PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Impact of partisanship. Causes of dealignment Consequences of dealignment

Theories of Partisan Identification The Michigan Theory of electoral behaviour: Voters are anchored over successive elections by persistent party loyalties. Based on social influences e.g. family, school etc. Partisan identification guided voters decisions even when there was a lack of information over the different parties. In 1964, 96% of the British electorate identified with one of the three main parties and 44% were strong identifiers. Does not account for increase in partisan dealignment.

Rational-Choice Institutionalism: Opposes Michigan Theory; long-term social processes account for party identification e.g. increased education, growth of mass media, differences in party ideology. Political actors shape perception of the party and are reactive to the political environment. Explains the differences in party appeal in FPP and PR systems.

Political Systems and Party Identification: The impact of political identification varies between political systems. For example, older democracies have more partisanship than newer democracies, closed list systems encourage partisanship. Countries with ideologically opposed parties have higher party affiliation. Partisan dealignment is not limited to one political system but is a global occurance.

Social Impact Most political parties are reliant on donors from members. With declining partisanship there is less money. Labour membership dropped from 405,000 in 1997 to 198,026 in 2005. Parties are becoming more reliant on a handful of donors which only increases party disillusionment. Party membership and party alignment are different things in Britain. There are many different ‘degrees of participation’ (Duverger, 1954). Parties are still recognized as important but are not seen as representing the views of the people.

Social Alignment and Dealignment Lipset described the class cleavage as one of the most pervasive bases of party support: ‘On a world scale, the principle generalisation which can be made is that parties are primarily based on either the lower classes or the middle and upper classes.’ However despite this it is evident that class dealignment has taken place The number of people belonging to pure social groups is in steady decline while the number with socially mixed characteristics is constantly growing. David Sanders: ‘The counterpart to the decline of class based voting is a decline in partisan identification.

Causes of dealignment: Crises But, = broader causes as persisted Growth of special interest/single-issue Mass media New issues of advanced industrial societies unsuited to mass political parties Arguably parties have become blurred

4 types of voter identified: Number of apartisans increasing Cognitive mobilization – an additional reason to vote apart from party mobilization 4 types of voter identified: Number of apartisans increasing Concentrated amongst: Young Better educated Post-materialists Issue-voting increased Cognitive mobilization Independent Party Identification High Apartisan Cognitive partisan Low Apolitical Ritual partisan

Citizens connections to parties decreased Parties found alternative sources of support Exacerbates dealignment trends

Reasons For Dealignment in the UK Bottom up theories: Change in the occupational and industrial structures. Cross-class locations Embourgeoisement Increased political awareness Top down theories The performance of the parties Ideological disjuncture The impact of the TV

Do you believe that partisan identification still plays a part in voting behaviour? Marc J Hetherington suggests that although parties are not as central to Americans as they were in the 1950s, they are far more important today than in the 1970s and 1980s and that the party decline thesis is in need of revision.

Consequences A volatile electorate Voting is now structured by opinions; about issues, especially economic ones, about values and principles and about party leaders. Whereas for most voters’ party choice used to be a near automatic socialised response based on class and party identification, it is now, in many cases, based on judgements.

CONDITIONS Butler and Stokes suggest that there are 4 conditions that must be met if a voter is to qualify as an ‘issue voter’. The voter must be aware of the issue concerned. The voter must have some opinion about the issue. The voter must perceive different parties as having different policies on the issue. The voter must vote for the party with position on the issue as close to there opinion on it as possible.

Issues The economy: Clinton, ‘it’s the economy stupid’. The central concerns people have in mind when voting are likely to be economic in nature. At its simplest, the ‘economic voting’ model suggests that voters support the ruling party if the economy is going well and transfer that support to the opposition if the economy is going badly. Much of the contemporary issue voting literature focuses on the role of economics in elections, and almost all of it assumes , often implicitly, that economic factors operate to the exclusion of other factors apart from partisanship, group attachments, and political events. Do you believe the economy is the most important issue in elections?

What else can affect the vote? Leadership. characterisitics Appearance e.g Charles Kennedy, William Hague. The campaign. The media. Sleaze. Bartle argues, ‘No one has ever demonstrated that leaders personalities have much of an impact on the vote.’ Do you agree?

CONCLUSION There has been an erosion in class and partisan attachments. This has led to the growth of short term factors, such as issues and candidate images, as a basis of electoral choice. Creation of more ‘free floating’ voters who might be mobilised on the basis of image and issues.