United we stand, divided we fall? The effects of parties’ Brexit rhetoric on voters’ perceptions of party positions

References

• Adams, James, Lawrence Ezrow, and Zeynep Somer-Topcu. 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, James, Lawrence Ezrow, and Christopher Wlezien. 2016. “The Company You Keep: How Voters Infer Party Positions on European Integration From Governing Coalition Arrangements.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (4): 811–823.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarez, R. Michael. 1997. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, Robert, James Tilley, and Anthony F. Heath. 2005. “Political Knowledge and Enlightened Preferences: Party Choice Through the Electoral Cycle.” British Journal of Political Science 35 (2): 285–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banducci, Susan, Heiko Giebler, and Sylvia Kritzinger. 2017. “Knowing More from Less: How the Information Environment Increases Knowledge of Party Positions.” British Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 571–588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brader, Ted A., and Joshua A. Tucker. 2009. “What’s Left Behind When the Party’s Over: Survey Experiments on the Effects of Partisan Cues in Putin’s Russia.” Politics & Policy 37 (4): 843–868.
   Google Scholar
• Ceron, Andrea. 2019. Leaders, Factions and the Game of Intra-Party Politics. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, edited by David E. Apter, 206–261. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, William, and André Blais. 2012. “Who Selects the Party Leader?” Party Politics 18 (2): 127–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg, Stefan. 2009. “Political Parties and Perceptual Agreement: The Influence of Party Related Factors on Voters’ Perceptions in Proportional Electoral Systems.” Electoral Studies 28: 270–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Debus, Marc, Zeynep Somer-Topcu, and Margit Tavits. 2016. Comparative Campaign Dynamics Dataset. Mannheim: Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, Erica Elizabeth. 2008. “Intra-Party Dissent Over European Integration.” Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Enelow, James M., and Melvin J. Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ezrow, Lawrence, Jonathan Homola, and Margit Tavits. 2014. “When Extremism Pays: Policy Positions, Voter Certainty, and Party Support in Postcommunist Europe.” Journal of Politics 76 (2): 535–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fieldhouse, Ed, Jane Green, Geoffrey Evans, Hermann Schmitt, Cees van der Eijk, Jonathan Mellon, and Christopher Prosser. 2019. British Election Study Internet Panel Waves 1-15. doi:https://doi.org/10.15127/1.293723.
   Google Scholar
• Fortunato, David, Randolph T. Stevenson, and Greg Vonnahme. 2016. “Context, Heuristics, and Political Knowledge: Explaining Cross-National Variation in Citizens’ Left-Right Knowledge.” Journal of Politics 78 (4): 1211–1228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabel, Matthew, and Kenneth Scheve. 2007. “Mixed Messages: Party Dissent and Mass Opinion on European Integration.” European Union Politics 8 (1): 37–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gauja, Anita. 2013. The Politics of Party Policy: From Members to Legislators. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, Zachary, and Matthias Haber. 2016. “Leadership Competition and Disagreement at Party National Congresses.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 611–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hazan, Reuven Y., and Gideon Rahat. 2010. Democracy Within Parties: Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hinich, Melvin J., and Michael C. Munger. 1997. Analytical Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaltenegger, Matthias, Katharina Heugl, and Wolfgang C. Müller. 2019. “Appeasement and Rewards: Explaining Patterns of Party Responsiveness Towards Activist Preferences.” Party Politics, doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819854205.
   Google Scholar
• Kenig, Ofer. 2009. “Democratization of Party Leadership Selection: Do Wider Selectorates Produce More Competitive Contests?” Electoral Studies 28: 240–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kernell, Georgia. 2016. “Strategic Party Heterogeneity.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 28 (3): 408–430.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch, J. W. 2003. “Being Certain Versus Being Right: Citizen Certainty and Accuracy of House Candidates’ Ideological Orientations.” Political Behavior 25 (3): 221–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer, Roni, and Nick Lin. 2018. “Everything to Everyone? Not When You Are Internally Divided.” Party Politics, doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068818812222.
   Google Scholar
• Lupia, Arthur, and Matthew D. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merolla, Jennifer L., Laura B. Stephenson, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2008. “Can Canadians Take Hint? The (In)Effectiveness of Party Labels as Information Shortcuts in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 41 (3): 673–696.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattie, Charles, Edward Fieldhouse, and R. J. Johnston. 1994. “The Price of Conscience: The Electoral Correlates and Consequences of Free Votes and Rebellions in the British House of Commons, 1987-92.” British Journal of Political Science 24 (3): 359–380.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, David A. M. 2015. “Uncertainty and Campaigns: The Psychological Mechanism Behind Campaign-Induced Priming.” American Politics Research 43 (1): 109–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, Erik. 2019. “Not Dead Yet: Political Learning from Newspapers in a Changing Media Landscape.” Political Behavior, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09556-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plescia, Carolina, and Magdalena Staniek. 2017. “In the Eye of the Beholder: Voters’ Perceptions of Party Policy Shifts.” West European Politics 40 (6): 1288–1309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polk, Jonathan, Jan Rovny, Ryan Bakker, Erica Edwards, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Jelle Koedam, et al. 2017. “Explaining the Salience of Anti-Elitism and Reducing Political Corruption for Political Parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey Data.” Research & Politics (January-March): 1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing About Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 472–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rovny, Jan. 2012. “Who Emphasizes and Who Blurs? Party Strategies in Multidimensional Competition.” European Union Politics 13 (2): 269–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rovny, Jan. 2013. “Where Do Radical Right Parties Stand? Position Blurring in Multidimensional Competition.” European Political Science Review 5 (1): 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, Gijs, Catherine E. de Vries, and Barbara Vis. 2013. “Why Do Parties Change Position? Party Organization and Environmental Incentives.” Journal of Politics 75 (2): 464–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seeberg, Henrik Bech, Rune Slothuus, and Rune Stubager. 2017. “Do Voters Learn? Evidence that Voters Respond Accurately to Changes in Political Parties’ Policy Positions.” West European Politics 40 (2): 336–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2015. “Everything to Everyone: The Electoral Consequences of the Broad-Appeal Strategy in Europe.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 841–854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somer-Topcu, Zeynep, Margit Tavits, and Markus Baumann. 2020. “Does Party Rhetoric Affect Voter Perceptions of Party Positions?” Electoral Studies 65: 102153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spoon, Jae-Jae, and Heike Klüver. 2019. “Party Convergence and Vote Switching: Explaining Mainstream Party Decline Across Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 58: 1021–1042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spoon, Jae-Jae, and Christopher Williams. 2017. “It Takes Two: How Eurosceptic Public Opinion and Party Divisions Influence Party Positions.” West European Politics 40 (4): 741–762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, Marco R., Erica E. Edwards, and Catherine E. de Vries. 2007. “Who’s Cueing Whom? Mass-Elite Linkages and the Future of European Integration.” European Union Politics 8 (1): 13–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomz, Michael, and Robert P. van Houweling. 2009. “The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity.” American Journal of Political Science 103 (1): 83–98.
   Google Scholar
• van der Brug, Wouter. 1998. “The Informed Electorate. Political Perceptions and Party Behavior.” Acta Politica 33 (1): 20–55.
   Google Scholar
• Volkens, Andrea, Pola Lehmann, Theres Matthieß, Nicolas Merz, Sven Regel, and Annika Werner. 2015. The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).
   Google Scholar
• Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar