Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-sdd8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-30T13:18:30.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Voters' Perceptions of Party Brands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2025

David Fortunato
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Thiago N. Silva
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Laron K. Williams
Affiliation:
University of Missouri

Summary

In order to cast a satisfying vote, understand politics, or otherwise participate in political discourse or processes, voters must have some idea of what policies parties are pursuing and, more generally, 'who goes with whom.' This Element aims to both advance the study of how voters formulate and update their perceptions of party brands and persuade our colleagues to join us in studying these processes. To make this endeavor more enticing, but no less rigorous, the authors make three contributions to this emerging field of study: presenting a framework for building and interrogating theoretical arguments, aggregating a large, comprehensive data archive, and recommending a parsimonious strategy for statistical analysis. In the process, they provide a definition for voters' perceptions of party brands and an analytical schema to study them, attempt to contextualize and rationalize some competing findings in the existing literature, and derive and test several new hypotheses.
Get access

Information

Type
Element
Information
Online ISBN: 9781009417792
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 04 September 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1992. “Social psychology, demographic variables, and linear regression: Breaking the iron triangle in voting research.” Political Behavior 14:195211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James. 2001. “A theory of spatial competition with biased voters: Party policies viewed temporally and comparatively.” British Journal of Political Science 31(1):121158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Bernardi, Luca, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2020. “Social welfare policy outputs and governing parties’ left–right images: Do voters respond?Journal of Politics 82(3):11611165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Adams, Bracken, David, Gidron, Noam, Horne, Will, Lee, Seonghui, O’Brien, Diana Z., Santoso, Philip, Senk, Kaitlin, and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2024. “ Gender inclusivity shifts parties’ images leftward: Observational and experimental evidence.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2006. “Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of Western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976–1998.” American Journal of Political Science 50(3):513529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Adams, De Vries, Catherine E., and Leiter, Debra. 2012. “Subconstituency reactions to elite depolarization in the Netherlands: An analysis of the Dutch public’s policy beliefs and partisan loyalties, 1986–98.” British Journal of Political Science 42(1):81105.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2016. “The company you keep: How voters infer party positions on European integration from governing coalition arrangements.” American Journal of Political Science 60(4):811823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2011. “Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy statements during elections.” American Journal of Political Science 55(2):370382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 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 Science 58(4):967978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James and Merril III, Samuel. 1999. “Modeling party strategies and policy representation in multiparty elections: Why are strategies so extreme?American Journal of Political Science 43(3):765791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Weschle, Simon, and Wlezien, Christopher. 2021. “Elite interactions and voters’ perceptions of parties’ policy positions.” American Journal of Political Science 65(1):101114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. “Moderate now, win votes later: The electoral consequences of parties’ policy shifts in 25 postwar democracies.” Journal of Politics 71(2):678692.10.1017/S0022381609090537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael and Brehm, John. 1995. “American ambivalence towards abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values.” American Journal of Political Science 39(4):10551082.10.2307/2111669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael and Charles, H. Franklin. 1994. “Uncertainty and political perceptions.” Journal of Politics 56(3):671688.10.2307/2132187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäck, Hanna, Baumann, Markus, Debus, Marc, and Müller, Jochen. 2019. “The unequal distribution of speaking time in parliamentary-party groups.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 44(1):163193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäck, Hanna, Debus, Marc, and Dumont, Patrick. 2011. “Who gets what in coalition governments? Predictors of portfolio allocation in parliamentary democracies.” European Journal of Political Research 50(4):441478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banducci, Susan, Giebler, Heiko, and Kritzinger, Sylvia. 2017. “Knowing more from less: How the information environment increases knowledge of party positions.” British Journal of Political Science 47(3):571588.10.1017/S0007123415000204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1986. “Issue voting under uncertainty: An empirical test.” American Journal of Political Science 30(4):709728.10.2307/2111269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions.” Political Behavior 24:117150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R. and Chaqués Bonafont, Laura. 