Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:47:49.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communication Networks and Changes in Electoral Choices: A Study of Taiwan's 2002 Mayoral Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2016

Cheng-shan Liu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Communication networks play an important role in the process of political socialization. This article, based on Taiwan's 2002 Taipei and Kaohsiung mayoral election data, investigates the extent to which political discussion with family and close friends affects changes in vote choices. Using two definitions of changes in vote choice—vote switching and partisan defection—the empirical findings support Alan Zuckerman and his followers' structural theory and partially sustain Paul Beck's social support theory. First, partisan voters in both cities who perceive great heterogeneity in their communication networks are likely to switch their vote in two consecutive elections. Second, partisan voters in Kaohsiung who frequently discuss politics within communication networks are not likely to defect their party identification. The implications of the findings for the development of deliberative democracy are discussed.

Keywords

partisan defectionvote switchingcommunication networksvoter preferencespolitical disagreement
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of East Asian Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 139 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © East Asia Institute 

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

Notes

I appreciate the helpful comments from Paul Johnson, Stephan Haggard, and this journal's anonymous reviewers. I also gratefully acknowledge the support I have received from the Department of Political Science at the University of Kansas under the Thompson Scholarship (2004) program.Google Scholar

1. Zuckerman, Alan S., Kotler-Berkowitz, Laurence A., and Swaine, Lucas A., “Anchoring Political Preferences: The Structural Bases of Stable Electoral Decisions and Political Attitudes in Britain,” European Journal of Political Research 33, no. 3 1998): 285–321, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Huckfeldt, Robert, Johnson, Paul E., and Sprague, John D., Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions Within Communication Networks (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. In this article, I use “communication networks” rather than “social networks” because the meaning of “communication networks” is more specific than “social networks.” A social network can refer to communication networks or other types of networks, such as political party networks and social class networks, while a communication network clearly refers to networks composed of members subjectively chosen by an individual as political discussion partners. The term “communication networks” is a synonym for “political communication networks,” “interpersonal communication networks,” “discussion networks,” and “political discussion networks” appearing in other studies.Google Scholar

4. Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper, 1957).Google Scholar

5. Carmines, Edward G. and Huckfeldt, Robert, “Political Behavior: An Overview.” In Goodin, Robert E. and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, eds., A New Handbook of Political Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 223–254, 230.Google Scholar

6. Beck, Paul R., Greene Dalton, S., and Huckfeldt, Robert, “The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices,” American Political Science Review 96, no. 1 2002): 57–73; Bennett, Stephen E., Flickinger, Richard S., and Rhine, Staci L., “Political Talk over Here, over There, over Time,” British Journal of Political Science 30 (January 2000): 99–119; McLeod, Jack M., Scheufele, Dietram A., Moy, Patricia, and Horowitz, Edward M., “Understanding Deliberation: The Effects of Discussion Networks on Participation in a Public Forum,” Communication Research 26, no. 6 (1999): 743–774.Google Scholar

7. Huckfeldt, Robert, Beck, Paul Allen, Dalton, Russell J., and Levine, Jeffrey, “Political Environments, Cohesive Social Groups, and the Communication of Public Opinion,” American Journal of Political Science 39, no. 4 1995): 1025–1054; La Due Lake, Ronald and Huckfeldt, Robert, “Social Capital, Social Networks, and Political Participation,” Political Psychology 19, no. 3 (1998): 567–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Arnold, Laura W., Deen, Rebecca E., and Patterson, Samuel C., “Friendship and Votes: The Impact of Interpersonal Ties on Legislative Decision Making,” State and Local Government Review 32, no. 2 2000): 142–147; McLeod, Jack M., Scheufele, Dietram A., and Moy, Patricia, “Community, Communication, and Participation: The Role of Mass Media and Interpersonal Discussion in Local Political Participation,” Political Communication 16 (1999): 315–336; McLeod, Jack M., Scheufele, Dietram A., and Moy, Patricia, “Understanding Deliberation: The Effects of Discussion Networks on Participation in a Public Forum,” Communication Research 26, no. 6 (1999): 743–774; Roch, Christine H., Scholz, John T., and McGraw, Kathleen M., “Social Networks and Citizen Response to Legal Change,” American Journal of Political Science 44, no. 4 (2000): 777–791; Scheufele, Dietram A., “Talk or Conversation? Dimensions of Interpersonal Discussion and Their Implications for Participatory Democracy,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77, no. 4 (2000): 727–743.Google Scholar

