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?
1: Typologies of voluntary vs. involuntary party ambiguity
2: Novel empirical measures of different types of positional ambiguity
3: Comparative studies across parties, systems, or policy domains
4: Links between ambiguity, trust, accountability, and representation
5: Ambiguity in coalition politics and responsibility delegation
6: Text-analytic methods to detect ambiguity in political rhetoric
7: Experimental research on citizen interpretations and reactions