2015. “All news is bad news: Newspaper coverage of political parties in Spain.” Political Communication 32(2):268291.10.1080/10584609.2014.919974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2012. “Government versus opposition at the polls: How governing status affects the impact of policy positions.” American Journal of Political Science 56(2):433446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2009. “Treating words as data with error: Uncertainty in text statements of policy positions.” American Journal of Political Science 53(2):495513.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00383.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardi, Luca and Adams, James. 2019. “Does government support respond to governments’ social welfare rhetoric or their spending? An analysis of government support in Britain, Spain and the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 49(4):14071429.10.1017/S0007123417000199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohrer, II, Robert, E., Alexander, C. Pacek, and Radcliff, Benjamin. 2000. “Electoral participation, ideology, and party politics in post-communist Europe.” Journal of Politics 62(4):11611172.10.1111/0022-3816.00051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1994. “A new spatial theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally.” British Journal of Political Science 24(4):443467.10.1017/S0007123400006955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Royce and Cox, Gary W.. 2012. “Shadowing ministers: Monitoring partners in coalition governments.” Comparative Political Studies 45(2):220236.10.1177/0010414011421309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Royce and Kubo, Hiroki. 2018. “Explaining citizen perceptions of party ideological positions: The mediating role of political contexts.” Electoral Studies 51:1423.10.1016/j.electstud.2017.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Royce and Kubo, Hiroki. 2021. “Measuring and explaining the complexity of left–right perceptions of political parties.” Electoral Studies 71:102310.10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1987. The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511571473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. 1990. “Centripetal and centrifugal incentives in electoral systems.” American Journal of Political Science 34(4):903935.10.2307/2111465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W. and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Brian F., Silva, Patrick Cunha, Santiago, Olivella, and Rosas, Guillermo. 2025. Electoral System Incentives for Interparty and Intraparty Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/9780198956587.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, Stefan. 2013. “Does context matter: The impact of electoral systems, political parties and individual characteristics on voters’ perceptions of party positions.” Electoral Studies 32(4):670683.10.1016/j.electstud.2013.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2014. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. and McAllister, Ian. 2015. “Random walk or planned excursion? Continuity and change in the left–right positions of political parties.” Comparative Political Studies 48(6):759787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boef, De, Suzanna, and Keele, Luke. 2008. “Taking time seriously.” American Journal of Political Science 52(1):184200.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00307.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreese, De, Claes, H., Banducci, Susan A., Semetko, Holli A., and Boomgaarden, Hajo G.. 2006. “The news coverage of the 2004 European Parliamentary election campaign in 25 countries.” European Union Politics 7(4):477504.10.1177/1465116506069440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, Raymond M. 2001. “A developmental model of heterogeneous economic voting in new democracies.” American Political Science Review 95(4):895910.10.1017/S0003055400400080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., May, Jeff, and Armstrong, David A.. 2010. “Coalition-directed voting in multiparty democracies.” American Political Science Review 104(4):698719.10.1017/S0003055410000420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, Raymond M. and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2008. The Economic Vote: How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511755934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enelow, James M. and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2007. “The variance matters: How party systems represent the preferences of voters.” Journal of Politics 69(1):182192.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00503.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence, Homola, Jonathan, and Tavits, Margit. 2014. “When extremism pays: Policy positions, voter certainty, and party support in postcommunist Europe.” Journal of Politics 76(2):535547.10.1017/S0022381613001461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence, Tavits, Margit, and Homola, Jonathan. 2014. “Voter polarization, strength of partisanship, and support for extremist parties.” Comparative Political Studies 47(11):15581583.10.1177/0010414013512605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falcó-Gimeno, Albert and Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo. 2020. “Choices that matter: Coalition formation and parties’ ideological reputations.” Political Science Research and Methods 8(2):285300.10.1017/psrm.2018.63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1995. “Rationalist explanations for war.” International Organization 49(3):379414.10.1017/S0020818300033324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, Jorge M., Debus, Marc, and Bäck, Hanna. 