Influence of the Party Ideology Shift on Political Apathy

CEU eTD Collection Submitted to In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofMasterArts for thedegree oftherequirements In partialfulfillment INFLUENCE OF THE PARTY IDEOLOGYSHIFT OFTHEPARTY INFLUENCE ON POLITICAL APATHY ON POLITICAL Department of Political Science Political of Department Central European University European Central Supervisor: Levente Littvay Levente Supervisor: Budapest, Hungary by Panov Trajche Panov by 2009 CEU eTD Collection REFERENCES:...... 70 64 APPENDICES ...... OCUIN ...... 55 ...... CONCLUSIONS DATA ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION 40 ...... OF THE RESULTS 2 HSPEOEO ...... 7 THIS PHENOMENON ...... 1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 ABSTRACT...... III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... II Table of contents R L 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 IMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH AND THE POSSIBLE SOURCES OF ERROR SOURCES AND POSSIBLE THE RESEARCH THE OF IMITATIONS ECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH IN THE FIELD IN THE RESEARCH FURTHER FOR ECOMMENDATIONS 2.7.1 2.6.1 2.5.1 2.3.3 2.3.2 2.3.1 2.4.3 2.4.2 2.4.1 METHODOLOGY, DATA AND OPERATIONALIZATION 26 OF THE VARIABLES...... POLITICAL APATHY – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND FACTORS FRAMEWORK THATINFLUENCE APATHY–THEORETICAL POLITICAL S P M M V D R P R P T ECOND ARTY LEVEL OLITICAL OLITICAL HE ESEARCH EVIEW OF THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE ARIABLES ATA AND ATA ETHODS AND ULTI Interpretation of the results: Labour Party in Great Britain and 51 FIDESZ in ...... Hungary Interpretation of the results: Are there enough arguments to 48 support ...... the hypothesis What can be concluded from the results 43 – Discussion...... Aggregate 32 Level...... 31 Logistic ...... Regression Multi Level 30 Modeling...... Control 38 Variables...... Political Apathy Variable...... 37 Ideology 33 Shift Score...... P HENOMENON OF HENOMENON L H EVEL YPOTHESIS A A O Q ...... 33 ...... PATHY ANDPATHY PATHY PERATIONALIZATION OF THE OF PERATIONALIZATION UESTION AND : L R V OGISTIC ESULTS ARIABLES – T ...... 50 ...... P HEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS HEORETICAL OLITICAL R ...... 46 ...... P EGRESSION ARTY H ...... 29 ...... YPOTHESES I DEOLOGY A PATHY : R ESULTS ...... 26 ...... D : P S W ATA OLITICAL HIFT HAT IS HAT i ...... 40 ...... 27 ...... 22 ...... 62 ...... 9 P OLITICAL A PATHY ...... 60 ...... 14 ...... A PATHY – T HEORETICAL I MPRECISION ..7 CEU eTD Collection support andsupport understanding during academic this year. enormous and unselfish their for Ljubica my sister and Zaharin father my Todorka, mother At end the expresslike I would to important to special gratitude mostthe people my inmylife: statistical models and my to colleague friendand Nevena Rsumovic for her moral support. Weithmy colleagueshelp Manuel andConstantin Paul Bosancianu andadvice forwith the advicecomments, andguidance during wholelike process.Iwould alsoexpress togratitude to I wouldlike tothank Levente Littvay for supervising of the process writingfor thesis this and the Acknowledgements ii CEU eTD Collection thesis contributes to the solving of the puzzle of political apathy or low tothesolving turnout. thesis or of of apathy contributes puzzlethe political the research, the of limitations some Besides, supporters. past their of behavior apathetic of the regression model, supports the claim that political parties will not necessary lose votes as a resultsecond the in significance of lack The sample. the of 8% around are nonvoters that fact show that these models have low explanatory power, although which values, have low variables intercepts and significant, highly marginally or variables are this is expected as a result of the influence of ideology party the shiftpoliticalproduces apathy. the crucial Nevertheless, while MLM models evidence provide regressions and tosupport enough hypothesisthe the that influence of the party ideology shift on the individual as the test well to asRegressions Linear partytwo and Models level.Logistic Level Multi two The constructs results thesis This from the low but turnout, sofarit isadequately not by investigated scholars. third partyideology the shiftis mentioned already asa influencesvariable that apathy political or and unknown, remain factors these of effects exact the that although apathy, political influence that anddeterminants factors various are there Second, low turnout. as well as participation First, the political apathy show in that: work this researches empirical All and theoretical inlowerthe turnout. of a results is not a strictly conceptualized partiesinthe and measured, theirinfluences electoral Manifestos party programs, apathy or political of termideology in achange how and party ideology to is dedicated of thesis the aspect The central and also refers to non- Abstract iii CEU eTD Collection individual and party level, and not on the state level. focusing on of reasons the phenomenon the of butthis apathy,focusedpolitical is paper on the modern world, worthy of a scholar’s analyses. These trends can only justify the need for research analysis made,is time it be apathy over is that in phenomenon confirmed can acommon the butwhenthe have as clear patterns Romania does, donot such emerged.cases in Europe Other the lastthe Elections 2008 in of turnout in the39.26% lowest of post-communist first a record elections 1990to 86.18% the Romania is good example of the continuous decline of this turnout during last two decades. From even Ingeneral,on hastaken larger this that in elections trend dimensions. Romania confirmed parliamentary last The prominent. very is inEurope turnout voter low with problem The provide the most adequateinformation about change the of ideologiesparty orprograms. cyclestwo last in the shift ideology their and countries of these of parties political main the parliamentary analyze will lowermainly turnout. focus Thisapathy or thesiswill global and systems democratic party’ on elections. ideology and parties,the of measuredby Manifestos electoralprograms,their influences party Parliamentary inthe achange how party ideology and to is dedicated of thesis the The central aspect voters. will in influences focusbehavior how apathy ontheir political appearance. It parties and political elections will its for reasonsand political apathy phenomenon of the is thesis this be of topic The focused on because they Studia PoliticaStudia nr1/2009 http://cristianpreda.ro/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/partide.pdf 1 Formore see The Romania political System: After the Parliamentary Elections of November30, 2008 publ. in Introduction 1 , a very clear pattern of permanent decrease of the voters on has elections on thevoters of decrease ofpermanent pattern very clear , a 1 CEU eTD Collection explains this phenomenon. For more see 2 apathetic. maximizing profit, the choosing forto vote between some going political actingor party choice model which claims that (ethnocultural), focusing group personality theand party (institutional) arational andvoters on agroup make their deterministic a socially groups: decisionslarge in three classified be can phenomenon this of on explanation the basis of their perception ofinvestigated phenomena field in political variablesthe of science. factors or included The in the most the of is one turnout, low through understood apathy political the or turnout, low The with all other countries and conclusions are drawn in general. analyzed jointly are countries CEE several so included, countries the of number the and sample the create limitations database Nevertheless, integration. EU with along programs, electoral “nationalistic and liberal romanticism,” the economic issues became the central aspect of parties’ wave of first the After preferences. voters’ toward according wereoriented generally in political ideology, wereinconsistent and because duringtheir transitional parties the period in important Europe and Central Eastern isThis aspectof political especially apathy ideological shifts. have researchedbut voting behavior, few of have focusedthem on programs political or ideologiesfocuses party how ideology on influences shiftand voter’s Many turnout. scholars it that is paper this of originality the turnout, low or apathy political influenced have factors many Although it. approached has research this way the in significantly studied been not has theDespite issue factthe by that low has turnout beeninvestigated many of this issue scholars, Czesnik, Mikolaj. 2009 in his paper"Voter Turnout and Europe-related Policies in Post-communist Europe” 2 2 (CEE) CEU eTD Collection participation in the last elections, yet voted for the party on the previous elections. The Manifesto The for elections. the previous voted the yeton party elections, in last the participation non- reported who individuals from come used are that variables the of one Therefore level. show patternstwo time on andlevel aswell individual the aggregate(party) periods ason the to in participation duringmeasure Thisinvestigation elections. seeks to and confirm shiftthe over result of ideological change of the party, will lose the interest in voting and thus cause a decrease which,a voters as or in supporters party some behavior apathetic can cause by party the ideology the that party wins theelections. But,thisduring ideology party shift has its Theprice. of shift programmatic inmaximize anattempt position to i.e. increase theirprofit, numberofvotes to the This investigation’s starting ispolitical assumption parties that shiftideology or their of result becausefeeling alienated theparty may notbeanymore.interest representing their party level,someon aggregate but that old will voters abandon of party the their support a as and party level. This measurewill how political attemptinfluences to ideology shift political theindividual apathy thesison not claims thatThis isbasedin thesis on work previous a quantitative fieldandthe construct will model which the ideology shift will decreaselow the turnout. or apathy influences political that variable the support of bea considered to is already shift ideology party the Finally, debated. still are political apathy the influence factors how these questions the of and that apathy, thatinfluencepolitical determinants and factors various there are indicates research Secondly, 1995), (Deluca measurement. paper, when explaining the phenomenon of political apathy refers to this low turnout as a form of conceptualized political non-participation term, referring to as welllow turnout. Therefore this All of the theoretical and empirical investigations show that political apathy is not a strictly 3 CEU eTD Collection Random coefficient modelsRandom coefficientMixed –effects (Longford,models 1993) (Pinheiroand Bates,2000) appearing differentnames:Models under Hierarchical Linear (RaudenbushBryk and 2002), elucidateto relationships.has been 2004) It (Luke developedseveral past the during decades, in order level, one than more at collected data to applied model statistical isa Model Level Multi at level, look hypothesis aggregate the bewill Regression used. be tested with Multi Level ModelingThe first hypothesis, looks which influence at the ideology of individual the level,shiftwill on (Mix Effects or Hierarchical)differentstatistical modelsin two willbe elections.Therefore, levels. the different usedfor two (MLM), and for the second party influences the ideology votes of party whetherthe won that of paper investigates shiftthe level, the On aggregate the he supported? the that party positionsresult of of of the change the Does ideology the influenceshifting individuals decide notto toparticipate in elections the as a defined as wayinthe which ideology the influencesshift the voting behavior of individuals.the on political apathy on (party) individual the andlevel. aggregate individuallevel The can be As mentioned,already measureis purpose of the to papertheinfluencethis of shift ideology the on thepartyideology shift levelcanalsoresultin theparty. a betterelectoralresult for H2 among pastsupporters oftheparties H1 From research twomainthe questions hypotheses can be developed: programmatic shift. of that party for these electionshas different scores, which confirm therethat is anideological or Thepartywill ideology shift notalways adecreasethe votes cause of on theparty level. The Theideological shift ofpolitical parties willcause apoliticalapathy on individuallevel 4 CEU eTD Collection but its shift between two electoral cycles and the effect of this shift on political apathy. investigate party ideology, not This avariable.ideology incorporation does thesis party as the of the to aspect new a giving therefore distances, time two of aspect in phenomenon this analyzes databases twodifferent and incorporates approach, specific offers Exactly, thesis support. the ideology the possible that any increase the of could party,lossshift support the without of if itis or direction, in one only effects variable if this variables, these between correlation thus explainingadequately. this find will thesis Therefore, aim relationthe between variable to andturnout, this the patterns voters,behavior but politicalthe ideology the party not of treated is shiftor programmatic of voting can asavariablethe explain this that investigated The genetics arealso turnout. can affect relationship. that asvariables factors andeconomic political the researched also have Other articles turnout. Its and of how characteristics voters were focusedthe socio-demographic influenced on the they the purpose is phenomenonthe of apathy political low turnout. or The majority previousthe of academic papers to find if thereThis thesis is relevant because it attempts to add another dimension to the overall investigation of is a strong willberegressions developed. linear hypothesis support thesecondand, two level to separately,first hypothesis on and party the test to Additionally, level. party the on effects the include to also but level individual the on measureTherefore model this modeling appropriate ideology isthe most effectof the to the shift level. party the levels:model includelevel.The two individuallevel the party andwill the at shift ideology the of levelasresult individual the on apathy the political measures I construct, dependent variable based on a function of a predictor variable on multiple levels. The model that some of values the predict is to stressed, Luke as goal, Their models. asmultilevel as well 5 CEU eTD Collection and recommendations for further research areoffered. research further for and recommendations are presented of limitations research the researchissummarized, the aredrawn, end, conclusions variables. the of Theoperationalization and model the of third explanation through a with and methodology Chapter presents analyses the discusses chapter second The in paper. detailed ones the this similar to phenomena of the data and interpretation influenceideology of votingandparty the literatureon that presents examines behavior of results.non-votingforms