Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:08:32.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bringing voters back in leader selection: the open primaries of the Italian Democratic Party

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2016

Antonella Seddone  and
Fulvio Venturino
Antonella Seddone*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Culture, Politica e Società, University of Turin, Italy;
Fulvio Venturino*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di storia beni culturali e territorio, University of Cagliari, Italy
*
∗Corresponding authors. Email: antonella.seddone@unito.it
∗Corresponding authors. Email: fventurino@unica.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the penalty hypothesis, primaries are considered damaging for parties because of the social and political distinctiveness of the electorate, who usually choose unpalatable candidates for the median voter in general elections. This article deals with two leader selections organised by the Italian Partito Democratico (PD) in 2007 and 2009. Using survey data, voters' characteristics in the two primaries relating to the 2008 parliamentary elections are contrasted in order to find out the differences between the two selectorates and the general electorate. Then, the attitudes of the winners' and losers' supporters in primary elections are compared. Although not definitive, the results contradict the primary penalty thesis. Even if the data point out some relevant differences between selectors and electors, the losers' supporters do not seem to be demobilised by the primary results.

Keywords

primary electionsleader selectionpolitical partieselectoral behaviourItalian politics
Type
Contexts and Debates
Information
Modern Italy , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , August 2013 , pp. 303 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Association for the study of Modern Italy 