9. Carmines, Edward G. and Huckfeldt, Robert, “Political Behavior: An Overview”; Mark S. Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology 78, no. 6 1973): 1360–1380; Huckfeldt, Robert, “The Social Communication of Political Expertise,” American Journal of Political Science 45, no. 2 (2001): 425–438; Miller, Joanne M. and Krosnick, Jon A., “News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens Are Guided by a Trusted Source,” American Journal of Political Science 44, no. 2 (2000): 295–309; Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T., “Introduction to Attitudes and Persuasion.” In Petty, Richard E. and Cacioppo, John T., Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches (Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown, 1981).Google Scholar

10. Beck, Paul Allen, “Voters' Intermediation Environments in the 1988 Presidential Contest,” Public Opinion Quarterly 55, no. 3 1991): 371–394; Huckfeldt, Robert, Johnson, Paul E., and Sprague, John, “Political Environments, Political Dynamics, and the Survival of Disagreement,” Journal of Politics 64, no. 1 (2002): 1–21; Mutz, Diana, “The Future of Political Communication Research: Reflections on the Occasion of Steve Chaffee's Retirement from Stanford University,” Political Communication 18 (2001): 231–236; Pattie, Charles and Johnston, Ron, “Context, Conversation and Conviction: Social Networks and Voting at the 1992 British General Election,” Political Studies 47, no. 5 (1999): 51–64; Pattie, Charles and Johnston, Ron, “People Who Talk Together Vote Together: An Exploration of Contextual Effects in Great Britain,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90, no. 1 (2000): 41–66; Pattie, Charles and Johnston, Ron, “Political Talk and Voting: Does It Matter to Whom One Talks?” Environment and Planning A 34, no. 6 (2002): 1113–1135; Roch, Christine H., Scholz, John T., and McGraw, Kathleen M., “Social Networks and Citizen Response to Legal Change,” American Journal of Political Science 44, no. 4 (2000): 777–791; Wyatt, R., Kim, J., and Katz, E., “Communicating in a Diverse Society: How Feeling Free to Talk Affects Ordinary Political Conversation, Purposeful Argumentation, and Civic Participation,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 11, no. 1 (2000): 99–114.Google Scholar

11. Zuckerman, Kotler-Berkowitz, and Swaine, , “Anchoring Political Preferences,” 285–321; Zuckerman, Alan S., Valentino, Nicholas A., and Zuckerman, Ezra W., “A Structural Theory of Vote Choice: Social and Political Networks and Electoral Flows in Britain and the United-States,” Journal of Politics 56, no. 4 (1994): 1008–1033.Google Scholar

12. Liu, James H., Ikeda, Ken'ichi, and Wilson, Marc Stewart, “Interpersonal Environment Effects on Political Preferences: The ‘Middle Path’ for Conceptualizing Social Structure in New Zealand and Japan,” Political Behavior 20, no. 3 1998): 183–212; Pattie, and Johnston, , “Political Talk and Voting”; Pattie, Charles and Johnston, Ron, “Talk as a Political Context: Conversation and Electoral Change in British Elections, 1992-1997,” Electoral Studies 20, no. 1 (2001): 17–40; Pattie, and Johnston, , “People Who Talk Together Vote Together”; Pattie and Johnston, “Context, Conversation and Conviction.” Google Scholar

13. Beck, Paul, “Encouraging Political Defection: The Role of Personal Discussion Networks in Partisan Desertions to the Opposition Party and Perot Votes in 1992,” Political Behavior 24, no. 4 2002): 309–337.Google Scholar

14. Burbank, Matthew J., “Explaining Contextual Effects on Vote Choice,” Political Behavior 19, no. 2 1997): 113–132.Google Scholar

15. Zuckerman, Valentino, and Zuckerman, , “A Structural Theory of Vote Choice.” Google Scholar

16. Lalljee, Mansur and Palmer-Canton, E., “Communication and Consistency: AIDS Talk and AIDS Attitudes,” Journal of Psychology 135, no. 1 2001): 87–99; Price, Vincent, Cappella, Joseph N., and Nir, Lilach, “Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion?” Political Communication 19, no. 1 (2002): 95–112.Google Scholar