as of Political apathy.also This chapter reviews literature surrounding the the At the in looks explainreview field. of this to previousthe This work chapter the non-participationand aliterature apathy with political phenomenon of the describes firstchapter methodology. The a brief review andoffers Introduction chapters introduction, into conclusion.The three The thesisisstructured of the topic of research and introduces the model, theoretical framework and 6 CEU eTD Collection Assistance (International IDEA) 2002 http://www.idea.int/publications/vt/upload/VT_screenopt_2002.pdf 4 clear arguments in favor very not are of this there claim.that confirms turnout high with characterized are Netherlands and Italy as democracies western a matterof debate is that turnout achieved withdemocratic or non-democratic tools. Also, the fact that several 3 especially in the USA and in post-communist countries years, fifty last the throughout inelections turnouts the of overview a historical that deny elections. All argumentations thatfavor political apathy as being useful for democracy can not with problem connected significant of one existence showsthe moderndemocracies the regimes Nazi undemocratic and totalitarian the in of turnout such systems asWeimarunstable Germany which resultedof intheestablishment stability have pointed to theoften undemocratic of values and lessthe educated, the high levels democratic about concerned theorists hand, other the On support. citizen and legitimacy political favoringhave participation citizen reflect argued levels higherthat of and turnout encourage theorists hand, one On systems. democratic of stability and legitimacy the for Apathy Political of implications the concerning theory on democratic literature in exists the A debate substantial 1.1 1 threshold forturning onalarm bells signal highlevels that of apathy?political andmany These does it mean and how a state is characterized by the problem of the political apathy? Whatvoting andin politics islow. is does But, meanthis citizensthat arepolitically the Whatapathetic? The claims that high turnout is a characteristics of the non-democratic regimes has empirical confirmation, but also For more see more For influencethis phenomenon Political Apathy –Theoretical framework that andfactors Theoretical Imprecision Political Apathy– Apathy:Whatis The PhenomenonofPolitical Voter Turnout1945 Since A Global Report 3 . 7 Nevertheless, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral and Democracy for Institute International 4 , shows that the interest of citizens in interest of citizens shows the , that a very brief look at the turnouts in turnouts the at look brief very CEU eTD Collection Rosenberg (1954-1955) The majority of papers that emphasize the political apathy are from that period. One of the them is paper of 5 avoid useof the term the “political apathy general, in investigations, Current turnout. low of phenomenon the of analyzes quantitative offer that articles to are references and argumentation their of all Actually, it. on influence significant turnout, determinantsthe factors have of most phenomenon, andthis biggestand which the low this in mind have apathy, political about talking when Blackman), and Phillips Rosenberg, many (DeLuca, authors Therefore, of of political apathy. “syndrome” manifestation the clearest and first is the which elections, in non-voting or turnout low the also but 1955), (Rosenberg, includes conceptisPolitical that Apathy theabsence a broad and activity of participation manifestation of problem.this politicalthe Does apathy mean more than low only turnout? Yes. isit the (DeLuca, 1997:74), political isthemeasureof Actually,apathy turnout the low turnout. whennon-participation, about apathy, political defining butconnectspolitical talks apathy with confusions of begin. these “political From (1995), very word nature DeLuca apathy” Tom the the apathy. questionsother introductions are tothevast only and field occasionally confusingpolitical of Then, let’s start slowly “tounroll the knot”: low when turnout explaining political the apathy. for the findings use thequantitative to approaches previous the accept will term, the of definition in the imprecision” or inaccuracy “theoretical the consideration into while taking This paper, studies. behavior voting in places important most the of one takes non-voting and participation The term “political apathy” was very frequently analyzed among scholars in 50s and 60s of the twentieth centery. twentieth of the 60s and in50s scholars among analyzed frequently very was apathy” “political term The 5 ,” but low turnout and the phenomenon of non- of phenomenon the and turnout low but ,” 8 CEU eTD Collection characterize U.S. as a system that produces and tolerates inequality between its which citizens, between inequality and tolerates produces as asystem that U.S. characterize “ claim of andOrren’s usingVerba apathy influence the that factors socioeconomic the about argumentation an presents (1995) DeLuca democracies. other in as same the nearly is non-voting of cost perceived the although manageable” has been stress relatively of political Ladd,isa “system where existence the to USA, according in the turnout voter low the for reason Another events. special or important be to considered not therefore, are, in U.S. the Elections common. makesthem seem which of elections, Ladd (1993)alsoconcludes reason the that for low the inturnout U.S.isin the high the number 1993). (Ladd democracies” other all in virtually that lower significantly is in USA “turnout Therefore, status. oflower those more then regularly vote status high socioeconomic while of people vote”, whoLaddstresses (1993), millions that ofAmericans“stand on sidelinesdecidingthe not to Carl refersto He modern democracies. of asacharacteristic be accepted not can this adds that is low turnout a beproblem of and should democracy analyzed American more seriously.the He steady the in turnout decline ofvoter since United States the1960s the 1980s, stresses thatuntil problem the on determine elaborating apathy.of factors DeLuca, that explanation the political of and literature previous the of review it systematic avery offers andbroader, theoretical explainshe political apathy, usestheideaAlthough is ofnon-participation. this approach theoretical in approach explainingthis Asphenomenon. mentioned, already when DeLuca and systematic most the represents theory, political of field the to belongs which work, The of isphenomenon most by apathy comprehensivelypolitical elaborated DeLuca (1995).His 1.2 Political Apathy – Theoretical explanations Theoretical – Apathy Political 9 Equality inAmerica ” where they CEU eTD Collection emotional response conditioned in part by social context, then how do we account for the fact individual how doweaccountdecision,for the then demographic skewing isif itand an “if Moran is that of Infavor (1997)stresses simply apathy that, an explanation inadequate. seems standing itself, by Moreover, each 1995:11). little (DeLuca, control, perhaps and knowledge no or little has he which on factors political and socioeconomic other and manipulation elite which anindividual issuffers from on apathy that brought institutionsby forces, structures, or in state is a other The individual. the of choice ispersonal a it as level individual the to inherent facefirst is apathy.faces The differentpolitical offers two of (1995) political DeLuca apathy. of phenomenon the of explanation the in is book this of contribution biggest the Actually, be"choose" happy,to can neither to be we choose apathetic 1997). (Moran