Distance, dissatisfaction or a Deficit in attention: why do citizens vote for new parties?

References

• Abedi, A. 2002. “Challenges to Established Parties: The Effects of Party System Features on the Electoral Fortunes of Anti-Political-Establishment Parties.” European Journal of Political Research 41 (4): 551–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, J., and S. Merrill. 2009. “Policy-seeking Parties in a Parliamentary Democracy with Proportional Representation: A Valence-Uncertainty Model.” British Journal of Political Science 39 (3): 539–558.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akkerman, A., C. Mudde, and A. Zaslove. 2014. “How Populist are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters.” Comparative Political Studies 47 (9): 1324–1353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arzheimer, K., and E. Carter. 2006. “Political Opportunity Structures and Right-Wing Extremist Party Success.” European Journal of Political Research 45 (3): 419–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arzheimer, K., and E. Carter. 2009. “Christian Religiosity and Voting for West European Radical Right Parties.” West European Politics 32 (5): 985–1011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, R., C. de Vries, E. Edwards, L. Hooghe, S. Jolly, G. Marks, J. Polk, J. Rovny, M. Steenbergen, and M. Vachudova. 2015. “Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999-2010.” Party Politics 21 (1): 143–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnea, S., and G. Rahat. 2011. “‘Out with the old, in with the ‘‘New’’’: What Constitutes a new Party?” Party Politics 17 (3): 303–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bélanger, É., and K. Aarts. 2006. “Explaining the Rise of the LPF: Issues, Discontent, and the 2002 Dutch Election.” Acta Politica 41 (1): 4–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bélanger, É., and B. M. Meguid. 2008. “Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice.” Electoral Studies 27 (3): 477–491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergh, J. 2004. “Protest Voting in Austria, Denmark, and Norway.” Scandinavian Political Studies 27 (4): 367–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyens, S., P. Lucardie, and K. Deschouwer. 2016. “The Life and Death of New Political Parties in the Low Countries.” West European Politics 39 (2): 257–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blais, A., R. Nadeau, E. Gidengil, and N. Nevitte. 2001. “The Formation of Party Preferences: Testing the Proximity and Directional Models.” European Journal of Political Research 40 (1): 81–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SKON, Brinkman, M., Van der Kolk, H., Aarts, C.W.A.M., and Rosema, M. (2007). Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 2006. Enschede: DANS.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, A., G. Gurin, and W. E. Miller. 1954. The Voter Decides. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• CBS. 1989. Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 1989. The Hague: DANS.
   Google Scholar
• Conti, N., and V. Memoli. 2015. “The Emergence of a New Party in the Italian Party System: Rise and Fortunes of the Five Star Movement.” West European Politics 38 (3): 516–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, G. W. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, R. J. 2002. “The Decline of Party Identifications.” In Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, edited by R. J. Dalton, and M. P. Wattenberg, 19–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Eckel, C. C., and P. J. Grossman. 2008. “Men, Women and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence.” Handbook of Experimental Economics Results 1: 1061–1073.
   Google Scholar
• Enelow, J. M., and M. J. Hinich. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• García-Díaz, C., G. Zambrana-Cruz, and A. Van Witteloostuijn. 2013. “Political Spaces, Dimensionality Decline and Party Competition.” Advances in Complex Systems 16 (6): 1350019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, J. 2007. “Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method?” Comparative Political Studies 40 (3): 231–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, C., and P. B. Mortensen. 2010. “Who Sets the Agenda and who Responds to it in the Danish Parliament? A new Model of Issue Competition and Agenda-Setting.” European Journal of Political Research 49 (2): 257–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, C., and S. Otjes. 2019. “A Hot Topic?” Immigration on the Agenda in Western Europe. Party Politics 25 (3): 424–434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmel, R., and J. D. Robertson. 1985. “Formation and Success of new Parties: A Cross-National Analysis.” International Political Science Review 6 (4): 501–523.
   Google Scholar
• Hauss, C., and D. Rayside. 1978. “The Development of new Parties in Western Democracies Since 1945.” In Political Parties: Development and Decay, edited by L. Maisel and J. Cooper, 31–57. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Huber, J., and R. Inglehart. 1995. “Expert Interpretations of Party Space and Party Locations in 42 Societies.” Party Politics 1 (1): 73–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hug, S. 2001. Altering Party Systems: Strategic Behavior and the Emergence of new Political Parties in Western Democracies. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, G. A., and J. J. Van Holsteyn. 1989. “Towards a More Open Model of Competition.” West European Politics 12 (1): 112–138.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, G. A., and J. J. Van Holsteyn. 2008. “Scientific Progress, Educated Guesses or Speculation? On Some Old Predictions with Respect to Electoral Behaviour in the Netherlands.” Acta Politica 43 (2-3): 180–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SKON, Irwin, G. A., Van Holsteyn, J.J. M., and Den Ridder, J. M. (2003). Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 2002-2003. Leiden: DANS.
   Google Scholar
• SKON, Kamp, M., Aarts, C.W.A.M., Van der Kolk, H., and Thomassen, J.J.A. (1998). Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek, NKO 1998. Leiden: DANS.
   Google Scholar
• Key, V. O. 1961. Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Alfred Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Kitschelt, H. P. 1988. “Left-libertarian Parties: Explaining Innovation in Competitive Party Systems.” World Politics 40 (2): 194–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krouwel, A., and P. Lucardie. 2008. “Waiting in the Wings: New Parties in the Netherlands.” Acta Politica 43 (2-3): 278–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kselman, D., and E. Niou. 2011. “Protest Voting in Plurality Elections: a Theory of Voter Signaling.” Public Choice 148 (3-4): 395–418.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachat, R. 2014. “Issue Ownership and the Vote: The Effects of Associative and Competence Ownership on Issue Voting.” Swiss Political Science Review 20 (4): 727–740.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lago, I., and F. Martínez. 2011. “Why New Parties?” Party Politics 17 (1): 3–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laroze, D. 2017. “Party Collapse and New Party Entry.” Party Politics. Published online ahead of print.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavezzolo, S., and L. Ramiro. 2018. “Stealth Democracy and the Support for new and Challenger Parties.” European Political Science Review 10 (2): 267–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lijphart, A. 1968. The Politics of Accommodation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lowery, D., S. Otjes, S. Gherghina, A. Van Witteloostuijn, G. Peli, and H. Brasher. 2010. “Unpacking LogM: Toward a More General Theory of Party System Density.” American Journal of Political Science 54 (4): 921–935.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowery, D., A. van Witteloostuijn, G. Peli, H. Brasher, S. Otjes, and S. Gherghina. 2013. “Policy Agendas and Births and Deaths of Political Parties.” Party Politics 19 (3): 381–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meguid, B. M. 2005. “Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success.” American Political Science Review 99 (3): 347–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meguid, B. M. 2008. Party Competition Among Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Parties in Niche Party Success. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, A. H., and O. Listhaug. 1990. “Political Parties and Confidence in Government: A Comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 20 (3): 357–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, M. J. 2000. “Entry-deterring Policy Differentiation by Electoral Candidates.” Mathematical Social Sciences 40 (1): 41–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passarelli, G., and D. Tuorto. 2018. “The Five Star Movement: Purely a Matter of Protest? The Rise of a new Party Between Political Discontent and Reasoned Voting.” Party Politics 24 (2): 129–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedersen, M. N. 1982. “Towards a new Typology of Party Lifespans and Minor Parties.” Scandinavian Political Studies 5 (1): 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Petrocik, J. R. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 825–850.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polk, J., J. Rovny, R. Bakker, E. Edwards, L. Hooghe, S. Jolly, E. 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 and Politics, 1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rydgren, J. 2004. “Explaining the Emergence of Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties: The Case of Denmark.” West European Politics 27 (3): 474–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schofield, N. 2003. “Valence Competition in the Spatial Stochastic Model.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 15 (4): 371–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sikk, A. 2011. “Newness as a Winning Formula for new Political Parties.” Party Politics 18 (4): 465–486.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spoon, J. J., and H. Klüver. 2019. “Party Convergence and Vote Switching: Explaining Mainstream Party Decline Across Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 58 (4): 1021–1042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoll, H. 2011. “Dimensionality and the Number of Parties in Legislative Elections.” Party Politics 17 (3): 405–429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavits, M. 2006. “Party System Change: Testing a Model of new Party Entry.” Party Politics 12 (1): 99–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SKON and Thomassen, J. J. A. (1994). Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 1994. Enschede: DANS.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Brug, W. 2003. “How the LPF Fuelled Discontent: Empirical Tests of Explanations of LPF Support.” Acta Politica 38 (1): 89–106.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Brug, W. 2004. “Issue Ownership and Party Choice.” Electoral Studies 23 (2): 209–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SKON, CBS, Van der Kolk, H., Aarts, C.W.A.M., and Tillie, J. N. (2012). Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 2010. Enschede: DANS.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Meer, T. W. G., H. Van der Kolk, and R. Rekker. 2017. Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 2017. Amsterdam: DANS.
   Google Scholar
• Vidal, G. 2018. “Challenging Business as Usual? The Rise of new Parties in Spain in Times of Crisis.” West European Politics 41 (2): 261–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westholm, A. 1997. “Distance Versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 91 (4): 865–883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar