Suchergebnisse

THE AIM OF THE BOOK IS TWOFOLD: FIRST, TO EXPLAIN THE CONSERVATIVE VICTORY IN 1979 THROUGH AN EXAMINATION OF RESPONDENTS' OPINIONS ON SPECIFIC ISSUES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTY CHOICE; AND, SECONDLY, TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF POLITICAL REPRESENTATION BY REVEALING HOW DIVISIONS IN OPINION ARE REFLECTED IN THE PARTY DIVISION OF THE VOTE.

Heath, A.; Jowell, R.; Curtice, J.: How Britain votes. - Oxford : Pergamon Press, 1985

This study attempts to explain post-World War II southern electoral politics by examining the party identifications of southerners between 1952 and 1972. Pronounced decreases in Democratic loyalties and increases in Independent leanings appear during this period and constitute a dealignment of the southern electorate. While interregional population exchanges have diluted Democratic strength, their effects are almost counterbalanced by the mobilization of blacks into politics. Instead, the principal source of dealignment is the generational replacement of the native white electorate. Its youngest members, who entered the electorate after World War II, have come to favor political independence increasingly in recent years. This behavior seems partially attributable to a tendency for young native whites in particular to bring their partisan loyalties into line with their attitudes and party images on racial issues. Even so, there are clear signs that the racial question is losing its place as the major determinant of the region's politics. For the future, one can expect a continuation of dealignment politics and little chance of a partisan realignment.

It is widely remarked that advanced industrial democracies are now undergoing a period of political dealignment resulting in unstable electoral alliances. Such factors as embourgeoisement, social mobility, mass society, community disintegration, cognitive mobilization, an aging party system, & value change are adduced as explanations for this, but which reasons predominate is not generally agreed on. It is proposed that dealignment logically should lead to geographical instability in electoral patterns; however, analysis of electoral data from eleven nations does not support this. It is proposed here that political choices must be understood in their local contexts. Parties & movements based on issues polarization rely on individual rather than community strategies & thus do not undermine community support for specific parties. This perspective accounts for trends in European countries; Third World countries on the other hand, are better seen as examples of "the politics of failure." In the US, traditional party solidarity -- based on sectional loyalties -- has largely been replaced by candidate solidarity, weakening the link between issues & parties -- even though issues remain linked to regions. Overall, three types of electoral system can be contrasted: traditional party politics, individual politics, & politics of failure; the dealignment era reflects increased reliance on individual rather than community strategies. Comments are offered by: Kevin R. Cox who sees the relation between the contextual & the compositional as poorly defined & proposes an alternative account; Russell J. Dalton (Florida State U, Tallahassee), who distinguishes between patterns of realignment & dealignment & sees Johnston's findings as more relevant to realignment; John O'Loughlin (U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign), who argues that the breakdown of traditional party divisions & loyalties is not as great as has been claimed & points to the importance of voting systems for individual electoral choices; & Fred M. Shelley (U of Southern California, Los Angeles), who speculates on inherent characteristics of democratic governments that may give rise to the phenomena Johnston describes. In The Context of a Paradox, Johnston replies to these comments, emphasizing two main questions: the validity of the paradox of geographic stability, & the relative importance of compositional & contextual approaches to understanding electoral behavior. 2 Tables, 68 References. W. H. Stoddard

Representative democracy is party democracy. Parties vote together in the legislative arena; party labels act as information shortcuts in the electoral arena, tying together co-partisan legislators' re-election prospects. But the utility of party labels is weakened by waning party identifications in the electorate. Partisan dealignment therefore risks undercutting party loyalty on the part of backbenchers. Combining district-level data on electoral volatility and new data from the PARTIREP survey of legislators in 15 advanced industrial democracies, it is demonstrated that party loyalty is lowest where partisan dealignment is strongest – even after accounting for backbenchers' policy preferences, whether they represent the ruling party or the opposition, and their campaign strategies. Our results have important implications for the sustainability of current models of representative democracy.