isititselfeven clear choices, (DeLuca Much other not achoice" 1995 :191). as we cannot an object, and however much itmay resultfrom other factors that condition decisions, orperhaps emotional response or condition. DeLuca’s definition of apathy is "a relationship of emotion to stresses of his as an apathy (1997) definition reflecting Moran DeLuca’s opinion, However, on characterizeapathy as a"choice." thismore to general tends (1995) personal DeLuca opinion, of lifeasaresults inpolitical participate to not decides citizen the but held, are periodically which elections inthe vote to not decision only not means apathy political when Furthermore, someand togender occupation, to age, andrace”(DeLuca,1995:5). class education, degree is by“education, but voting the decline caused that across American the distributed population, evenly not is voter American disappearing the that conclusion the to leads argumentation brief DeLuca’s in elections. voting and politics in in participation interest different causes 10 CEU eTD Collection and political mortalization, offers recommendations and solutions on how to “combat” political which includes onthecomplexities In theend, of ideas work, depolitization also some DeLuca’s in life. andpolitical participate to vote considered as factor a relevant influencesthat political apathy and the “choice”individuals of not not is it and underestimated, is wrongly discrimination gender and racial the that emphasizes also DeLuca Furthermore, 152). which exists" (p. that of much of nature "the misconstrue and alike"(DeLucaboth the views 1995:152).AsDeLucaseesit, amountof apathy present overstate as falseprofound consciousness affecting'political' participants and nonparticipants lens Marcuse'sradical viewednow through is for democracy American asnecessary celebrated Berelsonsaw is and that "The faces mistaken both apathy asa“pure a the approach true” facesDeLucaalthough these (1995), political acceptingpresenting of apathy,two the underlines face with of political second the apathy. the connected isrepresented byMarcuse, power, of conception democratic radical faces of third The apathy. disagreement within the The political explains plain democratic is conception power politicalapathy of a that of aresult agenda that is is but adesirable of andindividual of accepted depends citizen. wherepolitical the the choice participation and does not fit by participation, seen asin interestof political with expressedpreferences policy conflict observable any of the two is making involves behaviorthere on onissueswhere a focus of decisions the which Berelson, by represented is republican,aliberal school the schools. Thefirst bythreedifferent represented (Lukes1992), dimensions of different three the DeLuca power apathy through explains political participate?” anddoinvote fact etc., undereducated, poor, the amongatleast individuals some that 11 CEU eTD Collection importance in half-democraciesincentivesindividuals for bemore active.to offactors politically Thiscan have group a big and democracies the fieldalsodecreases onthe professional can political inconveniences involvement that cause in threat the Also, transition,in elections. voting and active politically more becoming from people prevents without a well developed relationthe between friends andfamily, duetotheir holding differentpolitical positions, party against some citizens of by governmental figures of a different political affiliation, orcan destroy in having development the political threats apathyinthat position apublic resultof political can influencefactors harmony,interpersonal success andego-deflation. occupational Thesethe governmental action, includes threatsto of of firstapathy the group political determinants This conclusions paper offers basedthe responses on inof citizensthe included the surveys, and activity and absenceand the ofincentives tointerestparticipation. futility political of the of political activity, consequences threatening Rosenbergthe stresses determinantsor thathaveinfluence the abilitynot to voters participateto in lifevote. political or factors of groups three existenceof the and State discovered ofin York Ithaca New small town Rosenberginvestigated the (1955) determinants for political apathy by in surveys organizing the development. in a low turnout results which apathy, political of problem the that is again, once difficult shown, has book This ignored. be not to can apathy be political of strictly phenomenon the explaining for book this of importance the findings, diagnosed. There arethis confirm phenomenon. Although his project lacksempiricalDeLuca’s to evidence claimsand a lot of factors influencingexplains that is theoretical approaches apathy. and systematic most oneofcomprehensive It the its 12 CEU eTD Collection the possible employment in the Public administration which is highly partied. causes consequences of political isolation incase of the possible win of the opposite party. This is most reflected on 6 (Rosenberg, 1955). activity. political dulls often gratifications, noninstrumental the of absence and satisfy, moreindividuals pressing needsto have A lack fact the other interest, participation. of that of stresses deterrents the (1955) Rosenberg is factors considered, of group When third the the voters, but only during the timeframe of the elections. alienated most have they when times the at representatives their or government the punish and react cannot as people more apathetic makes people that factor isanother elections of the period that time Rosenbergthe (Rosenberg stressed and1955). vote. also notto voters, they chose among apathy increases thepolitical thus nodifferences, parties offer alternate same, andthat uninfluenced of people.the Thisfeelingis strengthened bythe opinion all that politicians are the made almost completely have will decisions the own their power andhave people the ignored of and political government agencies machine, the some anonymous political of representative, stemming from the perception forces., perception of the unmanageability political that the of be political insignificant Another and reasonforunimportant. futility this liesof action in the action from derives sensethe individualspersonal inadequacy,of when themselves consider to futility of of The feeling impactwhatsoever. not haveany does or notmake does adifference process, whole the to contribute not does voting and activity their that voters the of impression The futility activity political of in and by participation ismost elections the easilypresented the revanchism” “political for cause acertain can voting party and activity system, where political and Insome post-communist transitional countries (Macedonia, Serbia, Albania), the support of certain political party 6 and for and negative private consequences life. professional 13 CEU eTD Collection confirm testingthat new models andincluding new variables could be beneficial the science.to will butalso of apathy, investigating political the for determinants the variety approaches of Franklinturnout This (2004). review of for explaining variables the low will turnout show the investigationsinfluential the solvingvoter of lowthe puzzle of the to their and contribution most the of some will present text following The apathetic. acting or party political for some make decisions on the basis of their perception maximizingof own profit, either by going tovote the party and personality models:groups of variables or (ethnocultural), asocially focusinga group deterministic group on (institutional),three into be classified can phenomenon this of explanation in the