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

Anderson, C. J., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., and Listhaug, O. 2005. Losers' Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkeson, L. R. 1998. “Divisive Primaries and General Election Outcomes: Another Look at Presidential Campaigns” American Journal of Political Science 42(1):256–271.Google Scholar
Bardi, L., ed. 2006. Partiti e sistemi di partito. Il ‘cartel party’ e oltre. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Bardi, L. 1996. “Anti-party Sentiment and Party System Change in Italy” European Journal of Political Research 29(3):345–363.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R. A. 1977. “Divisive Primaries Do Hurt: US Senate Races, 1956–1972” American Political Science Review 71(2):540–545.Google Scholar
Bordandini, P., Di Virgilio, A. and Raniolo, F. 2008. “The Birth of a Party: The Case of the Italian Partito Democratico” South European Society and Politics 13(3):303–324.Google Scholar
Born, R. 1962. “The Influence of House Primary Election Divisiveness on General Election Margins, 1962–1976” Journal of Politics 43(3):640–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadigan, J., and Janeba, E. 2002. “A Citizen-Candidate Model with Sequential Elections” Journal of Theoretical Politics 14(4):387–407.Google Scholar
Carey, J. M., and Polga-Hecimovic, J. 2006. “Primary Elections and Candidate Strength in Latin America” Journal of Politics 68(3):530–543.Google Scholar
Dalton, R. 1984. “Cognitive Mobilization and Partisan Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies” Journal of Politics 46(1):264–284.Google Scholar
De Luca, R., and Venturino, F., eds. 2010. Mobilitazione e partecipazione elettorale. Un'analisi delle ‘primarie’ per l'elezione del primo segretario del PD. Rome: Aracne.Google Scholar
Djupe, P. A., and Peterson, D. A. 2002. “The Impact of Negative Campaigning: Evidence from the 1998 Senatorial Primaries” Political Research Quarterly 55(4):845–860.Google Scholar
Hacker, A. 1965. “Does a ‘Divisive’ Primary Harm a Candidate's Election Chances?” American Political Science Review 59(1):105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazan, R. Y. 2002. “Candidate Selection.” In Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting, edited by LeDuc, L., et al, 108–126. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hazan, R. Y., and Rahat, G. 2010. Democracy Within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hogan, R. E. 2003. “The Effects of Primary Divisiveness on General Elections Outcomes in State Legislative Elections” American Politics Research 31(1):27–47.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. B., Petersheim, M. J., and Wasson, J. T. 2010. “Divisive Primaries and Incumbent General Election Performance: Prospects and Costs in U.S. House Races” American Politics Research 38(5):931–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanthak, K., and Morton, R. 2003. “The Effect of Primary Election Systems on Voter Turnout.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, 27 August 2003.Google Scholar
Katz, R. S. 2001. “Reforming the Italian Electoral Law, 1993.” In Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? edited by Shugart, M. S., and Wattenberg, M. P., 96–123. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, K. M., Gimpel, J. G., and Hoffman, A. H. 2003. “A Promise Fulfilled? Open Primaries and Representation” Journal of Politics 65(2):457–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, P. J. 1988. “Sorting Out the Effects of Primary Divisiveness in Congressional and Senatorial Elections” Western Political Quarterly 41(4):765–777.Google Scholar
Kenney, P. J., and Rice, T. W. 1984. “The Effect of Primary Divisiveness in Gubernatorial and Senate Elections” Journal of Politics 46(3):905–915.Google Scholar
Makse, T., and Sokhey, A. E. 2008. “Revisiting the Divisive Primary Hypothesis: 2008 and the Clinton – Obama Nomination Battle” American Politics Research 38(2):233–265.Google Scholar
McKee, S., and Hayes, D. 2009. “Dixie's Kingmakers: Stability and Change in Southern Presidential Primary Electorates” Presidential Studies Quarterly 39(2):400–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. M., Malcolm, E. J., and Sigelman, L. 1988. “Divisive Primaries and Party Activists: Kentucky, 1979 and 1983” Journal of Politics 50(2):459–471.Google Scholar
Morini, M., Orzati, L., and Venturino, F. 2006. “Elettori e partecipazione nelle elezioni primarie del 16 ottobre 2005. Un'analisi descrittiva basata su dati di survey” Quaderni dell'Osservatorio elettorale 55 (June 2006):195–217.Google Scholar
Norrander, B. 1989. “Ideological Representativeness of Presidential Primary Voters” American Journal of Political Science 33(3):570–587.Google Scholar
Norris, P. 2006. “Recruitment.” In Handbook of Party Politics, edited by Katz, R. S., and Crotty, W., 89–108. London–Thousand Oaks–New Delhi: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasquino, G., ed. 2009. Il Partito Democratico. Elezione del segretario, organizzazione e potere. Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
Pasquino, G., and Valbruzzi, M. 2010. “A che punto è il PD? Analisi organizzativa di un amalgama mal riuscito.” In Il Partito Democratico di Bersani. Persone, profilo e prospettive, edited by Pasquino, G., and Venturino, F., 13–33. Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
Pasquino, G., and Venturino, F., eds. 2010. Il Partito Democratico di Bersani. Persone, profilo e prospettive. Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
Pennings, P., and Hazan, R. Y. 2001. “Democratizing Candidate Selection: Causes and Consequences” Party Politics 7(3):267–275.Google Scholar
Peterson, D. A., and Djupe, P. A. 2005. “When Primary Campaigns Go Negative: The Determinants of Campaign Negativity” Political Research Quarterly 58(1):45–54.Google Scholar
Piereson, J. E., and Smith, T. B. 1975. “Primary Divisiveness and General Election Success: A Re-Examination” Journal of Politics 37(2):555–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poguntke, T. 1996. “Anti-party Sentiment: Conceptual Thoughts and Empirical Evidence: Explorations into a Minefield” European Journal of Political Research 29(3):319–344.Google Scholar
Poguntke, T., and Scarrow, S. 1996. “The Politics of Anti-party Sentiment: Introduction” European Journal of Political Research 29(3):251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahat, G. 2009. “Which Candidate Selection Method is the More Democratic?” Government and Opposition 44(1):68–90.Google Scholar
Rahat, G., and Hazan, R. Y. 2001. “Candidate Selection Methods: An Analytical Framework” Party Politics 7(3):297–322.Google Scholar
Ranney, A., and Epstein, L. D. 1966. “The Two Electorates: Voters and Non-Voters in a Wisconsin Primary” Journal of Politics 28(3):598–616.Google Scholar
Romero, D. W. 2003. “Divisive Primaries and the House District Vote: A Pooled Analysis” American Politics Research 31(2):178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, G. 1976. Parties and Party Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seddone, A., and Valbruzzi, M. 2010. “Le elezioni primarie fra partiti e partecipazione: analisi comparata dei casi di Bologna e Firenze” Polis 2 (August 2010):195–224.Google Scholar
Southwell, P. L. 1986. “The Politics of Disgruntlement: Non Voting and Defection among Supporters of Nomination Losers, 1968–1984” Political Behavior 8(1):81–95.Google Scholar
Ware, A. 1979. “‘Divisive’ Primaries: The Important Questions” British Journal of Political Science 9(3):381–384.Google Scholar
Ware, A. 2002. The American Direct Primary: Party Institutionalization and Transformation in the North. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wichowsky, A. 2010. “Narrow Victories and Hard Games: Revisiting the Primary Divisiveness Hypothesis” American Politics Research 38(6):1052–1071.Google Scholar