Simple politics for the people? Complexity in campaign messages and political knowledge
Corresponding Author
DANIEL BISCHOF
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Address for correspondence: Daniel Bischof, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland; E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
DANIEL BISCHOF
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Address for correspondence: Daniel Bischof, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland; E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Which parties use simple language in their campaign messages, and do simple campaign messages resonate with voters’ information about parties? This study introduces a novel link between the language applied during election campaigns and citizens’ ability to position parties in the ideological space. To this end, how complexity of campaign messages varies across parties as well as how it affects voters’ knowledge about party positions is investigated. Theoretically, it is suggested that populist parties are more likely to simplify their campaign messages to demarcate themselves from mainstream competitors. In turn, voters should perceive and process simpler campaign messages better and, therefore, have more knowledge about the position of parties that communicate simpler campaign messages. The article presents and validates a measure of complexity and uses it to assess the language of manifestos in Austria and Germany in the period 1945–2013. It shows that political parties, in general, use barely comprehensible language to communicate their policy positions. However, differences between parties exist and support is found for the conjecture about populist parties as they employ significantly less complex language in their manifestos. Second, evidence is found that individuals are better able to place parties in the ideological space if parties use less complex campaign messages. The findings lead to greater understanding of mass-elite linkages during election campaigns and have important consequences for the future analysis of manifesto data.
Supporting Information
Filename | Description |
---|---|
ejpr12235-sup-0001-FigureS1.docx334.8 KB | Table 3: Parties & elections covered in the analysis Table 4: Dictionary to measure populist rhetoric, based on Rooduijn and Pauwels (2011: 1283) Figure 5: The relationship between populism3 & simple language Table 5: Mean values for populism measure Table 6: Robustness: Do populist parties use simpler language in their manifestos? Yes Table 7: Is it easier for voters to position political parties that use simple language in their manifestos? Yes Figure 6: Does the press in Germany talk about manifestos? Yes Figure 7: Do voters search for manifestos before elections? Yes Figure 8: Do voters search more often for manifestos or candidates before elections? Depends |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- Adams, J. (2001). A theory of spatial competition with biased voters: Party policies viewed temporally and comparatively. British Journal of Political Science 31(1): 121–158.
- Adams, J. (2012). Causes and electoral consequences of party policy shifts in multiparty elections: Theoretical results and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Political Science 15(1): 401–419.
- Adams, J. et al. (2006). Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of Western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 513–529.
- Adams, J., Ezrow, L. & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2011). Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy statements during elections. American Journal of Political Science 55(2): 370–382.
- Adams, J., Merrill, S. III & Grofman, B. (2005). A unified theory of party competition: A cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511614453 Google Scholar
- Anderson, J. (1981). Analysing the Readability of English and Non-English Texts in the Classroom with Lix. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Reading Association, Darwin, August.
- Anderson, J. (1983). Lix and Rix: Variations on a little-known readability index. Journal of Reading 26(6): 490–496.
- Bakker, R. et al. (2015). Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics 21(1): 143–152.
- Benoit, K. & Laver, M. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.
10.4324/9780203028179 Google Scholar
- Bélanger, É. & Meguid, B.M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies 27(3): 477–491.
- Bischof, D. (2017). Towards a renewal of the niche party concept: Parties, market shares and condensed offers. Party Politics 23(3): 220–235.
- Bischof, D. & Wagner, M. (2017). What makes parties adapt to voter preferences? The role of party organisation, goals and ideology. British Journal of Political Science: accepted for publication.
10.1017/S0007123417000357 Google Scholar
- Björnsson, C.H. (1968). Läsbarhet. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Liber.
- Bräuninger, T. & Giger, N. (2016). Strategic ambiguity of party positions in multi-party competition. Political Science and Research Methods. DOI: 10.1017/psrm.2016.18.
10.1017/psrm.2016.18 Google Scholar
- Budge, I. et al. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors and governments, 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political Studies 47(1): 2–16.
- Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Dolezal, M. et al. (2012). The life cycle of party manifestos: The Austrian case. West European Politics 35(4): 869–895.
- Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
- Eder, N., Jenny, M. & Müller, W.C. (2017). Manifesto functions: How party candidates view and use their party's central policy document. Electoral Studies 45: 75–87.
- Ezrow, L. (2005). Are moderate parties rewarded in multiparty systems? A pooled analysis of Western European elections, 1984–1998. European Journal of Political Research 44(6): 881–898.
- Ezrow, L., Homola, J. & Tavits, M. (2014). When extremism pays: Policy positions, voter certainty and party support in postcommunist Europe. Journal of Politics 76(2): 535–547.
- Fernàndez-Vàzquez, P. (2014). And yet it moves: The effect of election platforms on party policy images. Comparative Political Studies 47(14): 1919–1944.
- Fernàndez-Vàzquez, P. (2016). The credibility of party policy rhetoric survey experimental evidence. Available online at: http://pablofernandezvazquez.com/wp-Content/uploads/2016/07/fernandez_credibility_SurveyExperiment.pdf
- Fernàndez-Vàzquez, P. & Somer-Topcu, Z. (2017). The informational role of party leader changes on voter perceptions of party positions. British Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000047. [Epub ahead of print].
10.1017/S0007123417000047 Google Scholar
- Gelman, A. (2008). Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine 27(15): 2865–2873.
- Greene, Z. (2016). Competing on the issues: How experience in government and economic conditions influence the scope of parties’ policy messages. Party Politics 22(6): 809–822.
- Grimmer, J. & Stewart, B.M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis 21(3): 267–297.
- Hansen, M.E. (2008). Back to the archives? A critique of the Danish part of the manifesto dataset. Scandinavian Political Studies 31(2): 201–216.
- Harmel, R. (2016). The hows and whys of party manifestos: Some guidance for a cross-national research agenda. Party Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068816678880.
10.1177/1354068816678880 Google Scholar
- Haselmayer, M. & Jenny, M. (2016). Sentiment analysis of political communication: Combining a dictionary approach with crowdcoding. Quality and Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0412-4.
- Hawkins, K.A. & Silva, B.C. (2015). Mapping Populist Parties in Europe and the Americas. Paper presented at the 115 APSA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA 31 august–3 September.
- Helbling, M. & Tresch, A. (2011). Measuring party positions and issue salience from media coverage: Discussing and cross-validating new indicators. Electoral Studies 30(1): 174–183.
- Hofferbert, R.I. & Budge, I. (1992). The party mandate and the Westminster model: Election programmes and government spending in Britain, 1948–85. British Journal of Political Science 22(2): 151–182.
- Jagers, J. & Walgrave, S. (2007). Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties’ discourse in Belgium. European Journal of Political Research 46(3): 319–345.
- Katz, R.S. & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organization and party democracy. Party Politics 1(1): 5–28.
- Katz, R.S. & Mair, P. (2009). The cartel party thesis: A restatement. Perspectives on Politics 7(4): 753–766.
- Kessel, S. van. (2015). Populist parties in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.1057/9781137414113 Google Scholar
- King, G., Tomz, M. & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 347–361.
- Kirchheimer, O. (1966). The transformation of Western European party systems. In J. Lapalombara & M. Weiner (eds), Political parties and political development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.1515/9781400875337-007 Google Scholar
- Kitschelt, H.P. (1994). The transformation of European social democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kitschelt, H.P. & Freeze, K. (2011). Programmatic Party System Structuration: Developing and Comparing Cross-national and Cross-party Measures with a New Global Data Set. Paper presented at Duke University, 18–19 May.
- Klingemann, H.-D. et al. (2006). Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors and governments in Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD, 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Klüver, H. & Spoon, J.-J. (2015). Bringing salience back in: Explaining voting defection in the European Parliament. Party Politics 21(4): 553–564.
- Knight, R. (1992). Haider, the Freedom Party and the extreme right in Austria. Parliamentary Affairs 45(3): 285–299.
- Laver, M. & Hunt, W.B. (1992). Policy and party competition. London: Routledge.
