Deliberative qualities in televised election debates: the influence of the electoral system and populism

References

• Aalberg, Toril, and Claes H. de Vreese (2017). ‘Introduction: Comprehending Populist Political Communication’, in Toril Aalberg et al. (eds.), Populist Political Communication in Europe. New York: Routledge, 3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Aalberg, Toril, and Anders T. Jenssen (2007). ‘Do Television Debates in Multiparty Systems Affect Viewers? A Quasi-Experimental Study with First-Time Voters’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30:1, 115–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abts, Koen, and Stefan Rummens (2007). ‘Populism versus Democracy’, Political Studies, 55:2, 405–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Airne, David, and William L. Benoit (2005). ‘2004 Illinois U.S. Senate Debates: Keyes versus Obama’, American Behavioral Scientist, 49:2, 343–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Annenberg Debate Reform Working Group (2015). Democratizing the Debates. Available at https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/feature/democratizing-the-debates/ (accessed 27 June 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar (1995). Going Negative. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anstead, Nick (2016). ‘A Different Beast? Televised Election Debates in Parliamentary Democracies’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21:4, 508–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, André, and Dominik Hangartner (2010). ‘When Deliberative Theory Meets Empirical Political Science: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Political Deliberation’, Political Studies, 58:4, 609–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, William L. (2001). ‘The Functional Approach to Presidential Television Spots: Acclaiming, Attacking, Defending 1952-2000’, Communication Studies, 52:2, 109–26.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, William L. (2007). ‘Determinants of Defense in Presidential Debates’, Communication Research Reports, 24:4, 319–25.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, William L. (2013). Political Election Debates: Informing Voters about Policy and Character. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, William L., Glenn J. Hansen, and Rebecca M. Verser (2003). ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Viewing U.S. Presidential Debates’, Communication Monographs, 70:4, 335–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, William L., Mitchell S. McKinney, and Michael T. Stephenson (2002). ‘Effects of Watching Primary Debates in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Campaign’, Journal of Communication, 52:2, 316–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bos, Linda, Wouter van der Brug, and Claes H. de Vreese (2013). ‘An Experimental Test of the Impact of Style and Rhetoric on the Perception of Right-Wing Populist and Mainstream Party Leaders’, Acta Politica, 48:2, 192–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bossetta, Michael (2017). ‘Fighting Fire with Fire: Mainstream Adoption of the Populist Political Style in the 2014 Europe Debates between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19:4, 715–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracciale, Roberta, and Antonio Martella (2017). ‘Define the Populist Political Communication Style: The Case of Italian Political Leaders on Twitter’, Information, Communication & Society, 20:9, 1310–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brants, Kees, and Philip Van Praag (2006). ‘Signs of Media Logic: Half a Century of Political Communication in The Netherlands’, Javnost - The Public, 13:1, 25–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, Deborah J., and John G. Geer (2007). ‘Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on the Electorate’, American Journal of Political Science, 51:1, 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canovan, Margaret (1999). ‘Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy’, Political Studies, 47:1, 2–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappella, Joseph N., and Kathleen H. Jamieson (1997). Spiral of Cynicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, Jaeho, and Sing P. Choy (2011). ‘From Podium to Living Room: Elite Debates as an Emotional Catalyst for Citizen Communicative Engagements’, Communication Research, 38:6, 778–804.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, Stewart, Stephen Elstub, Robert Johns, and Alastair Stark (2017). ‘Rating the Debates: The 2010 UK Party Leaders’ Debates and Political Communication in the Deliberative System’, British Politics, 12:2, 183–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Fine Licht, Jenny, Daniel Naurin, Peter Esaiasson, and Mikael Gilljam (2014). ‘When Does Transparency Generate Legitimacy? Experimenting on a Context-Bound Relationship’, Governance, 27:1, 111–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Democratic Audit UK (2016). ‘How Democratic Are the UK’s Political Parties and the Party System?’, Democratic Audit UK. Available at http://www.democraticaudit.com/2018/08/22/audit2018-how-democratic-are-the-uks-political-parties-and-party-system/ (accessed 09 April 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Geer, John G. (2006). In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, Robert E. (2008). Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice after the Deliberative Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis F. Thompson (2014). The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holbert, Lance R., William L. Benoit, Glenn J. Hansen, and Wei-Chun Wen (2002). ‘The Role of Communication in the Formation of an Issue-Based Citizenry’, Communication Monographs, 69:4, 296–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook, Thomas (1999). ‘Political Learning from Presidential Debates’, Political Behavior, 21:1, 67–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, Kristof (2018). ‘Electoral Systems in Context: The Netherlands’, in Erik S. Herron, Robert J. Pekkanen, and Matthew S. Shugart (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 557–880.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, Kathleen H., and Christopher Adasiewicz (2000). ‘What Can Voters Learn from Election Debates?’, in Stephen Coleman (ed.), Televised Election Debates: International Perspectives. New York: St. Martin’s, 25–42.