included variables or factors and a rational choiceis investigatedlowmost phenomena of turnout, in the one thefield science.The of political model, which claims as thepoliticalwell turnout or as thereasons behindit.turnout, Low through apathy understood that voters apathy, arealot there of studies thatquantitatively and empirically examine andexplainlow political of phenomenon the of explanations non-empirical and theoretical these from Apart 1.3 less makes itforof useful factors theacademic researches. the classification specific paper’s the However, research. of the importance the confirms which further democracies, in less developed the are still present reported, author that factors, the Some of be underestimated. field not its the to should contribution of research period, of the note date the taking Nevertheless, researches. quantitative further the for basic a as be used to useful most be thatthis papercould himself points Rosenbergnotvoting. for Even by asareasons themselves individuals reported that factors of the overview acomprehensive gives Thepaper conclusions. In general projectlacksthis again empirical for evidence confirmationthe itsof claims and Review of the factors that influence Political Apathy factors Political Review ofthe thatinfluence 14 CEU eTD Collection the sudden increase in turnout in that out in the Teixeira pointed suddenincrease the 1984presidential elections, the turnout explained bychanging age distribution and the decline innewspaper reading. When explaining apathy a was falling politicalresultof when and efficacy, 1968-1980, it is period second the is when the firstpolitical periods: 1960-1968, two 62% of Healsodistinguishes variance”. the efficacy and relianceexplain 38%of voter the decline, political factors, such as decline in declinepartisanship, of the of the newspapers for less bemarried likely trendssuch demographic as youngermobile,to electorate, andmore can election information,variableshave in variables, ahigherexplanatory sociological with comparison power while and are able to explainfound political duringthe 1960-1980. Teixeira that turnout explains invoter 88%decline the the other all periods, have during equalinfluence not variablesall do that fact i.e. the periodization in account for (Boyd is model, to which 1988).Teixeira’s such a way constructed as The later variable has not been included in many studiesturnout and is interesting.particularly study: identification), (strength partisanship of party andcampaignnewspaper efficacy, reading. science and findingsregardingimportant “sociopolitical" includesthree turnout variables in his political the of aware well is also Teixeira Yet involvement. political less about bring could decline in people marriedand living with their spouses and theincrease in mobility) residential by insociety (as measured the U.S. in marked possibility "rootedness” the the that decline heraises particular, In system. from political the people of the "disconnectedness" for account (such might as andhypotheses factors demographic region) that age, race,and new includes Vote: Turnout Decline inthe United States, 1960-1984” first his work, and low In the apathy. phenomenon political of turnout for the analysiscontribution reasons the to significant of provided Teixeira a (1987,1992) has 15 he pays careful attention to attention careful hepays “Why Americans Don’t “Why Americans CEU eTD Collection In However,factor. turnout numbers wouldnot return highs to the of 1950s. the beenacontributing have could apartisan realignment registration foror the legislature changing cannot becannot strictly be explainedonly Rational Choiceusing Theory, within butrather political the citizens the of characteristics apathetic the or low turnout the for reasons the that He shows since Franklindemocracies claims1945, that: established in competition electoral the of dynamics the and turnout voter the Analyzing participation,in some dimensions, very clearly refute the claim of Teixeira. representation whichisof not-adequate claims for citizens, aresultof the unequal the (1997) than combinedLijphart’s oneThesewith which was decidedinthe elections. the results, one in favor of Republicans) the “everyone votes” simulation would resultin a different outcome and candidates Democratic of in favor (two in cases, three and that, voters, of structure the from differ in insmall dimensionsnon-voters of structure (2003) very showedthat the a study which Sides and by Schickler Citrin, and disproved was tested claim Teixeira’s last the Nevertheless, voting, no matter how high or low, does not influence the outcomes of the elections. non- or apathy political the that claims he Nevertheless, apathy. political the of phenomenon the explain serve to and off can this dropping including “connectedness,” attendance, church social and political of for the declinebe found in can decline overall that reason the the He stresses can explainserve to the reasons for ahigher in turnout countries than European in United States. that the structure of the cost in America, which is characterized by low benefits and high costs, Disappearing AmericanVoter Disappearing voter turnout insome circum-stances but notinothers. why certain variables appeartoexplain the questionof anyone bothersvote atallto to why the everythingquestion of Almost turnout ispuzzling,from science.... aboutvoter political puzzles enchilada'of voter of topic of turnout couldbecalledthe'grand political science As thevexing questions of can beregardedaspuzzles,the particular (1992) Teixeira, using cost-benefit usingargumentation, explained (1992)Teixeira, 16 (Franklin 2004). CEU eTD Collection institutional constraints that have reduced turnout in contemporary America. Concluding that the that America. Concluding have incontemporary that constraints reducedturnout institutional the of analysis important an as well as centuries, 20th early and 19th late in the turnout inparticipation the U.S.They reduced provide discussion acomprehensive that factors the of Piven Cloward (1988)alsoand made importantcontribution have the study an of to electoral electorate”. the enter they when circumstances specific the and conditions new to react who ones the are they (Franklin 2004:215).And, asis often case,the the isfuture in handsof the young,the because inincreaseisdecline any invirtue noway or civic decline due to in disaffection political political turnout reasons; to areaction as partly it ashas occurred turnout, voter declining about inevitable nothing is “There analysis: Franklin’s of lessons important most three the up sums vote notVanHolsteyn i.e.impact on political cohorts to or apathy, decision the (2005) the of 2005). In way that Franklin (2004:25)showsrationality that havesocialization and asubstantial (Van Holsteyn high turnout havea lives electoral their of rest for the will cohort the stakes, and excitement same the have elections third and second their If responsiveness”. "executive degree of the level of the competitiveness, elections, of the importance time arethe firstthe for vote canmobilize who tovote or people voters caninfluencenew that Thefactors will vote. they whether lives, determines their own to inrelation especially elections, the of significance their behavior. He stresses that from to thebe paid age should that citizens attention special and arevoters new eligibleof behavior the by to vote explained for be can the firstbehavior time the apathetic political or turnout low the habits, electoral their on reflects also which behavior adopted already change their eager to are not people fact that due tothe that claims Franklin voters. the of socialization the and voter, individual the of context social the elections, the of context 17 CEU eTD Collection degree to which political parties would liberalize the process of voter registration registration liberalize ofvoter process degree towhich depends on the parties would political The voters. of body the of composition the determine requirement registration voter and elites, party linkage party andtheir to party constituencies the parties.competitiveness, that Theyclaim cause political assign apathy, authors the largerimportance to connected factors the with political system. Againfavoring the approach institutional that factors influence and thelow turnout thus this from benefit politicians not or whether and turnout voter low have to continue Americans Piven project, In another trytoformulate question the (2000)ananswerand Cloward of to why and Cloward 1988:117). effects willbe”(Piven what those andjust participation, on effect will asignificant have factors social-psychological these whether determines context “the political that argueed They variables. importance sameinstitutional variables, thesignificance andatthe timeof of these showed the diminished for the would claims confirm their develop not model that asystematic Cloward do and Piven Nevertheless, perspective. institutional an favor clearly They 1989). (Abrahamson, particularly in harsh upon assessing thatrely theorists social-psychological variables Piven and Cloward (1988)examine theoretical debates on causesthe ofnonvoting, and are undertaken requirements, by tofightelites off Populist challenge. the the emphasizing the restrictions on voting - mostin is importantly century 20th theearly imposition and 19th late in the of voter registration electorate the of demobilization the of explanation century. out points Abrahamson (1989) importance the that in of andPiven (1988) Cloward the in leda high 19 turnout voter American the that to conditions the andCloward examine Piven context, in a comparative turnout American After placing decades. several over turnout influenced have that factors socioeconomic and political the of overview historical a offer phenomenon of ishigher apathy political isUnited Statesthanin European democracies, they 18 th CEU eTD Collection lower than in other developed democracies, suggests that in a comparative perspective, turnout in is significantly which in U.S., turnout low the of analysis the that stressed (1986) Jr. Pawell importance of the political parties in the voter’s decision the favors makingwhich parties, their and candidates the of evaluations prospective and candidate, of incumbent the retrospective evaluations predispositions”, “policy-related relatively exogenous and identification are: party not or candidate for acertain willvote voter the whether influence in losing Amongresult number a of offactors that certain supporters. the six party groups (Shapiro 1997). proportions ofindependents and with Republican identifiers closingWith in nationwideon Democrats this claim,undergone change onlygradual,though significant, in thewith since anincrease the 1950s, they confirm partycandidate choice. whichmost to is hasremained strongly Theexception theSouth, related movement andvoters ideology (whether identification party by simply provided been has shift system party American the of stability and which think can of Millerwhen and Shanks (1996), lowexamining for claim reasons the turnout, thethat continuity themselves as mobilizecaused by and thelow voters means to the todecrease parties. political turnout Republicans, social aretheonlyviable movements According authors, the ratherit”. than to expand electorate Democrats, Indeed islikely party take competition demobilize more formthe to of to strategies of sectors the or independents),conclude “Leftto themselves, that, parties the areunlikely towork to expand participation. minimize electoral losing to theoutcome of risk and thepower.Piven (2000:271) and Cloward which has strengthen party’s likely the aremore to votes newi.e. the eligible theparty for results positive claim partiesthe that wouldliberalizeregistration voter when shouldrequirements that cause how this registration will theirinterests. affect Leighley (2001) emphasizes Piven and Cloward’s 19 . CEU eTD Collection that although thealso estimateregressions as using apredictor pastvoting behavior of current behavior,andfind explanatory They turnout. low the of variation low a explain can variables these but voting, of probability power rises it education, contextual variables and such as campaign effectsspending, have significant on the remains low. variables such asageand find usual demographic (1999) Matsusaka andPalda that the These results again important non-politicalshow characteristic of one's family of origin. that the which is as rival most generally regarded of the attainment, educational parents' impact the and can varies byracialgroup impactof the while divorce that demonstrating points, percentage by nearly effectshow the that families of turnout among divorce islarge,depressing white 10 They adolescence. during turnout on divorce of impact the tracing turnout, voter on influences factor by anotherthat (2005)look family couldexplainSandelexaminingto andapathy Plutzer political of apathy. the variation presidential showhigh levelelections, of significance andthey explaincan serve to of some the different variables,influence are low included turnout researches. in previous the include His attempt to some such as that thevariables all not that he claims weather end, In the states. the among turnout voter 1982 in orvariation if there are gubernatorialconstructed, he elections that model The turnout. voter factoredreduces making decision constraining that and on turnout, the in dayelection’s on withimpact significant a have variables institutional and political that day concludes apathy, weatherpolitical as a variable,Merrifield (1992),wheninvestigating the political and factors institutional influencethat and it accounted for 91% of the party system institutionaland factors, and up to 14% by registrationthe laws. Unitedthe is States about advantaged 5%by attitudes, butdisadvantagedpolitical 13%by the 20 CEU eTD Collection factors. economic and is socio-demographic on focus studies the mentioned,these of previously the Merrifieldideology is as causes 1973)party shift nottreated factor that phenomenon,this as and, participation.” Inthis research aswell in (Mutz2002,Emery others 1996, Ross 1975, influence an created factors model”“Apathy on the that with (1973) “apathy three related Evera Van and Salamon elections. the surrounding apathy political the of is adecrease there reveals, Kong case Hong asthe conditions, economic and political social, the With of a change context. andsocial history peculiar and a particular of isaresult apathy political the that claim includingOther scholars, Degolyer(1996) investigating andLee theScot, case of Hong Kong, is mostly electorate the from expected. withdrawal their and election particular any in Democratic vote necessarily not would whites nonvoting that found has also He inconsistent. are votes their because needs, and desires their to responsive less legislators may makefederal discovered Reiter whites that lower-status of turnout forone'sfinances. family better as cite Democrats in failurethe to becauseof a part and class-consciousness lack of distinctive because in lot, a part of an especiallyDemocratic are not education; nonvoters and thatwhite among oflowincome occurred decline. the sharpestdecline those the Among and whites, among whites notandblacks, and that some of mostthe commonly stated reasons do notexplain 1976 from occurred 1960 to monotonicthe Reiter inturnout (1979)discovered that decline socio-demographicthe variables donotgive for explanation the political apathy. variables. voting Onbasisof their that arerandomizedthey conclude research patterns andthat time from omitted primarily andarise predicted, to difficult are very low turnout for reasons If is this tothe nationalapplicable level, relative in the drop the 21 CEU eTD Collection Social Democratic and Moderate Conservative parties, together with an extended period of period extended an with together parties, Conservative Moderate and Social Democratic the of via “aconvergence ishappening parties right of radical the emergence the claims that parties. his book In class” and political economy “external the of reliance the rejecting clearly ideology, of this fortunes electoral varying the explanations on the inEurope different social 1970sand,the through democratic parties innine European countries, explains electoral destinies Kitschelt the in of profoundthe (1994) stresses process transformation Social the of Democracy of these political each also butrelation other, to national on the level 1988). party (Johnson in both ideology in of belocated party terms can overtime parties how, showing diagrams short historical a analysis. They offer factor elaborate to and subjected coded, werereduced, manifestos from the themes leading and commitments policy review pledges, The research. quantitative for applicable them of partiesmost systematic andcomprehensive attemptfor coding of parties’the andmakingprograms and their programs of and Manifesto’s politicalthe parties innineteen Thisdemocracies. approach was the evolution,introduced andOn side, aspatial Robertson other Budge, Hearl(1987) analysis party the of and constructis investigated very butinprominently, from general separated ideathe of political apathy. more or lessShanks elaborated on the importanceelaborate of the party ideology. The party ideology as a phenomenon and Miller From conclusion, this factors. socio-economic the that important more as parties) Some of (Piven authors the andinstitutional Cloward) consider factors (including political in importance asinstitutions political political thathavea parties creating apathy. substantial on the factors influenceThe previouspolitical significantly apathy,that of review the concentrate 1.4 Political Apathy and Party Ideology Shift PartyIdeology Political Apathyand The Radical Right in WesternThe RadicalRightin Analysis Europe:AComparative 22 (1995)he CEU eTD Collection political political apathy. on will effect or havenegative turnout the will enhance ideology a more extreme that claim Their starting pointis the elite andmass partisans’ ideology is factora formobilization, and they a confirmation of the importance of party ideology as a variable for the turnout of the voters. findings but still their are ideological as variable, don’t takethe shift theseauthors Nevertheless, ideology. party on state that of influence the increases law registration less restrictive a Logically, requirements. registration voter’s state a of restrictiveness level of onthe depending differentiates ideology is significanteffect turnout,unlikethe on party organization. Theirfindings that party show significant gubernatorial findelections. They ideology thatparty as well as party competitiveness hasa not only of mobilizingimportance ideology, forces in organization as and competitiveness U.S. party apart of the Hill data alsoand using Leighey statewideon aggregate investigated(1993), relative the turnout, financial spendingcandidates. of the from the to oralienated feel indifferent who citizens the affect which locations, ideological candidates,candidate’s the on depends Elections Senate midterm in the turnout the that claim They but also elections. in Senate Midterm U.S. turnout and abstention locations, ideological candidate’s the But, the approach of this research is closest to the Plane and Gershtenson (2004) explanations of parties” conservative established to loyalty their abandon to voters induces that right authoritarian for an electoral opening conservatives…creates moderate participation the of government 23 CEU eTD Collection level. This paper does not claimlevel. not ideology This paperdoes shift the that of will decrease the support party the on measureattemptto how theinfluences political ideology on shift individualthe turnout and party a quantitativebasedThis in on construct thefieldwill which paper model previous the work will adequately. istreated not variable these and isunderestimated itsand importance the low turnout or apathy Political the on ideology Third, party isthe already asa shiftcan variable considered influence that potentially bedetermined. factors hasnature yetto of influence andthese apathy,the precise thepolitical turnout as a measure forit (Deluca 1995). Second, there are various factors and determinants that Therefore when paper,this explaining phenomenon the of political low on the apathy refers non-participation political as welllowconceptualized alsorefersterm, and to turnout. a strictly is political First that the not apathy mentioned show: approaches All previously political apathy. the increases initially which center, the toward left the from Democrats the of movement the with also be explained sincethe1960scan citizens andmoreapathetic low the for turnout factors the Burnham when crisis inAmericanalso (1982:188-189) the politicsanalyzing one claimsof that could confirm that an ideology shift of the party distances the voter from that party. FREPASO (left oriented thirdin party Argentina) differed from voters of parties,other which the of voters that showed they Nevertheless, vote. didn’t or preferences their shifted parties measuredidnot level on individual the supportingand donotshow if voters the either two the of they but decreased, ideology their shifted that party the for votes level, aggregate an on that show space on the left-right dimensionSeligson (2003) concluded ideology thatthe of shift main the partiespolitical in Argentina left a that allowed for the success and rise of the third party. They 24 CEU eTD Collection interests. stemming feeling alienated, from thepartiesmaylonger factthat nothe best representtheir someof aresult of will level, party the as support abandonthe that voters aggregate old but 25 CEU eTD Collection supportersthe ofpolitical parties that usuallyvote thepartyfor H1 From research twomainthe questions hypotheses can be constructed: programmatic shift. or ideology is there that confirms changes these of translation quantitative the and changed been used as the primary variable. Additionally, the Manifesto of the shifted party for the elections has are for party the elections previous voted on the elections and last the non-participation during individual level as on well as aggregate(party)the level. individualsreported Therefore, who show patterns measure timeformulatedshift two toon confirm to the periods and the over and can resultin a lack of participation on the elections. The central research question of this paper is and in voting interest lose can party the within change ideological an of a result as which voters, shiftthe ideology of by party the can resultin apatheticthe of behavior some party or supporters elections. But party this ideology shifthas its price. Thus, this investigation’s positioncore is that i.e.maximizingincrease their profit, votes to thethat party thenumberof wins during the of