a multilevel growth model with panel data from the United Kingdom to analyse effects over time. I find that campaigns play a significant role and that voters’ stance on Brexit has a considerable time-varying effect. In addition, voters use economic performance as a valence signal for party leaders holding the office of prime minister and therefore hold them accountable for bad economic performance, especially during election campaigns. These findings show that the personalization of politics may endanger the democratic function of elections to a lesser extent than is commonly feared.
AartsKBlaisASchmittH (2011) Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
BafumiJGelmanA (2006) Fitting multilevel models when predictors and group effects correlate. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1010095 (accessed 18 October 2019).
3.
BellAJonesK (2015) Explaining fixed effects: Random effects modeling of time-series cross-sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods3(1): 133–153.
4.
BellAFairbrotherMJonesK (2019) Fixed and random effects models: Making an informed choice. Quality & Quantity53: 1051–1074.
5.
BerglundFHolmbergSSchmidtH, et al. (2005) Party identification and party choice. In: ThomassenJ (ed.) The European Voter: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.105–123.
6.
BischofD (2017) New graphic schemes for Stata: Plotplain and plottig. The Stata Journal17(3): 748–759.
7.
BittnerA (2011) Platform or Personality? The Role of Party Leaders in Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
BittnerA (2018a) Leaders always mattered: The persistence of personality in Canadian elections. Electoral Studies54: 297–302.
9.
BittnerA (2018b) The personalization of parliamentary elections? In: CrossWKatzRPruysersS (eds) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp.39–55.
10.
BlondelJMüller-RommelF (eds) (1993) Governing Together. The Extent and Limits of Joint Decision-Making in Western European Cabinets. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
11.
BollenKACurranPJ (2006) Latent Curve Models: A Structural Equation Perspective, vol. 467. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
BudgeIFarlieD (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Taylor & Francis.
13.
CampbellAConversePEMillerWE, et al. (1966) The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
14.
CampbellRCowleyPVivyanN, et al. (2019) Legislator dissent as a valence signal. British Journal of Political Science49: 105–128.
15.
ClarkeHDSandersDStewartMC, et al. (2004) Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
ClarkeHDSandersDStewartMC, et al. (2009) Performance Politics and the British Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
ClarkeHDSandersDStewartM, et al. (2011) Valence politics and electoral choice in Britain, 2010. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties21(2): 237–253.
18.
ClarkeHDStewartMCWhiteleyPF (1998) New models for new labour: The political economy of labour party support, January 1992–April 1997. American Political Science Review92(3): 559–575.
19.
CostaPFerreira da SilvaF (2015) The impact of voter evaluations of leaders’ traits on voting behaviour: Evidence from seven European countries. West European Politics38(6): 1226–1250.
20.
CurticeJHunjanS (2011) Elections as beauty contests: Do the rules matter? In: AartsKBlaisASchmittH (eds) Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.91–107.
21.
CurticeJLisiM (2014) The impact of leaders in parliamentary and presidential regimes. In: LoboMCCurticeJ (eds) Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.63–86.
22.
DaltonRJFlanaganSE (2017) Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment?vol. 4991. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
DaltonRJWattenbergMP (2000) Parties without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
DassonnevilleRLewis-BeckMS (2014) Macroeconomics, economic crisis and electoral outcomes: A national European pool. Acta Politica49(4): 372–394.
25.
DassonnevilleRLewis-BeckMS (2017) Rules, institutions and the economic vote: Clarifying clarity of responsibility. West European Politics40(3): 534–559.
26.
DielemanJLTemplinT (2014) Random-effects, fixed-effects and the within-between specification for clustered data in observational health studies: A simulation study. PLoS ONE9(10): e110257.
27.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
28.
Ferreira da SilvaF (2018) Fostering turnout? Assessing party leaders’ capacity to mobilize voters. Electoral Studies56: 61–79.
29.
FieldhouseEGreenJEvansG, et al. (2017) British election study internet panel waves 1-13. Available at: www.britishelectionstudy.com (accessed 18 October 2019).
30.
FiorinaMP (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
GarziaD (2011) The personalization of politics in western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader–follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly22(4): 697–709.
32.
GarziaD (2012) Party and leader effects in parliamentary elections: Towards a reassessment. Politics32(3): 175–185.
33.
GarziaD (2013) The rise of party/leader identification in western Europe. Political Research Quarterly66(3): 533–544.
34.
