Party identification

Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party identification is affiliation with a political party. Party identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports (by voting or other means).

Some researchers view party identification as "a form of social identity",[1][2] in the same way that a person identifies with a religious or ethnic group. This identity develops early in a person's life mainly through family and social influences. This description would make party identification a stable perspective, which develops as a consequence of personal, family, social, and environmental factors. Other researchers consider party identification to be more flexible and more of a conscious choice. They see it as a position and a choice based on the continued assessment of the political, economic, and social environment. Party identification can increase or even shift by motivating events or conditions in the country.

Party identification has been most studied in the United States where it is considered among the most stable and early-formed identities an individual may have.[3] In other countries, party identification has often been considered a subset of other levels of identity such as class, religion, or language; or to vary rapidly over time.[2]

A number of studies have found that a partisan lens affects how a person perceives the world.[4][5][6] Partisan voters judge character flaws more harshly in rival candidates than their own, believe the economy is doing better when their own party is in power, and underplay scandals and failures of their own side.[7]

Stability

In the 1950s the Michigan Model described in The American Voter rose to prominence. It argues that partisan identity forms early in life and rarely changes, with the rare exception of Realignment elections. Voting behaviour and political opinions grow out of this partisanship. The theory worked well to explain why party structures remained stable in most democracies for the first part of the 20th century.[8]

In the 1980s, a revisionist school developed along with the breakdown of the two-party system and growing dealignment in several major industrialized democracies. It argues that partisan identity formed slowly in a Bayesian process as voters accumulate data and opinions over a lifetime. By late in life, a single new piece of information will have little effect, but there is always the opportunity for partisan identity to change and will fluctuate based on short-term events for many voters.[9]

Today the view of partisan identity being the main determinant of a person's political beliefs and actions remains predominant among American political scientists, those from other countries put less emphasis on it.[10]

Measuring party identification

It is important to measure party identification in order to determine its strengths and weaknesses. Political scientists have developed many ways to measure party identification in order to examine and evaluate it.

One American method of measuring party identification uses the Likert Scale, a 7-point scale to measure party identification, with Strong Democrat on one extreme and Strong Republican at the other. In between the two extremes are the classifications of "Lean Democrat/Republican" and "Weak Democrat/Republican".

Strong Democrat Weak Democrat Lean Democrat Independent Lean Republican Weak Republican Strong Republican

Voting

Those people who identify with a party tend to vote for their party's candidate for various offices in high percentages. Those who consider themselves to be strong partisans, strong Democrats and strong Republicans respectively, tend to be the most faithful in voting for their party's nominee for office. In the case of voting for president, since the 1970s, party identification on voting behavior has been increasing significantly. By the late 1990s, party identification on voting behavior was at the highest level of any election since the 1950s.[11] When voting in congressional elections, the trend is similar. Strong party identifiers voted overwhelmingly for their party's nominee in the general election. It is important to note that each party respectively in certain elections, would have stronger voting behavior of their strongest party identifiers. For instance, in the years the Democrats dominated House and Senate elections in the 1970s and 1980s, it can be explained that their strong party identifiers were more loyal in voting for their party's nominee for Congress than the Republicans were.[12]

The same level of voting behavior can also be applied to state and local levels. While straight ticket voting has declined among the general voting population, it is still prevalent in those who are strong Republicans and strong Democrats.[12] According to Paul Allen Beck and colleagues, "the stronger an individual's party identification was, the more likely he or she was to vote a straight ticket."[13]

Party Membership

Party identification and party membership are conceptually distinct. Party identification, as described above, is a social identity. Party membership is a formal form of affiliation with a party, often involving registration with a party organization.[14]

Party membership can serve as an 'anchor' on a voter's party identification, such that they remain with the party even when their views differ from declared party platforms. These party members tend to remain loyal in downballot or lower salience elections.[15] This is often the case when party coalitions are in flux, such as the Republican realignment in the Southern United States in the second half of the twentieth century.[16]

gollark: It doesn't reuse already allocated IDs.
gollark: Don't read too much into that.
gollark: EXPLAINING.
gollark: Yes, I am explaining why, hold on.
gollark: WRONG! Ish.

See also

References
  1. Hershey, 101
  2. Donald P. Green; Bradley Palmquist; Eric Schickler (2004). Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. Yale University Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-300-10156-0.
  3. Campbell, Angus; Converse, Philip; Miller, Warren; Stokes, Donald (1960). The American Voter.
  4. Nyhan, Brendan, and Jason Reifler. "When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions." Political Behavior 32, no. 2 (2010): 303-330.
  5. Jerit, Jennifer, and Jason Barabas. "Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment." The Journal of Politics 74, no. 3 (2012): 672-684.
  6. Bartels, Larry M. "Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions." Political behavior 24, no. 2 (2002): 117-150.
  7. Eric Groenendyk (5 September 2013). Competing Motives in the Partisan Mind: How Loyalty and Responsiveness Shape Party Identification and Democracy. OUP USA. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-19-996980-7.
  8. Angus Campbell; University of Michigan. Survey Research Center (15 September 1980). The American Voter. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-09254-6.
  9. Eric Groenendyk (5 September 2013). Competing Motives in the Partisan Mind: How Loyalty and Responsiveness Shape Party Identification and Democracy. OUP USA. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-19-996980-7.
  10. John Bartle; Paolo Bellucci (11 June 2014). Political Parties and Partisanship: Social Identity and Individual Attitudes. Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-134-04428-3.
  11. Bartels, Larry M. "Partisanship and Voting Behavior 1952-1996" American Journal of Political Science 44 (2000): 35-50
  12. Hershey, Marjorie Randon. Party Politics in America 12th ed. 2007: Longman Classics in Political Science. page 110-111
  13. Beck, Paul Allen, et al. "Patterns and Sources of Ticket Splitting in Subpresidential Voting" American Political Science Review 86 (1992): 916-928
  14. Monson, Quin (December 22, 2012). "Party Identification, Party Registration, and "Unaffiliated" Voters". Utah Data Points. Utah Data Points. Retrieved November 7, 2019.
  15. Thornburg, Matthew (December 2014). "Party registration and party self-identification: Exploring the role of electoral institutions in attitudes and behaviors". Electoral Studies. 36: 137–148. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2014.08.002.
  16. Lee, Frances (2016). Insecure Majorities. University of Chicago Press. p. 2–3. ISBN 9780226408996.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.