- Laver, M., Benoit, K. & Garry, J. (2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review 97(2): 311–331.
- Lehrer, R. (2012). Intra-party democracy and party responsiveness. West European Politics 35(6): 1295–1319.
- Lo, J., Proksch, S.-O. & Slapin, J.B. (2014). Ideological clarity in multiparty competition: A new measure and test using election manifestos. British Journal of Political Science 46(3): 591–610.
- Meyer, T.M. (2013). Constraints on party policy change. Colchester: ECPR Press.
- Moffitt, B. & Tormey, S. (2014). Rethinking populism: Politics, mediatisation and political style. Political Studies 62(2): 381–397.
- Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition 39(4): 542–563.
- Oliver, J.E. & Rahn, W.M. (2016). Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 election. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667(1): 189–206.
- Pauwels, T. (2011). Measuring populism: A quantitative text analysis of party literature in Belgium. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 21(1): 97–119.
10.1080/17457289.2011.539483 Google Scholar
- Petrocik, J.R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825–850.
- Pitler, E. & Nenkova, A. (2008). Revisiting Readability: A Unified Framework for Predicting Text Quality. Paper presented at the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Edinburgh, 25–27 October.
- Rooduijn, M. & Pauwels, T. (2011). Measuring populism: Comparing two methods of content analysis. West European Politics 34(6): 1272–1283.
- Rovny, J. (2012a). Who emphasizes and who blurs? Party strategies in multidimensional competition. European Union Politics 13(2): 269–292.
- Rovny, J. (2012b). Where do radical right parties stand? Position blurring in multidimensional competition. European Political Science Review 5(1): 1–26.
- Schumacher, E. & Eskenazi, M. (2016). Most presidential candidates speak at grade 6–8 level: Trump generally scores lowest; Lincoln remains benchmark. Available online at: http://reap.cs.cmu.edu/Papers/Technical_report_16-001_Schumacher_Eskenazi.pdf
- Schumacher, G., De Vries, C.E. & Vis, B. (2013). Why do parties change position? Party organization and environmental incentives. Journal of Politics 75(2): 464–477.
- Senninger, R. (2017). Issue expansion and selective scrutiny: How opposition parties used parliamentary questions about the European Union in the national arena from 1973 to 2013. European Union Politics 18(2): 283–306.
- Slapin, J.B. & Proksch, S.-O. (2008). A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science 1(3): 323–344.
- Somer-Topcu, Z. (2015). Everything to everyone: The electoral consequences of the broad-appeal strategy in Europe. American Journal of Political Science 59(4): 841–854.
- Somer-Topcu, Z. (2017). Agree or disagree: How do party leader changes affect the distribution of voters’ perceptions. Party Politics 23(1): 66–75.
- Spirling, A. (2015). Democratization and linguistic complexity: The effect of franchise extension on parliamentary discourse, 1832–1915. Journal of Politics 77(1): 235–248.
- Strøm, K. (1990). A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565–598.
- Strömbäck, J. & Dimitrova, D.V. (2011). Mediatization and media interventionism: A comparative analysis of Sweden and the United States. International Journal of Press/Politics 16(1): 30–49.
- Taggart, P. (2002). Populism and the pathology of representative politics. In Y. Meny & Y. Surel (eds), Democracies and the populist challenge. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.1057/9781403920072_4 Google Scholar
- Takens, J. et al. (2013). Media logic in election campaign coverage. European Journal of Communication 28(3): 277–293.
- Van der Meer, T.W.G., Walter, A. & Van Aelst, P. (2015). The contingency of voter learning: How election debates influenced voters’ ability and accuracy to position parties in the 2010 Dutch election campaign. Political Communication 46(9): 1–22.
- Volkens, A. et al. (2012). The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin Für Sozialforschung (WZB).
- Wodak, R. & Pelinka, A. (2002). The Haider phenomenon. London: Transaction.
- Wooldridge, J.M. (2013). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason, OH: South-Western.
- Young, L. & Soroka, S.N. (2012). Affective news: The automated coding of sentiment in political texts. Political Communication 29(2): 205–231.