Intraparty Competition in Comparative Perspective

In modern western democracies, political competition is not only taking place between political parties but also within parties. As the role of individual political actors is becoming more prominent, a trend which is labelled as the personalization of politics (McAllister, 2007; Karvonen, 2010), we can assume that the intraparty dimension of political competition, thus competition within parties, will gain even more importance over the upcoming decades. Furthermore, in many proportional representation (PR) electoral systems, the importance of the individual politician has recently been reinforced further by personalizing electoral reforms (Renwick and Pilet, 2016). These increasing levels of intraparty competition have a substantial impact on the way politics and elections are being played out. Political science research is, however, still mainly dominated by the interparty dimension, thus the competition between parties. While the topic of intraparty competition has recently gained more interest (e.g. von Schoultz and Shugart, 2017; Selb and Lutz, 2015; Bergman et al., 2013; Arter, 2013), our knowledge of the determinants, mechanisms and consequences of intraparty competition remains relatively limited. Intraparty competition pertains to the behavior of the three central actors of the representative chain: voters, candidates and parties. Each of these actors’ strategies are strongly affected by the degree of intraparty competition. Fierce competition between candidates on the same ballot increases the electoral complexity, which leads voters to rely more on straightforward cues for their voting decisions (Lau and Redlawsk, 2006). As a result of the ongoing personalization of politics, candidates will – in their turn – strategically emphasize those cues that are related to their personal characteristics and experiences (Carey and Shugart, 1995). The literature mentions political experience (Ansolabehere et al. 2000; Dahlgaard 2016), name recognition (Arter, 2014) and local ties (Shugart et al., 2005; Tavits, 2010) as effective attributes to attract personal votes. Under high levels of intraparty competition, political parties are incentivized to adapt their nomination strategies and nominate candidates that are particularly successful in attracting personal votes (André et al. 2017), even though this may pose a threat for the party unity (Crisp et al., 2013). Most of the recent empirical studies on intraparty competition only focus on one of these actors’ perspectives, in particular on the nomination strategies used by parties when fielding candidates (e.g. Nemoto and Shugart, 2013; Arter, 2015; Put et al., 2018), the campaign strategies used by candidates to compete against their co-partisans (e.g. De Winter and Baudewyns, 2015; Zittel, 2015), or the voting strategies applied by voters in electoral systems with strong intraparty competition dynamics (e.g. Collignon and Sajuria, 2018). A more integrative approach of studying intraparty competition, and in particular approaches combining the perspectives of the three central actors, is still missing from the literature. Therefore, the goal of this workshop is: 1) to further our theoretical and empirical knowledge on intraparty competition; and 2) to encourage comparative and encompassing research initiatives by combining the dispersed but clearly complementary literatures on the behavior and strategies of parties, candidates and voters. Bringing together both junior and senior scholars working on intraparty competition, we aim to address amongst others the following questions: ‘How are the strategies of candidates, voters and parties regarding intraparty competition interrelated?’, ‘What determines voters’ candidate choice?’, ‘What type of candidates do parties nominate and why?’, ‘Which strategies do candidates apply to gain intraparty success?’. This proposal received the interest and support of both the ECPR Comparative Political Institutions and Public Opinion and Voting Behaviour Standing Groups, which reflects the workshop directors’ aim to combine the different perspectives and literatures related to intraparty competition. List of references (used in this proposal): André, A., S. Depauw, M.S. Shugart, & R. Chytilek, R. (2017). Party nomination strategies in flexible-list systems: Do preference votes matter? Party Politics 23(5): 589-600. Ansolabehere, S.J., M. Snyder, & C. Stewart (2000). Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 17-34. Arter, D. (2013). The ‘hows’, not the ‘whys’ or the ‘wherefores’: The role of intra-party competition in the 2011 breakthrough of the True Finns. Scandinavian Political Studies 36(2): 99-120. Arter, D. (2014). Clowns, Alluring ducks and Miss Finland 2009: The value of celebrity candidates in an open list PR voting system. Representation 50(4): 453-470. Arter D (2015). Why do MPs want to be MEPs? Candidate incentives and party nomination strategies in European Parliament elections in Finland. European Politics and Society 16(4): 540–555. Bergman, M.E., M.S. Shugart, & K. A. Watt (2013). Patterns of intraparty competition in open-lists & SNTV systems. Electoral Studies 32: 321-333. Carey, J.M., & M.S. Shugart (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote. Electoral Studies 14(4): 417-39. Collignon, S., & J. Sajuria (2018). Local means local, does it? Regional identification and preferences for local candidates. Electoral Studies 56: 170-178. Crisp, B., S. Olivella, M. Malecki, & M. Sher (2013). Vote-earning strategies in flexible list systems: Seats at the price of unity. Electoral Studies 32(4): 658-69. Dahlgaard, J.O. (2016). You just made it: Individual incumbency advantage under proportional representation.’ Electoral Studies 44: 319-328. De Winter, L., & P. Baudewyns (2015). Candidate centred campaigning in a party centred context: The case of Belgium. Electoral Studies 39: 295-305. Karvonen, L. (2010). The personalisation of politics. A study of parliamentary democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press. Katz, R. (1985). Intraparty preference voting. In Grofman B. & Lijphart A. (eds.) Electoral laws and their political consequences. Agaton Press: New York, pp. 85-103. Lau, R., & D.P. Redlawsk (2006). How voters decide. Information processing during election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press. Marsh, M. (1985) The voters decide? Preferential voting in European list systems. European Journal of Political Research 13(4): 365-378. McAllister, I. (2007). The personalization of politics. In: Dalton R. & Klingemann H.D. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of political behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 571-588. Nemoto, K., & M.S. Shugart (2013). Localism and coordination under three different electoral systems: The national district of the Japanese House of Councillors. Electoral Studies 32(1): 1-12. Put, G.J., J. Smulders, & B. Maddens (2018). How local personal vote-earning attributes affect the aggregate party vote share: Evidence from the Belgian flexible-list PR system (2003–2014). Politics, Online First. Renwick, A., & J-B. Pilet (2016). Faces on the Ballot. The Personalization of Electoral Systems in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selb, P., & G. Lutz (2015). Lone fighters: Intraparty competition, interparty competition, and candidates' vote seeking efforts in open-ballot PR elections. Electoral Studies, 39, 329-337. Shugart, M.S., M.E. Valdini, & K. Suominen (2005). Looking for locals: Voter information demands and personal vote‐earning attributes of legislators under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science 49(2): 437-449. Shugart, M.S. (2005) Comparative electoral systems research: The maturation of a field and the new challenges ahead. In: Gallagher M. & Mitchell P. (eds,) The Politics of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–55. Tavits, M. (2010). Effect of local ties on electoral success and parliamentary behavior. The case of Estonia. Party Politics 16(2): 215-35. von Schoultz, Å, & M.S. Shugart (2017). Intraparty competition and the need to cultivate a personal vote: Explaining individual electoral success under OLPR. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association 2017, San Francisco. Zittel, T. (2015) Constituency candidates in comparative perspective – How personalized are constituency campaigns, why, and does it matter? Electoral Studies 39: 286–294.