17. Zuckerman, Kotler-Berkowitz, and Swaine, , “Anchoring Political Preferences.” Google Scholar

18. Huckfeldt, Johnson, and Sprague, , Political Disagreement. Google Scholar

19. See Coleman, Stephen, “The Effect of Social Conformity on Collective Voting Behavior,” Political Analysis 12, no. 1 2004): 76–96; Pattie, and Johnston, , “Political Talk and Voting”; Pattie, and Johnston, , “Talk as a Political Context”; Pattie and Johnston, “People Who Talk Together Vote Together”; Pattie, and Johnston, , “Context, Conversation and Conviction”; Zuckerman, Kotler-Berkowitz, and Swaine, , “Anchoring Political Preferences”; Liu, Ikeda, and Wilson, , “Interpersonal Environment Effects on Political Preferences;” Burbank, “Explaining Contextual Effects on Vote Choice.” CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Beck, Dalton, and Huckfeldt, , “The Social Calculus of Voting”; Beck, , “Encouraging Political Defection”; Alvarez, Michael R., Nagler, Jonathan, and Bowler, Shaun, “Issues, Economics, and the Dynamics of Multiparty Elections: The British 1987 General Election,” American Political Science Review 94, no. 1 (2000): 131–149; Bartle, John, “Partisanship, Performance and Personality: Competing and Complementary Characterizations of the 2001 British General Election,” Party Politics 9, no. 3 (2003): 317–345; Fournier, Patrick, Blais, Andre, Nadeau, Richard, Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Nevitte, Neil, “Issue Importance and Performance Voting,” Political Behavior 25, no. 1 (2003): 51–67; Schmitt-Beck, Rudiger, “Mass Communication, Personal Communication and Vote Choice: The Filter Hypothesis of Media Influence in Comparative Perspective,” British Journal of Political Science 33, no. 2 (2003): 233–259; Weisberg, Herbert F., “Partisanship and Incumbency in Presidential Elections,” Political Behavior 24, no. 4 (2002): 339–360; Burbank, , “Explaining Contextual Effects on Vote Choice.” Google Scholar

21. Data analyzed in this article were collected by the research projects of TEDS 2002, and directed by Chi Huang. Public Opinion Survey Center, National Chung-Cheng University, is responsible for the data distribution. The author and colleagues thank the institute and individuals previously mentioned for providing data. The views expressed here are the author's own.Google Scholar

22. For the discussion of the American value of “voting for the person, not the party,” see Beck, , “Encouraging Political Defection.” Google Scholar

23. The Blue camp is composed of Kuomintang (the Nationalist Party or KMT) and other parties separated from it—New Party (NP) and People First Party (PFP). Their supporters hold that the Republic of China (ROC) exists legitimately in Taiwan and should pursue a democratic reunification with the People's Republic of China (PRC) in mainland China. The Green camp is composed of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the current dominant political party; Taiwan Solidification Union (TSU); and the Independence Party (IP). Supporters of the Green camp emphasize more the difference between Taiwan and (mainland) China than the difference between PRC and ROC. They argue that, because the legitimacy of ROC in Taiwan has been vanishing worldwide since the KMT lost the civil war, there is a need for this island to give Taiwan an internationally acknowledged identity.Google Scholar

24. Beck, , “Encouraging Political Defection”; Burbank, “Explaining Contextual Effects on Vote Choice”; Stephen Coleman, “The Effect of Social Conformity on Collective Voting Behavior,” Political Analysis 12, no. 1 2004): 76–96; Fournier, Blais, Nadeau, Gidengil, and Nevitte, , “Issue Importance and Performance Voting.” Google Scholar

25. Zuckerman, Kotler-Berkowitz, and Swaine, , “Anchoring Political Preferences,” 294.Google Scholar

26. Indeed, focusing on partisan voters and omitting independent/swing voters constrains the inference of the findings. However, the findings help future research to explore the influence of the same variables on nonpartisan voters. If perceiving heterogeneous party identification and discussing politics frequently have certain influence on partisan voters, will they influence independent voters even more than partisan voters? Google Scholar