2021. “Unpacking the politics of legislative debates.” European Journal of Political Research 60(4):10321045.10.1111/1475-6765.12454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo. 2014. “And yet it moves: The effect of election platforms on party policy images.” Comparative Political Studies 47(14):19191944.10.1177/0010414013516067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo. 2018. “Voter discounting of party campaign manifestos: An analysis of mainstream and niche parties in Western Europe, 1971–2011.” Party Politics 26(4):471483.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo. 2019. “The credibility of party policy rhetoric survey experimental evidence.” Journal of Politics 81(1):309314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2019. “The informational role of party leader changes on voter perceptions of party positions.” British Journal of Political Science 49(3):977996.10.1017/S0007123417000047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fortunato, David. 2019a. “The electoral implications of coalition policy making.” British Journal of Political Science 49:5980.10.1017/S0007123416000430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, David. 2019b. “Legislative review and party differentiation in coalition governments.” American Political Science Review 113(1):242247.10.1017/S000305541800062XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, David. 2021. The Cycle of Coalition: How Parties and Voters Interact under Coalition Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108877053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, Fortunato, Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2019. “Committee chairs and legislative review in parliamentary democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 49(2):785797.Google Scholar
Fortunato, David and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2013a. “Perceptions of partisan ideologies: The effect of coalition participation.” American Journal of Political Science 57(2):459477.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00623.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, David and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2013b. “Performance voting and knowledge of cabinet composition.” Electoral Studies 32(3):517523.10.1016/j.electstud.2013.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, David and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2021. “Party government and political information.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 46(2):251295.10.1111/lsq.12285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortunato, David, Silva, Thiago N., Wieseler, Rylie, and Williams, Laron K.. 2024. “Missingness and inferential errors in the study of voters’ perceptions of parties’ positions.” Working Paper, University of Missouri.Google Scholar
David, Fortunato, Stevenson, Randolph T., and Vonnahme, Greg. 2016. “Context and political knowledge: Explaining cross-national variation in partisan left–right knowledge.” Journal of Politics 78(4):12111228.Google Scholar
Frankel, Laura Lazarus and Hillygus, D. Sunshine. 2014. “Looking beyond demographics: Panel attrition in the ANES and GSS.” Political Analysis 22(3):336353.10.1093/pan/mpt020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Mark N. and Hobolt, Sara B.. 2011. “The legacy of lethargy: How elections to the European Parliament depress turnout.” Electoral Studies 30(1):6776.10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gschwend, Thomas. 2001. Strategic Voting in Mixed Electoral Systems. New York: State University of New York at Stony Brook Press.Google Scholar
Hjermitslev, Ida B. 2022. “Mainstream sell-outs? How collaboration with the radical right changes perceptions of party positions on immigration.” Government and Opposition 57(1):3155.10.1017/gov.2020.28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjermitslev, Ida B. 2023. “Collaboration or competition? Experimental evidence for coalition heuristics.” European Journal of Political Research 62(1):326337.10.1111/1475-6765.12537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B. and Spoon, Jae-Jae. 2012. “Motivating the European voter: Parties, issues and campaigns in European Parliament elections.” European Journal of Political Research 51(6):701727.10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02057.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara Binzer and Wittrock, Jill. 2011. “The second-order election model revisited: An experimental test of vote choices in European Parliament elections.” Electoral Studies 30(1):2940.10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honaker, James, King, Gary, Blackwell, Matthew, et al. 2011. “Amelia II: A program for missing data.” Journal of Statistical Software 45(7):147.10.18637/jss.v045.i07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Mason, Lilliana, and Aarøe, Lene. 2015. “Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity.” American Political Science Review 109(1):117.10.1017/S0003055414000604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrea, Junqueira, Silva, Thiago N., and Whitten, Guy D.. 2025. “Coalition as a heuristic: Voters’ perceptions of party positions in presidential multiparty democracies.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. FirstView.Google Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. “When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: Policy balancing in parliamentary elections.” American Political Science Review 99(2):185199.10.1017/S0003055405051592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1989. Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Statistical Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Honaker, James, Joseph, Anne, and Scheve, Kenneth. 2001. “Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation.” American Political Science Review 95(1):4969.10.1017/S0003055401000235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44(2):347361.10.2307/2669316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüser, K. Jonathan. 