Blurring in party communication has become increasingly visible even at the same time as political
actors appeal to clarity, expertise, and “evidence-based” decision-making—particularly since the
Covid-19 pandemic. This workshop revisits ambiguity as a central but under-theorized feature of
party competition. It examines the varied functions that ambiguity fulfills on the party side—from
evading contentious issues to signaling competence—as well as how citizens interpret its origins, and
how those interpretations shape trust, accountability perceptions, and support for democracy.
Blurring has long been recognized as a deliberate choice in electoral competition (Downs 1957), yet
recent work underscores its multidimensionality. Parties may avoid contentious issues to deflect
attention from costly debates (Milita et al. 2014), deploy vagueness to invite preference projection
or delegate responsibility (Somer-Topcu 2015; Praprotnik and Ennser-Jedenastik 2024), or present
contradictory cues that signal ambivalence (Rovny 2013; Koedam 2021). Structurally, inconsistency
can also emerge from internal heterogeneity and discordant elite messaging (Lo et al. 2016; Lehrer
and Lin 2020), and parties may shift positions over time, with voter interpretation often depending
on policy domain (Tavits 2007; Nasr and Hoes 2024). Across these dimensions, scholars highlight a
critical but under-examined distinction between voluntary and involuntary blurring (Br¨auninger and
Giger 2018; Nyhuis and Stoetzer 2021). Parties often blur to broaden their appeal, yet ambiguity
may equally arise from organizational incoherence or coalition bargaining. Voters therefore confront
not only what a party signals, but also why ambiguity occurs.
This distinction carries normative weight. Ambiguity can enable broad representation under
uncertainty but may also weaken mandate clarity and erode trust. In the post-covid era, appeals to
transparency and evidence-based governance have become central to signaling competence, even
as references to science, expertise, or institutional necessity can diffuse responsibility and obscure
parties’ policy positions.
This workshop conceptualizes ambiguity as a multidimensional phenomenon in party rhetoric
and examines how citizens attribute its sources. We particularly welcome comparative, experimental,
and text-analytic work that empirically addresses this multidimensionality and its consequences for
citizen perceptions.
Koedam, J. (2021). Avoidance, ambiguity, alternation: Position blurring strategies in multidimensional party competition. European Union Politics, 22(4), 655-675.
Nyhuis, D., and Stoetzer, L. F. (2021). The two faces of party ambiguity: A comprehensive model of ambiguous party position perceptions. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1421-1438.
Praprotnik, K., and Ennser-Jedenastik, L. (2024). Ambiguity and vagueness in party competition. Party Politics, 30(6), 1152-1160.
Simas, E. N., Milita, K., & Ryan, J. B. (2021). Ambiguous rhetoric and legislative accountability. The Journal of Politics, 83(4), 1695-1705.
Tomz, M., and Van Houweling, R. P. (2009). The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 83-98.
1: Which indicators capture different forms of issue blurring across policy domains?
2: How can we distinguish voluntary from involuntary sources of party ambiguity?
3: When do appeals to 'evidence-based' policymaking aim to clarify versus delegate and dilute policy positions?
4: How do citizens interpret ambiguous party signals, and how do they infer intent?
5: What are the consequences of ambiguity for trust, accountability, and representation?
| Title |
Details |
| How do Blurred Appeals Affect Valence Perceptions |
View Paper Details
|
| The Logic of Conflict Extension: Mainstreaming Political Entrepreneurship in Electoral Competition |
View Paper Details
|
| Science in Party Policy Shifts: A Double Edged Sword? |
View Paper Details
|
| How Populist Parties enter in competition: A Comparative Analysis of 25 European Countries |
View Paper Details
|
| Ambiguous Coalitions: How parties' ideological ambiguity impact government formation |
View Paper Details
|
| Strategic or Haphazard? Understanding Party Ambiguity during the 2019 and 2024 Belgian Electoral Campaigns. |
View Paper Details
|
| Polarisation and Party Position Blurring: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Time-Series Analysis |
View Paper Details
|
| Not All Speech That Wanders Is Lost: Competence Signaling and Obfuscation in Party Policy Appeals |
View Paper Details
|
| Muddle Instead Of Music: The Electoral Consequences of Divergent Intra-party Positions on Immigration |
View Paper Details
|
| Who Likes the Fight? Conflict-Appetite, Intra-Party Hostility, and Party Support |
View Paper Details
|
| They Find a Way: Relative Perceptions of Party Issue Positions and Voter-Party Congruence |
View Paper Details
|
| Are populist parties systematically more sceptical about climate change? Evidence from an Expert Survey |
View Paper Details
|
| From Average to Anti-Climate: Explaining Radical Right Party Position Shifts through Frame Profiles |
View Paper Details
|
| Promises vs. Policies: Understanding How Citizens Trade Off Principles and Instrumental Goals |
View Paper Details
|
| (In)Congruence as a factor explaining changes in the political positions of social democratic parties |
View Paper Details
|
| Beyond the Favorite Issue: Experimental Tests of Heterogenizing Voters´ Issue Preferences |
View Paper Details
|