GarziaD (2014) Personalization of Politics and Electoral Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
GarziaD (2017) Voter evaluation of candidates and party leaders. In: ArzheimerKEvansJLewis-BeckM (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Electoral Behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp.633–653.
36.
GarziaDDe AngelisA (2016) Partisanship, leader evaluations and the vote: Disentangling the new iron triangle in electoral research. Comparative European Politics14(5): 604–625.
37.
GreenJHoboltSB (2008) Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies27(3): 460–476.
38.
HartA (2016) Economic Voting: A Campaign-Centered Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
HoboltSB (2018) Brexit and the 2017 UK general election. Journal of Common Market Studies56: 39–50.
40.
HuberS (2014) What comes first, character traits or political assessments? An experimental study. In: LoboMCCurticeJ (eds) Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.38–60.
41.
JohnstonR (2006) Party identification: Unmoved mover or sum of preferences?Annual Review of Political Science9: 329–351.
42.
JohnstonRPartheymüllerJSchmitt-BeckR (2014) Activation of fundamentals in German campaigns. In: WeßelsBRattingerHRoßteutscherS, et al (eds) Voters on the Move or on the Run. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.217–237.
43.
KaufmanJS (2013) Some models just can’t be fixed. A commentary on Mortensen. Social Science & Medicine76: 8–11.
44.
KingA (2002) Do leaders’ personalities really matter? In: KingA (ed.) Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1–43.
45.
KriesiH (2012) Personalization of national election campaigns. Party Politics18(6): 825–844.
46.
Lewis-BeckMSStegmaierM (2013) The VP-function revisited: A survey of the literature on vote and popularity functions after over 40 years. Public Choice157(3–4): 367–385.
47.
LoboMCCurticeJ (2014) Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MayerSJ (2019) Ideological congruency, social group linkage or the best-evaluated party of all? Why partisans identify with a political party. Quality & Quantity53: 297–313.
50.
MellonJEvansGFieldhouseE, et al. (2018) Brexit or Corbyn? Campaign and inter-election vote switching in the 2017 UK general election. Parliamentary Affairs71: 719–737.
MilazzoCHammondJ (2018) The face of the party? Leader personalization in British campaigns. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties28: 263–282.
53.
MillerAHWattenbergMPMalanchukO (1986) Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review80(2): 521–540.
54.
MughanA (2015) Parties, conditionality and leader effects in parliamentary elections. Party Politics21(1): 28–39.
55.
NannestadPPaldamM (1997) The grievance asymmetry revisited: A micro study of economic voting in Denmark, 1986–1992. European Journal of Political Economy13(1): 81–99.
56.
OscarssonHHolmbergS (2011) Party leader effects on the vote. In: Cees AartsABHS (ed.) Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.35–51.
57.
PageBIJonesCC (1979) Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties and the vote. American Political Science Review73(4): 1071–1089.
58.
PoguntkeTWebbP (2005) The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
PopkinSGormanJWPhillipsC, et al. (1976) Comment: What have you done for me lately? Toward an investment theory of voting. American Political Science Review70(3): 779–805.
60.
RahatGKenigO (2018) From Party Politics to Personalized Politics? Party Change and Political Personalization in Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
RahatGSheaferT (2007) The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication24(1): 65–80.
62.
RapoportRB (1997) Partisanship change in a candidate-centered era. The Journal of Politics59(1): 185–199.
63.
SarlvikBCreweI (1983) Decade of Dealignment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64.
SchempfAHKaufmanJS (2012) Accounting for context in studies of health inequalities: A review and comparison of analytic approaches. Annals of Epidemiology22(10): 683–690.
65.
SingerJDWillettJB (2003) Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66.
SmithA (2004) Election Timing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
SorokaSN (2006) Good news and bad news: Asymmetric responses to economic information. The Journal of Politics68(2): 372–385.
68.
StokesDE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review57(2): 368–377.
69.
StoneWJSimasEN (2010) Candidate valence and ideological positions in us house elections. American Journal of Political Science54(2): 371–388.
70.
WattenbergMP (1991) The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics: Presidential Elections of the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71.
WhiteleyP (1984) Perceptions of economic performance and voting behavior in the 1983 general election in Britain. Political Behavior6(4): 395–410.
72.
WhiteleyPClarkeHSandersD, et al. (2016) Hunting the Snark: A reply to ‘re-evaluating valence models of political choice’. Political Science Research and Methods4(1): 221–240.
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.
