Partisan choices in a direct-democratic campaign

European Political Science Review

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 155-172

  Selb, Peter ^a   Kriesi, Hanspeter ^b   Hänggli, Regula ^b   Marr, Mirko ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

activation; ambivalence; direct democracy; partisanship

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011437081     PISSN: 17557739     EISSN: 17557747     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S175577390900006X     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Alvarez R.M., Brehm J. (1995), ‘American ambivalence towards abortion policy: development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values’, American Journal of Political Science 39: 1055–1082.
2. Alvarez R.M., Brehm J. (2002), Hard Choices, Easy Answers Values, Information, and American Public Opinion, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
3. Alvarez R.M., Franklin C.H. (1994), ‘Uncertainty and political perceptions’, Journal of Politics 56: 671–688.
4. Andersen R., Tilley J., Heath A.F. (2005), ‘Political knowledge and enlightened preferences: party choice through the electoral cycle’, British Journal of Political Science 35: 285–302.
5. Arceneaux K. (2006), ‘Do campaigns help voters learn? A cross-national analysis’, British Journal of Political Science 36: 159–173.
6. Bartels L.M. (1993), ‘Messages received: the political impact of media exposure’, American Political Science Review 87: 267–285.
7. Bartels L.M. (2002), ‘Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions’, Political Behavior 24: 117–150.
8. Bartels L.M. (2006), ‘Priming and persuasion in presidential election campaigns’, in H.E. Brady and R. Johnston (eds), Capturing Campaign Effects, Ann Arbor, MI, USA: The University of Michigan Press, pp. 78–112.
9. Braumoeller B.F. (2006), ‘Explaining variance; or, stuck in a moment we can't get out of’, Political Analysis 14: 268–290.
10. Coombs C.H. (1964), A Theory of Data, New York: Wiley.
11. Downs A. (1997), An Economic Theory of Democracy, Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley.
12. Finkel S.E. (1993), ‘Reexamining the “Minimal Effects” model in recent presidential campaigns’, Journal of Politics 55: 1–21.
13. Finkel S.E. (1995), Causal Analysis with Panel Data, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
14. Finkel S.E., Schrott P.R. (1995), ‘Campaign effects on voter choice in the German election of 1990’, British Journal of Political Science 25: 349–377.
15. Fiorina M.P. (2002), ‘Parties and partisanship: a 40-year retrospective’, Political Behavior 24: 93–115.
16. Gelman A., King G. (1993), ‘Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable?’, British Journal of Political Science 23: 409–451.
17. Green D., Palmquist B., Schickler E. (2002), Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters, New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.
18. Greene S. (2005), ‘The structure of partisan attitudes: reexamining partisan dimensionality and ambivalence’, Political Psychology 26: 809–822.
19. Harvey A.C. (1976), ‘Estimating regression models with multiplicative heteroscedasticity’, Econometrica 44: 461–465.
20. Hillygus D.S., Jackman S. (2003), ‘Voter decision making in election 2000: campaign effects, partisan activation, and the Clinton legacy’, American Journal of Political Science 47: 583–596.
21. Hobolt S.B. (2006), ‘How parties affect vote choice in European integration referendums’, Party Politics 12: 623–647.
22. Hobolt S.B. (2007), ‘Taking cues on Europe? Voter competence and party endorsements in referendums on European integration’, European Journal of Political Research 46: 151–182.
23. Holbrook Th.M. (1996), Do Campaigns Matter?, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
24. Holt T. (1989), ‘Panel conditioning: discussion’, in D. Kasprzyk, G.J. Duncan and M.P. Singh (eds), Panel Surveys, New York: Wiley.
25. Iyengar S., Petrocik J.R. (1998), ‘Basic rule voting: the impact of campaigns on party and approval based voting’. Presented at Conference on Political Advertising and Electoral Campaigns, American University, Washington, DC, USA.
26. Iyengar S., Simon A.F. (2000), ‘New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects’, Annual Review of Psychology 51: 149–169.
27. Kriesi H. (2005), Direct Democratic Choice. The Swiss Experience, Lanham, MD, USA: Lexington Books.
28. Lazarsfeld P.F., Berelson B., Gaudet H. (1944), The People's Choice. How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign, New York: Columbia University Press.
29. LeDuc L. (2002), ‘Opinion change and voting behavior in referendums’, European Journal of Political Research 41: 711–732.
30. Matsusaka J.G. (1995), ‘Explaining voter turnout patterns. An information theory’, Public Choice 84: 91–117.
31. Rasch G. (1980), Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32. Rudolph T.J. (2005), ‘Group attachment and the reduction of value-driven ambivalence’, Political Psychology 26: 905–928.
33. Rudolph T.J., Popp E. (2007), ‘An information processing theory of ambivalence’, Political Psychology 28: 563–585.
34. Skrondal A., Rabe-Hesketh S. (2004), Generalized Latent Variable Modeling: Multilevel, Longitudinal and Structural Equation Models, Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
35. Sniderman P.M., Levendusky M. (2007), ‘An institutional theory of political choice’, in R. Dalton, H.-D. Klingemann (eds), Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, Oxford: Oxford University, pp. 437–456.
36. Sniderman P.M., Hagendoorn L., Prior M. (2004), ‘Predisposing factors and situational triggers: exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities’, American Political Science Review 98: 35–49.
37. Steenbergen M.R., Brewer P.R. (2004), ‘The not-so-ambivalent public: policy attitudes in the political culture of ambivalence’, in W.E. Saris (ed.), Studies in Public Opinion Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.
38. Tillie J. (1995), Party Utility and Voting Behavior, Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
39. Van der Eijk C., Van der Brug W., Kroh M., Franklin M. (2006), ‘Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: on the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities’, Electoral Studies 25: 424–447.
40. Van Schuur W.H. (1987), ‘Constraint in European party activists’ sympathy scores for interest groups. The left-right dimension as dominant structuring principle’, European Journal of Political Research 15: 347–362.
41. Van Schuur W.H. (1993), ‘Nonparametric unfolding models for multicategory data’, Political Analysis 4: 41–74.
42. Van Schuur W.H., Kiers H.A.L. (1994), ‘Why factor analysis often is the incorrect model for analyzing bipolar concepts and what model to use instead’, Applied Psychological Measurement 18: 97–110.
43. Van Schuur W.H., Post W.J. (1998), MUDFOLD. A program for multiple unidimensional unfolding, Version 4.0, Groningen: iec ProGAMMA.
44. Vella F. (1998), ‘Estimating models with sample selection bias: a survey’, Journal of Human Resources 33: 127–169.
45. Vella F., Verbeek M. (1994), Two-step estimation of simultaneous equation panel data models with censored endogenous variables, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research, Tilburg.
46. Weisberg H.F. (1980), ‘A multidimensional conceptualization of party identification’, Political Behavior 2: 33–60.
47. Zaller J., Feldman S. (1992), ‘The political culture of ambivalence: ideological responses to the welfare state’, American Journal of Political Science 36: 268–307.