Position, Competence, And Commitment: Three Dimensions Of Issue Voting

Issue voting means that voters cast their ballot based on political issues. It is supposed to be on the rise in the U.S. (McCarty, Poole, & Rosenthal, 2006; Nie, Verba, & Petrocik, 1999) and also in Europe (Aardal & van Wijnen, 2005; but see: Green & Hobolt, 2008). While the literature on issue voting is substantial, remarkably few studies have examined the multiple ways in which issues are connected to parties (or candidates) in voters’ minds. The dominant approach is the spatial framework of voting behavior based on Downs’ (1957) model of electoral competition. The idea is simple: Voters cast their ballot for the party (or candidate) that they perceive to hold a position that is closest to their own policy preferences. A second aspect of issue voting can be labelled as the competence dimension of issue voting. Here, the idea is not so much that people vote for parties with whom they agree positionally, but rather that some parties are considered more competent to handle and “solve” specific policy issues. Issue voting, in this line of work, consists of voting for the party that one considers as most competent to tackle issues (problems). Third, and gaining some traction in the literature recently, apart from being perceived as positionally close and competent, parties can be perceived as being especially committed to deal with an issue. Committed parties are supposed to consider the issue a priority for political action. Concerned voters prefer parties that will commit to act on their pet issues.