Zentripetale Parteienkonkurrenz? Nähe-, Diskontierungs- und Richtungsmodelle bei Wahlen zum Europäischen Parlament

Chapter
Part of the Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie book series (JAHAEN, volume 8)

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag skizziert zunächst unterschiedliche Modelle aus der räumlichen Theorie des Wählens und versucht sie theoretisch und empirisch voneinander abzugrenzen. Neben dem klassischen Nähemodell in der Tradition von Hotelling und Downs werden dabei zunehmend Modelle diskutiert und geprüft, die vorsehen, dass Wähler systematisch für Kandidaten oder Parteien optieren, die „extremere“ politische Positionen vertreten als sie selbst („discounting“ oder „directional voting“).

Das Anwendungsbeispiel benutzt diese unterschiedlichen Perspektiven und Theoriebausteine für die Analyse von Europawahlen und die Erklärung ihrer robusten empirischen Regelmäßigkeiten. Wahlen zum europäischen Parlament gelten, so der Konsens, als „Sekundärwahlen“: Sie dienten nicht zur Bestellung der Exekutive, sie seien substanziell wenig bedeutsam, sie seien nicht von Debatten um die Politik auf europäischer Ebene bestimmt, sondern durch nationale Themen dominiert.

Die Resultate einer Sekundäranalyse der Europäischen Wahlstudien belegen freilich, dass, anders als oft unterstellt, das Wahlverhalten bei Europawahlen nachhaltig von tendenziell zentrifugalen Motiven beeinflusst wird: Die hohe Komplexität der politischen Prozesse innerhalb der Europäischen Union und die symbolische Aufladung der integrationspolitischen Konfliktdimension bewegen viele Wähler, ihre Stimme für Parteien oder Listen abzugeben, die vergleichsweise extreme Positionen vertreten und so eine Überwindung politischer Blockadesituationen versprechen.

Literatur

  1. Adams, James F., Samuel Merill & Bernard Grofman (2005): A Unified Theory of Party Competition. A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Christopher J. (1998): When in doubt, use proxies. Attitudes toward domestic politics and support for European integration, Comparative Political Studies 31: 569–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, Duncan (1948): On the rationale of group decision-making, Journal of Political Economy 56: 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, Duncan (1958): The Theory of Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, Angus & Philip E. Converse & Warren E. Miller & Donald E. Stokes (1960): The American Voter. Chicago und London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. de Vries Catherine E. (2007): Sleeping giant: Fact or fairytale? European Union Politics 8: 363–385.Google Scholar
  7. de Vries, Catherine E., Wouter van der Brug, Marcel H. van Egmond & Cees van der Eijk (2011): Individual and contextual variation in EU issue voting: The role of political information, Electoral Studies 30: 16–28.Google Scholar
  8. Downs, Anthony (1957): An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  9. Fiorina, Morris P. (1981): Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven und London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Franklin, Mark N., Michael Marsh & Lauren McLaren (1994): Uncorking the bottle: Popular opposition to European unification in the wake of Maastricht, Journal of Common Market Studies 32: 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabel, Matthew J. (1998): Interests and Integration. Market Liberalization, Public Opinion, and European Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Green, Donald P. & Ian Shapiro (1996): Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory. A Critique of Applications in Political Science. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grofman, Bernard (1985): The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting, Journal of Politics 47: 230–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grofman, Bernard (2004): Downs and two-party convergence, Annual Review of Political Science 7: 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hix, Simon & Christopher Lord (1997): Political Parties in the European Union. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hix, Simon & Michael Marsh (2007): Punishment or protest? Understanding European Parliament elections, Journal of Politics 69: 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hix, Simon & Bjørn Høyland (2011): The Political System of the European Union. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  18. Hix, Simon, Abdul G. Noury & Gerard Roland (2007): Democratic Politics in the European Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobolt, Sara B. & Jill Wittrock (2011): The second-order election model revisited: An experimental test of vote choices in European Parliament elections, Electoral Studies 30: 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hobolt, Sara B., Jae J. Spoon & James Tilley (2009): A vote against Europe? Explaining defection at the 1999 and 2004 European Parliament elections, British Journal of Political Science 39: 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hotelling, Harold (1929): Stability in competition, Economic Journal 39: 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iversen, Torben (1994): Political leadership and representation in West European democracies. A test of three models of voting, American Journal of Political Science 38: 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kedar, Orit (2005): When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: Policy balancing in parliamentary elections, American Political Science Review 99: 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krämer, JuÌrgen & Hans Rattinger (1997): The proximity and the directional theories of issue voting: Comparative results for the USA and Germany, European Journal of Political Research 32: 1–29.Google Scholar
  25. Lacy, Dean & Philip Paolino (2010): Testing proximity versus directional voting using experiments, Electoral Studies 29: 460–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis, Jeffrey B. & Gary King (1999): No evidence on directional vs. proximity voting, Political Analysis 8: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macdonald, Stuart E., Ola Listhaug & George Rabinowitz (1991): Issues and party support in multiparty systems, American Political Science Review 85: 1107–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Macdonald, Stuart E., George Rabinowitz & Ola Listhaug (1995): Political sophistication and models of issue voting, British Journal of Political Science 25: 453–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Macdonald, Stuart E., George Rabinowitz & Ola Listhaug (1998): On attempting to rehabilitate the proximity model: Sometimes the patient just can’t be helped, Journal of Politics 60: 653–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manow, Philip (2005): National Vote Intention and European Voting Behavior, 1979–2004. Second Order Effects, Election Timing, Government Approval and the Europeanization of European Elections. MPIfG Discussion Paper 05/11.Google Scholar
  31. Marks, Gary & Marco R. Steenbergen (2002): Understanding political contestation in the European Union, Comparative Political Studies 35: 879–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Markus, Gregory A. & Philip E. Converse (1979): A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice, American Political Science Review 73: 1055–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marsh, Michael (1998): Testing the second-order election model after four European elections, British Journal of Political Science 28: 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merrill, Samuel III. & Bernard Grofman (1999): A Unified Theory of Voting. Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Page, Benjamin I. & Calvin C. Jones (1979): Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalities and the vote, American Political Science Review 73: 1071–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rabinowitz, George & Stuart E. Macdonald (1989): A directional theory of issue voting, American Political Science Review 83: 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rabinowitz, George & Stuart E. Macdonald (2007): Simulating models of issue voting, Political Analysis 15: 406–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reif, Karlheinz (1984): National electoral cycles and European elections 1979 and 1984, Electoral Studies 3: 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reif, Karlheinz (1997): European elections as member state second-order elections revisited, European Journal of Political Research 31: 115–124.Google Scholar
  40. Reif, Karlheinz & Hermann Schmitt (1980): Nine second order national elections: A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results, European Journal of Political Research 8: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmitt, Hermann (2005): The European Parliament elections of June 2004: Still second-order?, West European Politics 28: 650–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shapiro, Ian (2005): The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stokes, Donald E. (1963): Spatial models of party competition, American Political Science Review 57: 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tomz, Michael & Robert P. van Houweling (2008): Candidate positioning and voter choice, American Political Science Review 102: 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tsebelis, George & Geoffrey Garrett (2000): Legislative politics in the European Union, European Union Politics 1: 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Warwick, Paul (2004): Proximity, directionality, and the riddle of relative party extremeness, Journal of Theoretical Politics 16: 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Westholm, Anders (1997): Distance versus direction: The illusory defeat of the proximity theory of electoral choice, American Political Science Review 91: 865–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Höhere StudienWienÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations