Advertisement

Valenz im ideologischen Parteienwettbewerb während des Bundestagswahlkampfes 2013

  • Susumu ShikanoEmail author
  • Konstantin Käppner
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Analyse von Valenz in räumlichen Modellen des Parteienwettbewerbs bei der Bundestagswahl 2013. Anhand eines auf Skalometerdaten basierenden Entfaltungsmodells können kurzfristige Dynamiken des Bundestagswahlkampfes kontextübergreifend verglichen werden. Auf Basis einer Querschnittserhebung wurden Parteipositionen sowie eine Valenzkomponente in Ost- und Westdeutschland vor und nach dem TV-Duell modelliert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Wahrnehmung des ideologischen und politischen Raumes in Ost- und Westdeutschland weitestgehend homogen und zeitlich stabil ist. Valenzen hingegen unterliegen in beiden Landesteilen kurzfristigeren Dynamiken infolge von Wahlkampfereignissen. Daher kann Valenz als zentrales Element des Parteienwettbewerbs gelten.

Schlüsselwörter

Räumliche Modelle Ideologie Valenz TV-Debatte Wahlkampf Entfaltungsmodell Skalometer 

Literatur

  1. Ansolabehere, Stephen, und James M. Snyder. 2000. Valence politics and equilibrium in spatial election models. Public Choice 103:327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashworth, Scott, und Ethan Bueno de Mesquita. 2009. Elections with platform and valence competition. Games and Economic Behavior 67:191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker, Ryan, und Keith T. Poole. 2013. Bayesian metric multidimensional scaling. Political Analysis 21:125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady, Henry E. 1990. Traits versus issues: Factor versus ideal-point analysis of candidate thermometer ratings. Political Analysis 2:97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrillo, Juan D., und Micael Castanheira. 2008. Information and strategic polarisation. The Economic Journal 118:845-874.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, Royce, Jeffrey B. Lewis, Lo James, Keith T. Poole, und Howard Rosenthal. 2013. The structure of utility in spatial models of voting. American Journal of Political Science 57:1008–1028.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, Michael. 2009. Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998. Electoral Studies 28:111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conover Johnston, Pamela C., und Stanley Feldman. 1989. Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science 33:912–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coombs, Clyde H. 1964. A theory of data. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, Otto A., Melvin J Hinich, und Peter C. Ordeshook. 1970. An Expository Development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review 64:426–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Degan, Arianna. 2007. Candidate valence: Evidence from consecutive presidential elections. International Economic Review 48:457–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65:135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Endersby, James W. 1994. Nonpolicy issues and the spatial theory of voting. Quality and Quantity 28:251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Enelow, James M., und Melvin J. Hinich. 1986. Nonspatial candidate characteristics and electoral competition. The Journal of Politics 44:115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Enelow, James M., Melvin J. Hinich, und R. Nancy Mendell. 1986. An empirical evaluation of alternative spatial models of elections. The Journal of Politics 48:675–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frijda, Nico H. 1986. The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gabel, Matthew, und Kenneth Scheve. 2007. Estimating the effect of elite communications on public opinion using instrumental variables. American Journal of Political Science 51:1013–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galasso, Vincenzo, und Tommaso Nannicini. 2011. Competing on good politicians. American Political Science Review 105:79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gouret, Fabian, Guillaume Hollard, und Stéphane Rossignol. 2011. An empirical analysis of valence in electoral competition. Social Choice and Welfare 37:309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green, Jane, und Will Jennings. 2012. The dynamics of issue competence and vote for parties in and out of power: An analysis of valence in Britain, 1979–1997. European Journal of Political Research 51:469–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grofman, Bernard. 1985. The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting. The Journal of Politics 47:229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Groseclose, Tim. 2001. A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science 45:862–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinich, Melvin J., und Michael C. Munger. 1994. Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  24. Iversen, Torben. 1994. The logics of electoral politicsl: spatial, directional, and mobilizational effects. Comparative Political Studies 27:155–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson, John E. 2013. The shrinking difference between spatial and valence issues, Discussion Paper. Michigan: Department of Political Science University of Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  26. Jackson, John E. 2014. Location, location, location: The Davis-Hinich model of electoral competition. Public Choice 159:197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jessee, Stephen A. 2010. Partisan bias, political information and spatial voting in the 2008 presidential election. The Journal of Politics 72:327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcus, George E. 1988. The structure of emotional response: 1984 presidential candidates. American Political Science Review 82:737–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marcus, George E. 2000. Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science 3:221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marcus, George E., W. Russell Neuman, und Michael MacKuen. 2000. Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pappi, Franz U. 2013. Wahrgenommenes Parteiensystem und Stimmenwettbewerb in Deutschland seit 1980. In Wahlen und Wähler: Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2009, Hrsg. Bernhard Weßels, Harald Schoen, und Oscar W. Gabriel, 315–336. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Park, Jonwook, Wayne S. DeSarbo, und John Liechty. 2008. A hierarchical Bayesian multidimensional sclaing methodology for accomodating both structrucal and preference heterogeneity. Psychometrika 73:451–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rattinger, Hans, Sigrid Roßteutscher, Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck, Bernhard Weßels, und Christof Wolf. 2014. Rolling Cross-Section-Wahlkampfstudie mit Nachwahl-Panelwelle (GLES 2013). GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln: ZA5703 Datenfile Version 2.0.0, doi: 10.4232/1.11892. Datenfile Version 2.0.0, doi: 10.4232/1.11940. Zugegriffen: 4. Mai 2015.Google Scholar
  34. Sanders, David, Harold D. Clarke, Marianne C. Stewart, und Paul Whiteley. 2011. Downs, stokes and the dynamics of electoral choice. British Journal of Political Science 41:287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scherer, Klaus R. 2005. What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information 44:695–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schofield, Norman, und Itai Sened. 2005. Multiparty Competition in Israel, 1988–1996. British Journal of Political Science 35:635–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shikano, Susumu, und Konstantin Käppner. 2014. Exploiting feeling thermometer scores: A simultaneous estimation of spatial political constellations and valence in party competition. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  38. Shikano, Susumu, Simon Munzert, Thomas Schübel, Michael Herrmann, und Peter Selb. 2014. Eine empirische Schätzmethode für Valenz-Issues auf der Basis der Kandidatenbeurteilung am Beispiel der Konstanzer Oberbürgermeisterwahl 2012. In Jahrbuch für Handlungs-und Entscheidungstheorie, Hrsg. Eric Linhart, Bernhard Kittel, und André Bächtiger, 113–131. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  39. Singh, Shane. 2014. Linear and quadratic utility loss functions in voting behavior. Journal of Theoretical Politics 26:35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steenbergen, Marco R., Erica E. Edwards, und Catherine E. De Vries. 2007. Who’s cueing whom? Mass-elite linkages and the future of European integration, European Union Politics 8:13–35.Google Scholar
  41. Stokes, Donald E. 1963. Spatial models of party competition. The American Political Science Review 57:368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stokes, Donald E. 1992. Valence Politics. In Electoral Politics, Hrsg. Dennis Kavanagh, 141–164. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stone, Walter J., und Elizabeth N. Simas. 2010. Candidate valence and ideological positions in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science 54:371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wittman, Donald. 1983. Candidate motivation: A synthesis of alternative theories. American Political Science Review 77:142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität KonstanzKonstanzDeutschland
  2. 2.Graduate School of Decision SciencesUniversität KonstanzKonstanzDeutschland

Personalised recommendations