Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T04:54:19.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L'ELETTORE CHE RAGIONA. IL CASO DEI SISTEMI MULTIPARTITICI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2018

Franz Urban Pappi

Introduzione

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Lo studio del comportamento elettorale si è considerevolmente modificato dai tempi della supremazia del Michigan model negli anni Sessanta (Campbell et al. 1960 e 1966) e della congiunzione di quest'approccio socio-psicologico con quello della scelta razionale di Downs (1957).

Summary

Summary

«Reasoning voter» is a term coined by Popkin to describe a situation in which voters do reason about parties, candidates and issues in order to come to terms with a low-cost decision. The acquisition of perfect information and its processing are too expensive so that reasoning voters use information and calculation shortcuts to approach rationality in their choice.

In a field where research agenda focuses heavily on the American two-party system and its presidential election, this paper is about preference formation and party choices of reasoning voters in a multiparty system. More specifically, the Author discusses a model of voting decision which is built on the assumption that party preference profiles of voters are the crucial link between the factors influencing the reasoning about parties and the final voting decision in a multiparty system.

The first section deals with the concept of party preference in multiparty system, its theoretical status and the different devices to collect data on party preference profiles (paired comparisons, rankings, ratings). The second section discusses the factors influencing the preference formation. From those factors, issue proximities and retrospective evaluations are selected as the factors most proximate to the process of preference formation in the assumed funnel of causality. The Author also takes into account future expectations too, but they are more difficult to integrate into models for multiparty systems, since the future government does depend not only on election results but also on future coalition building. The third and last section focuses on voting behavior. In the analysis of the decision problem itself the concept of habit, the expressive consideration together with the instrumental one and the distinction between voters as consumers and voters as investors are considered.

The final question is about the voter paradox, that is partecipation in an election with an infinitely small impact on the outcome, appears as paradoxical as ever. The Author argues that, since continental European democracies have developed parliamentary systems in which governments are usually formed by coalitions, it is very difficult for voters to anticipate future governments, and this constitutes a further element against the decisiveness of voting. Thus instrumental rationality is more downgraded in multiparty systems than in two-party systems. But multiparty systems on the other hand facilitate political orientation by providing ideological signals.

Type
Saggi
Information
Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , December 1995 , pp. 487 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © Societ Italiana di Scienza Politica 