2024. “Keeping tabs through collaboration? Sharing ministerial responsibility in coalition governments.” Political Science Research and Methods 12(1):2744.10.1017/psrm.2022.31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüver, Heike and Spoon, Jae-Jae. 2016. “Who responds? Voters, parties and issue attention.” British Journal of Political Science 46(3):633654.10.1017/S0007123414000313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klüver, Heike and Spoon, Jae-Jae. 2020. “Helping or hurting? How governing as a junior coalition partner influences electoral outcomes.” Journal of Politics 82(4):12311242.10.1086/708239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Thomas, Lin, Nick, Xiao, Lu, Silva, Thiago N., Yordanova, Nikoleta, and Zudenkova, Galina. 2022. “Agenda control and timing of bill initiation: A temporal perspective on coalition governance in parliamentary democracies.” American Political Science Review 116(1):231248.10.1017/S0003055421000897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael. 2005. “Policy and the dynamics of political competition.” American Political Science Review 99(02):263281.10.1017/S0003055405051646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, Jeffrey R. and Phillips, Justin H.. 2009. “How should we estimate public opinion in the states?American Journal of Political Science 53(1):107121.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00360.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Roni and Lin, Nick. 2020. “Everything to everyone? Not when you are internally divided.” Party Politics 26(6):783794.10.1177/1354068818812222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leischnig, Alexander and Enke, Margit. 2011. “Brand stability as a signaling phenomenon: An empirical investigation in industrial markets.” Industrial Marketing Management 40(7):11161122.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B. and Linzer, Drew A.. 2005. “Estimating regression models in which the dependent variable is based on estimates.” Political Analysis 13(4):345364.10.1093/pan/mpi026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstädt, Rene, Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B.. 2016. “ When experts disagree: Response aggregation and its consequences in expert surveys.” Manuscript, University of Essex, Essex.Google Scholar
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein. 1967. “Cleavage structures, party systems and voter alignments.” In Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives, edited by Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein. New York: Free Press, pp. 164.Google Scholar
Lipsmeyer, Christine S. and Pierce, Heather Nicole. 2011. “The eyes that bind: Junior ministers as oversight mechanisms in coalition governments.” Journal of Politics 73(4):11521164.10.1017/S0022381611000879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, Andrew T. and Zeitzoff, Thomas. 2017. “A bargaining theory of conflict with evolutionary preferences.” International Organization 71(3):523557.10.1017/S0020818317000182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Lo, Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B.. 2016. “Ideological clarity in multiparty competition: A new measure and test using election manifestos.” British Journal of Political Science 46(3):591610.Google Scholar
Lowe, Will, Benoit, Kenneth, Mikhaylov, Slava, and Laver, Michael. 2011. “Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(1):123155.10.1111/j.1939-9162.2010.00006.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupu, Noam. 2013. “Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina.” American Journal of Political Science 57(1):4964.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00615.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupu, Noam. 2016. Party Brands in Crisis: Partisanship, Brand Dilution, and the Breakdown of Political Parties in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139683562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. 2004. “The government agenda in parliamentary democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 48(3):445461. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/151990910.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00080.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. and Vanberg, Georg. 2005. “Coalition policymaking and legislative review.” American Political Science Review 99:93106.10.1017/S0003055405051518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. and Vanberg, Georg. 2008. “Coalition government and political communication.” Political Research Quarterly 61:502516.10.1177/1065912907308348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. and Vanberg, Georg. 2011. Parliaments and Coalitions: The Role of Legislative Institutions in Multiparty Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199607884.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. and Vanberg, Georg. 2014. “Parties and policymaking in multiparty governments: The legislative median, ministerial autonomy, and the coalition compromise.” American Journal of Political Science 58(4):979996.10.1111/ajps.12099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. and Vanberg, Georg. 2020. “What you see is not always what you get: Bargaining before an audience under multiparty government.” American Political Science Review 114(4):11381154.10.1017/S0003055420000337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meguid, Bonnie M. 2005. “Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success.” American Political Science Review 99(3):347359.10.1017/S0003055405051701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Thomas M. and Wagner, Markus. 2019. “It sounds like they are moving: Understanding and modeling emphasis-based policy change.” Political Science Research and Methods 7(4):757774.10.1017/psrm.2017.30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nonnemacher, Jeffrey and Spoon, Jae-Jae. 2023. “Overcoming the cost of governance? Junior party strategy in multi-level politics.” Party Politics. 31(1):2939.10.1177/13540688231208080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Diana Z. 2019. “Female leaders and citizens’ perceptions of political parties.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 29(4):465489.10.1080/17457289.2019.1669612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacek, Alexander C. 1994. “Macroeconomic conditions and electoral politics in East Central Europe.” American Journal of Political Science 38(3):723744.10.2307/2111604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plescia, Carolina. 2022. “Voters’ short-term responsiveness to coalition deals.” Party Politics 28(5):927938.10.1177/13540688211029794CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plescia, Carolina and Staniek, Magdalena. 2017. “In the eye of the beholder: Voters’ perceptions of party policy shifts.” West European Politics 40(6):12881309.10.1080/01402382.2017.1309623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poljak, Željko and Walter, Annemarie S.. 2023. “Parties’ parliamentary attack behaviour throughout the electoral cycle.” Party Politics 30(5):920933.10.1177/13540688231188476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Views. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, Lynda W. 1989. “Analyzing misinformation: Perceptions of congressional candidates’ ideologies.” American Journal of Political Science 33(1):272293.10.2307/2111263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2006. “War as a commitment problem.” International Organization 60(1):169203.10.1017/S0020818306060061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver and Slapin, Jonathan B.. 2012. “Institutional foundations of legislative speech.” American Journal of Political Science 56(3):520537.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00565.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver and Slapin, Jonathan B.. 2015. The Politics of Parliamentary Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tessa, Provins, Monroe, Nathan W., and Fortunato, David. 2022. “Allocating costly influence in legislatures.” Journal of Politics 84(3):16971713.Google Scholar
Reif, Karlheinz and Schmitt, Hermann. 1980. “Nine second-order national elections: A conceptual framework for the analysis of European Election results.” European Journal of Political Research 8(1):344.10.1111/j.1475-6765.1980.tb00737.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarzazu, Iñaki and Klüver, Heike. 2017. “Coalition governments and party competition: Political communication strategies of coalition parties.” Political Science Research and Methods 5(2):333349.10.1017/psrm.2015.56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarzazu, Iñaki and Williams, Laron K.. 2017. “Making and breaking party leaders? An informational theory of temporary and lasting impacts of prime minister debates in Spain.” Social Science Quarterly 98(3):856875.10.1111/ssqu.12446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santoso, Lie Philip, Stevenson, Randolph T. and Weschle, Simon. 2024. “What drives perceptions of partisan cooperation?Political Science Research and Methods 12(4):888896.10.1017/psrm.2023.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarrow, Susan E., Webb, Paul D., and Poguntke, Thomas. 2017. Organizing Political parties: Representation, Participation, and Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198758631.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict: With a New Preface by the Author. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gijs, Schumacher, De Vries, Catherine E. and Vis, Barbara. 2013. “Why do parties change position? Party organization and environmental incentives.” Journal of Politics 75(2):464477.Google Scholar
Seeberg, Henrik Bech, Slothuus, Rune, and Stubager, Rune. 2017. “Do voters learn? Evidence that voters respond accurately to changes in political parties’ policy positions.” West European Politics 40(2):336356.10.1080/01402382.2016.1245902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, Victor and Williams, Laron K.. 2024. “The space between: How ideological similarity limits the effectiveness of ambiguity.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. FirstView.Google Scholar
Sieberer, Ulrich, Meyer, Thomas M., Bäck, Hanna et al. 2021. “The political dynamics of portfolio design in European democracies.” British Journal of Political Science 51(2):772787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Thiago N. 2023. “When do different systems of government lead to similar power-sharing? The case of government formation.” Political Science Research and Methods 11(4):938946.10.1017/psrm.2022.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slantchev, Branislav L. 2003. “The principle of convergence in wartime negotiations.” American Political Science Review 97(4):621632.10.1017/S0003055403000911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Söderlund, Peter, Wass, Hanna, and Blais, André. 2011. “The impact of motivational and contextual factors on turnout in first-and second-order elections.” Electoral Studies 30(4):689699.10.1016/j.electstud.2011.06.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. “Timely decisions: The effects of past national elections on party policy change.” Journal of Politics 71(1):238248.10.1017/S0022381608090154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2015. “Everything to everyone: The electoral consequences of the broad-appeal strategy in Europe.” American Journal of Political Science 59(4):841854.10.1111/ajps.12165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2017. “Agree or disagree: How do party leader changes affect the distribution of voters’ perceptions.” Party Politics 23(1):6675.10.1177/1354068816655568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep and Tavits, Margit. 2023. “Message distortion as a campaign strategy: Does rival party distortion of focal party position affect voters?Journal of Politics 85(3):892904.10.1086/723817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep, Fournier, Patrick, and Dassonneville, Ruth. 2025. “Personal issue importance effects on voters’ perceptual accuracy of party issue positions.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. FirstView.Google Scholar
Somer-Topcu, Zeynep, Tavits, Margit, and Baumann, Markus. 2020. “Does party rhetoric affect voter perceptions of party positions?Electoral Studies 65:102153.10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N. and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, public opinion, and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spoon, Jae-Jae and Nonnemacher, Jeffrey. 2024. “Looking around the neighborhood: how subnational electoral politics affects voters’ perceptions of parties’ positions.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. FirstView.Google Scholar
Sylvester, Christine, Greene, Zachary, and Ebing, Benedikt. 2022. “ ParlEE plenary speeches data set: Annotated full-text of 21.6 million sentence-level plenary speeches of eight EU states. V2.Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ZY3RV7.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2005. “The development of stable party support: Electoral dynamics in post-communist Europe.” American Journal of Political Science 49(2):283298.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2007. “Principle vs. pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition.” American Journal of Political Science 51(1):151165.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00243.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2008. “The role of parties’ past behavior in coalition formation.” American Political Science Review 102(4):495507.10.1017/S0003055408080362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2013. Post-communist Democracies and Party Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139565196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thies, Michael F. 2001. “Keeping tabs on partners: The logic of delegation in coalition governments.” American Journal of Political Science 45(3):580598.10.2307/2669240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Robert, Royed, Terry, Naurin, Elin, Artés, Joaquín, Costello, Rory, Ennser-Jedenastik, Laurenz, Ferguson, Mark, Kostadinova, Petia, Moury, Catherine, Pétry, François, and Praprotnik, Katrin 2017. “The fulfillment of parties’ election pledges: A comparative study on the impact of power sharing.” American Journal of Political Science 61(3):527542.10.1111/ajps.12313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobin, James. 1958. “Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 26(1):2436.10.2307/1907382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael and Van Houweling, Robert P. 2009. “The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity.” American Political Science Review 103(1):8398.10.1017/S0003055409090066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, M., Wittenberg, J. and King, G.. 2001. “CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results, Version 2.0.” http://gking.harvard.edu.Google Scholar
Tucker, Joshua A. 2006. Regional Economic Voting: Russia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, 1990–1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511616136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velden, Van Der, Mariken, Gijs Schumacher, and Vis, Barbara. 2018. “Living in the past or living in the future? Analyzing parties’ platform change in between elections, the Netherlands 1997–2014.” Political Communication 35(3):393412.10.1080/10584609.2017.1384771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, Lehmann, Pola, Matthieß, Theres, Merz, Nicolas, Regel, Sven, and Weßels, Bernhard 2017. “The Manifesto Data Collection. Version 2017b.” https://gking.harvard.edu/clarify.Google Scholar
Wagner, Markus and Meyer, Thomas M.. 2023. “How do voters form perceptions of party positions?British Journal of Political Science 53(4):13511362.10.1017/S0007123422000746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, Barbara F. 1997. “The critical barrier to civil war settlement.” International Organization 51(3):335364.10.1162/002081897550384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, Ana Catalano, Meguid, Bonnie M., Kittilson, Miki Caul, and Coffé, Hilde. 2023. “When do Männerparteien elect women? Radical right populist parties and strategic descriptive representation.” American Political Science Review 117(2):421438.10.1017/S0003055422000107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, Richard and Martin, Shane. 2022. “Divide to conquer? Strategic parliamentary opposition and coalition government.” Party Politics 28(6):9991011.10.1177/13540688211042859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Laron K. and Brule, David J.. 2014. “Predictably unpredictable: The effects of conflict involvement on the error variance of vote models.” British Journal of Political Science 44(2):287299.10.1017/S000712341200083XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Laron K. and Whitten, Guy D.. 2012. “But wait, there’s more! Maximizing substantive inferences from TSCS models.” Journal of Politics 74(3):685693.10.1017/S0022381612000473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511818691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36(3):579616.10.2307/2111583CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

The PDF of this Element is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Voters' Perceptions of Party Brands
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Voters' Perceptions of Party Brands
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Voters' Perceptions of Party Brands
Available formats
×