Ruth Dassonneville – författare

This book examines changes in voters'' electoral choices over time and investigates how these changes are linked to a growth in electoral volatility. Ruth Dassonneville''s core argument, supported by extensive empirical data, is that group-based cross-pressures lead to instability in voters'' choices. She theorizes that when citizens'' socio-demographic characteristics and their membership of social groups do not consistently push them to support one party, but instead lead them to feel cross-pressured between parties, their voting decision process lacks constraint. Voters who are group-based cross-pressured are less likely to feel an attachment to a party, and have less guidance when assessing the state of the economy, when taking positions on issues, or evaluating leaders. The different factors that influence voters'' choices, as a result, do not add up to strengthening a preference for one specific party but instead lead a voter to consider different parties. To test this argument, the book makes use of election survey data from eight established democracies that allow the study of voting behaviour and its correlates over several decades. These data are complemented with data from the European Election Studies project and from election study panels. The book shows that group-based cross-pressures are an important source of instability as they affect the extent to which citizens'' voting decision process is structured. This is evident from the fact that cross-pressured voters are more ambivalent between parties, make their voting decision later, and are more likely to switch parties from one election to the next.Comparative Politics is a series for researchers, teachers, and students of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterized by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published in association with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visit: www.ecprnet.eu.The series is edited by Nicole Bolleyer, Chair of Comparative Political Science, Geschwister Scholl Institut, LMU Munich and Jonathan Slapin, Professor of Political Institutions and European Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich.

This book examines changes in voters'' electoral choices over time and investigates how these changes are linked to a growth in electoral volatility. Ruth Dassonneville''s core argument, supported by extensive empirical data, is that group-based cross-pressures lead to instability in voters'' choices. She theorizes that when citizens'' socio-demographic characteristics and their membership of social groups do not consistently push them to support one party, but instead lead them to feel cross-pressured between parties, their voting decision process lacks constraint. Voters who are group-based cross-pressured are less likely to feel an attachment to a party, and have less guidance when assessing the state of the economy, when taking positions on issues, or evaluating leaders. The different factors that influence voters'' choices, as a result, do not add up to strengthening a preference for one specific party but instead lead a voter to consider different parties. To test this argument, the book makes use of election survey data from eight established democracies that allow the study of voting behaviour and its correlates over several decades. These data are complemented with data from the European Election Studies project and from election study panels. The book shows that group-based cross-pressures are an important source of instability as they affect the extent to which citizens'' voting decision process is structured. This is evident from the fact that cross-pressured voters are more ambivalent between parties, make their voting decision later, and are more likely to switch parties from one election to the next.Comparative Politics is a series for researchers, teachers, and students of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterized by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published in association with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visit: www.ecprnet.eu.The series is edited by Nicole Bolleyer, Chair of Comparative Political Science, Geschwister Scholl Institut, LMU Munich and Jonathan Slapin, Professor of Political Institutions and European Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich.

This book examines changes in voters' electoral choices over time and investigates how these changes are linked to a growth in electoral volatility. Ruth Dassonneville's core argument, supported by extensive empirical data, is that group-based cross-pressures lead to instability in voters' choices. She theorizes that when citizens' socio-demographic characteristics and their membership of social groups do not consistently push them to support one party, but instead lead them to feel cross-pressured between parties, their voting decision process lacks constraint. Voters who are group-based cross-pressured are less likely to feel an attachment to a party, and have less guidance when assessing the state of the economy, when taking positions on issues, or evaluating leaders. The different factors that influence voters' choices, as a result, do not add up to strengthening a preference for one specific party but instead lead a voter to consider different parties. To test this argument, the book makes use of election survey data from eight established democracies that allow the study of voting behaviour and its correlates over several decades. These data are complemented with data from the European Election Studies project and from election study panels. The book shows that group-based cross-pressures are an important source of instability as they affect the extent to which citizens' voting decision process is structured. This is evident from the fact that cross-pressured voters are more ambivalent between parties, make their voting decision later, and are more likely to switch parties from one election to the next.Comparative Politics is a series for researchers, teachers, and students of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterized by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published in association with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visit: www.ecprnet.eu.The series is edited by Nicole Bolleyer, Chair of Comparative Political Science, Geschwister Scholl Institut, LMU Munich and Jonathan Slapin, Professor of Political Institutions and European Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich.

Across representative democracies, there is a strong variation in the rules that govern the electoral process. A classic insight in political science is that these rules, e.g., the presence of a majoritarian or a proportional system have a profound effect on the way a democracy functions. We know less however, about the way voters actually respond to these electoral rules. This kind of effect presupposes that voters not only are aware of the electoral system, but also that they adapt to the incentives offered by the system. In this volume, a group of international scholars investigate whether this is indeed the case. The various chapters in this volume deal with the effect of proportionality, mixed-member systems, compulsory voting and preferential voting. The chapters are based on recent data and state-of-the-art methods. The introduction confronts the findings of the various chapters with the allegedly universal validity of vote choice models in the literature. The research presented in this volume mainly deals with elections in Europe, but the findings speak to the broader community of electoral scholars. The chapters originally published as a special issue in West European Politics.

A burgeoning literature studies compulsory voting and its effects on turnout, but we know very little about how compulsory voting works in practice. In this Element, the authors fill this gap by providing an in-depth discussion of compulsory voting rules and their enforcement in Australia, Belgium, and Brazil. By analysing comparable public opinion data from these three countries, they shed light on citizens' attitudes toward compulsory voting. The Element examines citizens' perceptions, their knowledge of the system, and whether they support it. The authors connect this with information on citizens' reported turnout and vote choice to assess who is affected by mandatory voting and why. The work clarifies that there is no single system of compulsory voting. Each country has its own set of rules, and most voters are unaware of how they are enforced.

Across representative democracies, there is a strong variation in the rules that govern the electoral process. A classic insight in political science is that these rules, e.g., the presence of a majoritarian or a proportional system have a profound effect on the way a democracy functions. We know less however, about the way voters actually respond to these electoral rules. This kind of effect presupposes that voters not only are aware of the electoral system, but also that they adapt to the incentives offered by the system. In this volume, a group of international scholars investigate whether this is indeed the case. The various chapters in this volume deal with the effect of proportionality, mixed-member systems, compulsory voting and preferential voting. The chapters are based on recent data and state-of-the-art methods. The introduction confronts the findings of the various chapters with the allegedly universal validity of vote choice models in the literature. The research presented in this volume mainly deals with elections in Europe, but the findings speak to the broader community of electoral scholars. The chapters originally published as a special issue in West European Politics.