References

Riferimenti bibliografici

Abramson, P.R. (1983), Political Attitudes in America, San Francisco, Freeman.Google Scholar
Barry, B. (1978), Sogiologists, Economists and Democracy, Chicago e Londra, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brady, H.E. e Ansolabehere, S. (1989), The Nature of Utility functions in Mass Public, in «American Political Science Review», vol. 83, 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, G. e Lomasky, L. (1993), Democracy and Decision. The Pure Theory of Electoral Preference, Cambridge e New York, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E. e Stokes, D.E. (1960), The American Voter, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E. e Stokes, D.E. (1966), Elections and the Political Order, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
Converse, P.E. (1964), The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics, in Apter, D.E. (a cura di), Ideology and Discontent, New York e Londra, The Free Press Collier-Macmillan, pp. 206–261.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E. e Stokes, D.E. (1966), The Problem of Party Distances in Models of Voting Change, in Jennings, K.M. e Zeigler, H. (a cura di), The Electoral Process, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, pp. 175–207.Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E. e Stokes, D.E. (1976), The Dynamics of Party Support: Cohort-Analyzing Party Identification, Beverly Hills e Londra, Sage.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Eckstein, G. (1994), Rationale Wahl im Mehrparteiensystem. Die Bedeutung von Koalitionen im räumlichen Modell der Parteienkonkurrenz, Università di Mannheim, tesi.Google Scholar
Enelow, J.M. e Hinich, M.J. (1984), The Spatial Theory of Voting. An Introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Esser, H. (a cura di) (1991), Alltagshandeln und Verstehen, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M.P. (1981), Retrospective Voting in American National Elections, New Haven e Londra, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fuchs, D. e Klingemann, H.D. (1990), The Left-Right Scheme. Theoretical Framework, in Jennings, K.M., Van Deth, J. et al. (a cura di), Continuities in Political Actions. A Longitudinal Stude of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies, Berlino, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 203–234.Google Scholar
Guttman, J.M., Hilger, N. e Schachmurove, Y. (1994), Voting as Investment vs. Voting as Consumption: New Evidence, in «Kyklos», vol. 47, pp. 197–207.Google Scholar
Hastie, R. (1986), A Primer of Information-processing Theory for the Political Scientist, in Lau, R.R. e Sears, D.O. (a cura di), Political Cognition, Hillsdale e Londra, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 11–39.Google Scholar
Hinich, M.J. e Munger, M.C. (1992), A Spatial Theory of Ideology, in «Journal of Theoretical Politics», vol. 4, pp. 5–30.Google Scholar
Hinich, M.J. e Pollard, W. (1981), A New Approach to the Spatial Theory of Electoral Competition, in «American Journal of Political Science», vol. 25, pp. 323–341.Google Scholar
Hotelling, H. (1929), Stability in Competition, in «The Economic Journal», vol. 39, pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. (1991), Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues, Chicago e Londra, University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemann, D. e Tversky, A. (1982), Risiko nach Mass – Psychology der Entscheidungspräferenzen, in «Spektrum der Wissenschaft», pp. 89–98.Google Scholar
Key, V.O. (1966), The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936–1960, New York, Vintage.Google Scholar
Klingemann, H.D. (1972), Testing the Left-Right Continuum on a Sample of German Voters, in «Comparative Political Studies», vol. 5, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar
Klingemann, H.D. (1979), Measuring Ideological Conceptualizations, in Barnes, S. H. e Kaase, M. (a cura di), Political Action: Mass Partecipation in Five Western Democracies, Beverly Hills e Londra, Sage, pp. 215–254.Google Scholar
Küchler, M. (1991), Issues and Voting in the European Elections 1989, in «European Journal of Political Research», vol. 19, pp. 81–103.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, J.H., Luskin, R.C. e Bolland, J. (1991), Where Is the Schema? Going Beyond the «S» Word in Political Psychology, in «American Political Science Review», vol. 85, pp. 1341–1355.Google Scholar
Laver, M. e Hunt, B.W. (1992), Policy and Party Competition, New York e Londra, Routledge.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (1990), Rationalität und Kultur. Die verhaltenstheoretische Basis des Einflusses von Kultur auf Transaktionen, in Haferkamp, H. (a cura di), Sozialstruktur und Kultur, Suhrkamp, pp. 249–287.Google Scholar
Lodge, M., McGraw, K.M., Donover, P., Feldman, S. e Miller, A.H. (1991), Where Is the Schema? Critiques, in «American Political Science Review», vol. 85, pp. 1357–1380.Google Scholar
Markus, G.B. e Converse, P.E. (1979), A Dynamic Simultaneous Equation Model of Electoral Choice, in «American Political Science Review», vol. 73, pp. 1055–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nannestad, P. (1994), Dänisches Wahlverhalten 1971–1979: Ein Modell reaktiven Wählens und einige empirische Ergebnisse, in Pappi, F.U. e Schmitt, H. (a cura di), Parteien, Variamente und Wahlen in Skandinavien, Francoforte e New York, Campus, pp. 285–306.Google Scholar
Pappi, F.U. (1983), Die Links-Rechts-Dimension des deutschen Parteiensystem und die Parteipräferenz-Profile der Wählerschaft, in Kaase, M. e Klingemann, H.D. (a cura di), Wahlen und politisches System, Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 422–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappi, F.U. (1994), Parteienwettbewerb im vereinten Deutschland, in Bürklin, W. e Roth, D. (a cura di), Das Superwahljahr. Deutschland vor unkalkulierbaren Regierungsmehr-heiten?, Colonia, Bund-Verlag, pp. 219–248.Google Scholar
Popkin, S.L. (1991), The Reasoning Voter. Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns, Chicago e Londra, University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rattinger, H. (1993), Wahlbeteiligung und Akzeptanz der demokratischen Wahlnorm, Università di Bamberga, manoscritto inedito.Google Scholar
Ronis, D.L., Yates, J.F. e Kirscht, J.P. (1989), Attitudes, Decisions and Habits as Determinants of Repeated Behavior, in Pratkanis Breckler, R., Steven, J. e Greenwald, A.G. (a cura di), Attitude Structure and Function, Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 213–240.Google Scholar
Rusk, J.G. (1987), Issues and Voting, in Long, S. (a cura di), Research in Micropolitics 2. Voting Behavior II, Greenwich e Londra, JAI Press, pp. 95–141.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1976), Parties and Party Systems, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shively, P.W. (1979), The Development of Party Identification among Adults: Explorations of a Functional Model, in «American Political Science Review», vol. 73, pp. 1039–1054.Google Scholar
Smith, E. (1989), The Unchanging American Voter, Berkeley, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Snidermann, P.M. (1993), The New Look in Public Opinion Research, in Finifter, A. (a cura di), Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, Washington D.C., American Political Science Association, pp. 219–244.Google Scholar
Snidermann, P.M., Brody, R.A. e Tetlock, P.E. (1991), Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology, New York, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snidermann, P.M., Glaser, J.M. e Griffin, R. (1990), Information and Electoral Choice, in Ferejohn, J.A. e Kuklinski, J.H. (a cura di), Information and Democratic Processes, Urbana e Chicago, University of Illinois Press, pp. 117–135.Google Scholar
Van der Eijk, C., Niemöller, B. e Tillie, J.N. (1986), The Two Faces of «Future Vote»: Voter Utility and Party Potential, Università di Amsterdam, manoscritto inedito.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1965), Social Action and its Types, in Parsons, T. et al. (a cura di), Theories of Society, New York, Free Press, pp. 173–179.Google Scholar