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, Kathleen H., and David S. Birdsell (1988). Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kriesi, Hanspeter (2004). ‘Strategic Political Communication: Mobilizing Public Opinion in “Audience Democracies”’, in Frank Esser and Barbara Pfetsch (eds.), Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 184–212.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, Kurt, and Gladys E. Lang (1961). ‘Ordeal by Debate: Viewer Reactions’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 25:2, 277–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, Richard R., Lee Sigelman, and Ivy B. Rovner (2007). ‘The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytical Reassessment’, The Journal of Politics, 69:4, 1176–209.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lijphart, Arend (2008). Thinking about Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lord, Christopher, and Dionysia Tamvaki (2013). ‘The Politics of Justification? Applying the “Discourse Quality Index” to the Study of the European Parliament’, European Political Science Review, 5:1, 27–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, Jürgen, and Anna-Maria Renner (2018). ‘When a Man Meets a Woman: Comparing the Use of Negativity of Male Candidates in Single- and Mixed-Gender Televised Debates’, Political Communication, 35:3, 433–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mair, Peter (2008). ‘The Challenge to Party Government’, West European Politics, 31:1-2, 211–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffitt, Benjamin (2016). The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style and Representation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mudde, Cas (2004). ‘The Populist Zeitgeist’, Government and Opposition, 39:4, 541–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, Diana (2007). ‘Effects of “in-Your-Face” Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition’, American Political Science Review, 101:4, 621–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, Diana, and Byron Reeves (2005). ‘The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust’, American Political Science Review, 99:1, 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nir, Lilach (2012). ‘Cross-National Differences in Political Discussion: Can Political Systems Narrow Deliberation Gaps?’, Journal of Communication, 62:3, 553–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedrini, Seraina (2014). ‘Deliberative Capacity in the Political and Civic Sphere’, Swiss Political Science Review, 20:2, 263–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, G. Bingham, Jr., Russel J. Dalton, and Kaare W. Strøm (2015). Comparative Politics Today: A World View. Boston: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Prior, Markus (2005). ‘News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout’, American Journal of Political Science, 49:3, 577–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racine Group (2002). ‘White Paper on Televised Political Campaign Debates’, Argumentation and Advocacy, 38:4, 199–218.
   Google Scholar
• Rooduijn, Matthijs, et al. (2019). The PopuList. Available at http://www.popu-list.org (accessed 8 April 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Sass, Jensen, and John S. Dryzek (2014). ‘Deliberative Cultures’, Political Theory, 42:1, 3–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, Marco R., André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, and Jürg Steiner (2003). ‘Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index’, Comparative European Politics, 1:1, 21–48.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, Jürg, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, and Marco R. Steenbergen (2004). Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thomassen, Jacques (1994). ‘Empirical Research into Political Representation: Failing Democracy or Failing Models?’, in M. Kent Jennings and Thomas E. Mann (eds.), Elections at Home and Abroad: Essays in Honor of Warren E. Miller. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 237–64.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, Dennis F. (2008). ‘Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11:1, 497–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbinati, Nadia (1998). ‘Democracy and Populism’, Constellations, 5:1, 110–24.
   Google Scholar
• Van Aelst, Peter, et al. (2017). ‘Political Communication in a High-Choice Media Environment: A Challenge for Democracy?’, Annals of the International Communication Association, 41:1, 3–27.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Meer, Tom, Annemarie Walter, and Peter Van Aelst (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, 33:1, 136–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Wurff, Richard, Knut, De Swert, and Sophie Lecheler (2016). ‘News Quality and Public Opinion: The Impact of Deliberative Quality of News Media on Citizen’s Argument Repertoire’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30:2, 233–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vossen, Koen (2009). ‘Hoe Populistisch Zijn Geert Wilders en Rita Verdonk? Verschillen en Overeenkomsten in Optreden en Discours Van Twee Politici’, Res Publica, 51:4, 437–65.
   Google Scholar
• Wessler, Hartmut, and Eike Mark Rinke (2014). ‘Deliberative Performance of Television News in Three Types of Democracy: Insights from the United States, Germany, and Russia’, Journal of Communication, 64:5, 827–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyss, Dominik, Simon Beste, and André Bächtiger (2015). ‘A Decline in the Quality of Debate? The Evolution of Cognitive Complexity in Swiss Parliamentary Debates on Immigration (1968-2014)’, Swiss Political Science Review, 21:4, 636–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarefsky, David (1992). ‘Spectator Politics and the Revival of Public Argument’, Communication Monographs, 59:4, 411–4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zittel, Thomas (2018). ‘Electoral Systems in Context: Germany’, in Erik S. Herron, Robert J. Pekkanen and Matthew S. Shugart (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 781–801.
   Google Scholar