IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v35y2005i02p285-302_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political Knowledge and Enlightened Preferences: Party Choice Through the Electoral Cycle

Author

Listed:
  • ANDERSEN, ROBERT
  • TILLEY, JAMES
  • HEATH, ANTHONY F.

Abstract

This article adapts and tests the theory of enlightened preferences on two British electoral cycles: 1992–97 and 1997–2001. Using individual-level panel data, it extends previous work by explicitly incorporating the role of political knowledge. Its findings are generally very supportive of the theory. It is shown that knowledge of party platforms varies through both electoral cycles in a manner predicted by the theory; that is, it is highest immediately following election campaigns; these changes in political knowledge are closely mirrored by changes in the explanatory power of a model of party choice containing so-called ‘fundamental variables’ (i.e. socio-demographic and issue-related variables) as predictors. More specifically, fundamental variables do a much better job of accounting for party choice during election years than in mid-cycle. Finally, for all years of both panels a positive interaction is found between political knowledge and the ability of voters to match their issue preferences to party platforms.

Suggested Citation

  • Andersen, Robert & Tilley, James & Heath, Anthony F., 2005. "Political Knowledge and Enlightened Preferences: Party Choice Through the Electoral Cycle," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 285-302, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:35:y:2005:i:02:p:285-302_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123405000153/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marta Fraile & Jessica Fortin‐Rittberger, 2020. "Unpacking Gender, Age, and Education Knowledge Inequalities: A Systematic Comparison," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1653-1669, July.
    2. Jasper Muis, 2010. "Simulating Political Stability and Change in the Netherlands (1998-2002): an Agent-Based Model of Party Competition with Media Effects Empirically Tested," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 13(2), pages 1-4.
    3. Gabor Toka & Marina Popescu, 2009. "Public Television, Private Television and Citizens' Political Knowledge," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 66, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    4. James Adams & Simon Weschle & Christopher Wlezien, 2021. "Elite Interactions and Voters’ Perceptions of Parties’ Policy Positions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 101-114, January.
    5. Susumu Shikano & Dominic Nyhuis, 2019. "The effect of incumbency on ideological and valence perceptions of parties in multilevel polities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 331-349, December.
    6. Dieter Stiers & Anna Kern, 2021. "Cyclical accountability," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 189(1), pages 31-49, October.
    7. Jane Green, 2007. "When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(3), pages 629-655, October.
    8. Till Weber, 2007. "Campaign Effects and Second-Order Cycles," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(4), pages 509-536, December.
    9. Quinton Mayne & Brigitte Geißel, 2018. "Don’t Good Democracies Need “Good” Citizens? Citizen Dispositions and the Study of Democratic Quality," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 33-47.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:35:y:2005:i:02:p:285-302_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.