Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:05:42.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Riding the Orange Wave: Leadership, Values, Issues, and the 2011 Canadian Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Patrick Fournier ,
Fred Cutler ,
Stuart Soroka ,
Dietlind Stolle  and
Éric Bélanger
Patrick Fournier*
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
Fred Cutler
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Stuart Soroka
Affiliation:
McGill University
Dietlind Stolle
Affiliation:
McGill University
Éric Bélanger
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Patrick Fournier, Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship, Département de science politique, Université de Montréal, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-ville, Montréal QC, H3C 3J7, patrick.fournier@umontreal.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. The results of the 2011 Canadian federal election were surprising. What accounts for the dramatic and largely unexpected shift in electoral fortunes? Most importantly, what accounts for the sudden leap in popularity of the New Democratic Party, particularly in Quebec? The aftermath of election day produced no lack of potential explanations. Pundits, politicians, and political scientists have suggested many. This paper examines the empirical validity of various explanations swirling about the 2011 election, especially regarding the “orange surge.” The analysis relies upon the 2011 Canadian Election Study and the content of news media coverage. It concludes that the most important factors behind the orange wave were the image gap between Jack Layton and the other party leaders, as well as the proximity between the NDP's values and issue positions and those of many Quebeckers.

Résumé. Le résultat de l'élection fédérale canadienne de 2011 a été surprenant. Comment expliquer les renversements dramatiques et largement inattendus dans les appuis aux partis politiques? Surtout, comment expliquer le bond soudain de popularité du Nouveau parti démocratique, particulièrement au Québec? Plusieurs explications potentielles ont été suggérées par les commentateurs, les politiciens et les politologues au lendemain de l'élection. Cet article examine la validité empirique de nombreuses explications entourant l'élection de 2011, notamment celles portant sur la « vague orange ». L'analyse repose sur l'Étude électorale canadienne de 2011 ainsi que sur le contenu de la couverture médiatique. Elle indique que les facteurs les plus importants à l'origine de la vague orange ont été l'écart entre l'image de Jack Layton et celle des autres chefs de partis, de même que la proximité entre le NPD et plusieurs Québécois quant aux valeurs et aux enjeux.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 863 - 897
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2013 

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.)

References

Aarts, Kees, Blais, André and Schmitt, Hermann. 2011. Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andrew, Blake, Young, Lori and Soroka, Stuart. 2008. “Back to the Future: Press Coverage of the 2008 Canadian Election Campaign Strikes both Familiar and Unfamiliar Tones.” Policy Options (November): 79–84.Google Scholar
Bean, Clive and Mughan, Anthony. 1989. “Leadership Effects in Parliamentary Elections in Australia and Britain.” American Political Science Review 83: 1165–79.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Éric. 2007. “Third Party Success in Canada.” In Canadian Parties in Transition, ed. Gagnon, Alain-G. and Tanguay, A. Brian. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Éric and Nadeau, Richard. 2009. Le comportement électoral des Québécois. Montréal: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Bélanger, Éric, and Nadeau, Richard. 2011. “The Bloc Québécois: Capsized by the Orange Wave.” In The Canadian Federal Election of 2011, ed. Pammett, Jon H. and Dornan, Christopher. Toronto: Dundurn Press.Google Scholar
Bellavance, Joël-Denis. 2011. “Méfiance extrême envers les élus.” La Presse, October 19, A6. Google Scholar
Blais, André. 2005. “Accounting for the Electoral Success of the Liberal Party in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38: 821–40.Google Scholar
Blais, André and Boyer, Martin. 1996. “Assessing the Impact of Televised Debates: The Case of the 1988 Canadian Election.” British Journal of Political Science 26: 143–64.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Gidengil, Elisabeth, Nadeau, Richard and Nevitte, Neil. 2002. Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Sense of the Vote in the 2000 Canadian Election. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Gidengil, Elisabeth, Nadeau, Richard and Nevitte, Neil. 2003. “Campaign Dynamics in the 2000 Canadian Election: How the Leader Debates Salvaged the Conservative Party.” PS: Political Science & Politics 36: 45–50.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Nadeau, Richard, Gidengil, Elisabeth and Nevitte, Neil. 1999. “Campaign Dynamics in the 1997 Canadian Election.” Canadian Public Policy 25: 197–205.Google Scholar
Daku, Mark, Mahon, Adam, Soroka, Stuart and Young, Lori. 2009. “Media Content and Election Campaigns: 2008 in Comparative Perspective.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa. Google Scholar
Fournier, Patrick, van der Kolk, Henk, Blais, André, Carty, R. Kenneth and Rose, Jonathan. 2011. When Citizens Decide: Lessons from Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geer, John. 1988. “The Effects of Presidential Debates on the Electorate's Preferences for Canadidates.” American Politics Research 16: 486–501.Google Scholar
Gidengil, Elisabeth, Neville, Neil, Blais, André, Everitt, Joanna and Fournier, Patrick. 2012. Dominance and Decline: Making Sense of Recent Canadian Elections. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P. and Palmquist, Brad. 1990. “Of Artifacts and Partisan Stability.” American Journal of Political Science 34: 872–902.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P. and Yoon, David H.. 2002. “Reconciling Individual and Aggregate Evidence Concerning Partisan Stability: Applying Time-Series Models to Panel Survey Data.” Political Analysis 10: 1–24.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Palmquist, Brad and Schickler, Eric. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J. and Kalkan, Kerem Ozan. 2013. “Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models.” American Journal of Political Science 57: 263–77.Google Scholar
Hillygus, D. Sunshine and Shields, Todd G.. 2009. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Kinder, Donald R., Peters, Mark D. and Krosnick, Jon A.. 1984. “The Evening News and Presidential Evaluations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 778–87.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Blais, André, Brady, Henry E. and Crête, Jean. 1992. Letting the People Decide: Dynamics of a Canadian Election. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. and Brannon, Laura A.. 1993. “The Impact of the Gulf War on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Multidimensional Effects of Political Involvement.” American Political Science Review 87: 963–75.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. and Kinder, Donald R.. 1990. “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President through Priming.” American Political Science Review 84: 497–512.Google Scholar
McAllister, Ian. 1996. “Leaders.” In Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, ed. LeDuc, L., Niemi, R. and Norris, P.. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, Matthew. 1996. “The Media and Interpersonal Communications: The Priming of Issues, Leaders, and Party Identification.” Journal of Politics 58: 112–25.Google Scholar
Miller, Joanne M. and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2000. “News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens are Guided by a Trusted Source.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 301–15.Google Scholar
Miller, Warren E. and Shanks, J. Merrill. 1996. The New American Voter. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nevitte, Neil, Blais, André, Gidengil, Elisabeth and Nadeau, Richard. 2000. Unsteady State: The 1997 Canadian Federal Election. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noël, Alain. 2011. “Zone inondable.” Policy Options (August): 72.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1996. “The Myth of Massive Media Impact Revived: New Support for a Discredited Idea.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, ed. Mutz, D.C., Sniderman, P.M. and Brody, R.A.. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Fournier Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Fournier Supplementary Material(File)
File 713.2 KB