ideology purpose position programmatic the politicaltheir shiftwith holds or that parties longerno onthe accurately party investigation’srepresented platform. The starting assumption supporters to abandon their support of the party, as party a and some inideology can cause shift testaims show that they party to political apathy. It can come to feel as if their interests are influences shiftparty ideology how about thequestions of answersome to seeks paper This 2.1 2 Theideology shift of politicalparties will cause political apathy onindividual level among Methodology, Data and Operationalization of theVariables Research Question andHypotheses Research Question 26 CEU eTD Collection With the first case selection, the number of cases decreased from Additionally, With caseselection, 47888. first numberof cases decreased from the the 64256 to non-votingIndividuals elections willbeexcludedfrom sample. the on whoreported previous the of data. the causeareduction will variables of other construction in the The limitations Asia,America, andAustralia. America, North South include countries all without any Assuch, in exclusion. sample,there the from are countries will model the region, particular one to observation the limit to not and apathy, political on purpose of this paper is todraw general inferences about the influence of the party ideology shift the Since research. needsthis is of the for acceptable andtherefore studies, post-electoral construction of the model. This Database consists of information from thirty-eight countries’ votingas ones, which during preferences current elections, well isvitalfor the previous as the most needs for applicable the study, becauseof this highlightingof question the within report the is the this database Europe, Eastern and Central for Western, Database Panel lackof the Due to from Study (CSES)Modulebeof Comparative the Systems 22001-2006will used. Electoral database individualfor purposes level.Forthe of with the the findings research, this accordance in are individuals within apathy political for findings the that show will measurements The individuals,includebehaviorbut paper (party) alsolevel. the will theaggregate of analysis on voting influences the shift ideology party the how measure isto thispaper of purpose The 2.2 party. level. Theideologyshiftontheparty levelcanalso result the inabetterelectoralresultfor H2 The party ideology shift will not always cause a decrease in the number of votes party of onthe will adecrease inthenumber always cause Thepartyshift not ideology Data and Operationalization oftheData DataandOperationalization 27 CEU eTD Collection additional reductionwhen this variable ofsignificant a result as is included, the nevertheless modelmodel, the in without included religiosityis religiosity the is also developed.explanations, theoretical the on Based 7 presented by other methods. Therefore, the CMP Database is still the best option for this project. limitations the than less inhibiting tobe continue database this of limitations the Database, CMP the within 2008) (Benoit, Laver,Mikhaylov error coder asystematic for indications Laver, (2000), Although, Benoit& areserious Proksch there (2003) andSlapin (2007). Garry by have& Laver Garry of beenconducted manifestos party the measurements text-based Other make attractive itfacts suitedis, and this data themost for thus, thepurposes of research. the These Dataset 2005). MDS2005 DataHandbook, Research Manifesto ManifestoProject, Group variables and113programmatic (Comparative Manifesto data programmatic dimensions, consists of in with 780 parties 529elections, party fiveManifesto’s, 3018 programs and different it because project the of for purposes the most acceptable is CMPDatabase the positions, ideology ofmeasuring there areseveral modes party Although, are EUmembers. party or countries,countries of and 5areother which two European countries,and 24areCentral Eastern Database2003. This from includes 1990 to Database 54countries from which 25 areOECD (CMP) Manifesto Iuse construction For Party ideology Comparative the variable shift, of of the the modelthe include that religiosity as variable, are6954cases, there 64 parties in 9 countries finalthe case selection, sample the of is consisted 11273 cases, 84parties in 12 countries in and After databases. in both compatible not are thesurvey years of or parties, countries, where the cases of all includedelimination selection phasecase next of in the CPMDatabase, those the fit with not completely does is in CSESDatabase included that of sample countries because the This reduction of the sample is just a result of the imperfection of the databases used for construction of the model. of the construction for used databases of the imperfection ofthe aresult just is sample of the reduction This 28 7 . CEU eTD Collection on on political both apathy on individualthe (party)level.and aggregate the For purposes of this measure isof As already paper purpose to the of mentioned, ideology shiftthe the the influence 2.3 they are the most important components in which parties and voters distinguish each other. components expresscrucial variable beexplained.In general and phenomena these political will ideology shift party wherethe in asubchapter below, is discussed components selection these of ideology shift parties. a political Furthermore, of justificationdetailed, theoretical for the and All social groups. domainsthese of mostthe of important consistvariables for determining freedom and democracy,political system,economy, welfare and quality life,of fabric ofsociety, variable inthe willincludeall seven domains measured CPM Database: shift Theideology cycle. from previous the score with cycle the in ideology election for one by the score willsubtracting beconstructed ideology shift variablefor ofthe The construction and, therefore, the changes in party positions or a party ideology shift can be studied. election before every is data published is that for this research, least at offers, database the that advantage leadership.the factions The or certain only not views the party, entire of positions the the arerepresenting andthus conventions, by confirmed they party are usually policies because of party the statements Hearl are authoritative They 1987). (Budge,Robertson, positions” of party statement asa“setof central key canbetaken therefore and themes, issues and for measuring ideology, awiderangebecause they cover of indicators party acceptable political themost of some are programs Electoral parties. political of programs theelectoral of analyses acontent on based is it that fact is the including advantages, other has database this Additionally, Methods and Variables Methods 29 external relations, CEU eTD Collection justification theoretical and statistical theempirical, fulfills of research the nature the in ways: justified three for use of on include individualthe but level, also to theeffects on level. party is the application Its the Multi levelmeasuremodelingTherefore, model this appropriate isthe ideology most to the effectan of shift modeling. shift party the level. of twolevels: willinclude model The individual the andlevel. party The Multi measures Ihave that political apathy individual on the constructed level as of ideology result an Level Modelingdependent variable based on a function of a predictor variable across multiplewill levels. The model include2000) as well as multilevelmodels. Theiris goal, asLukestressed,predict values to the someof a models2002), Random Mixed–effectsmodels (Longford,andBates, coefficient 1993) (Pinheiro andBryk (Raudenbush Models names: HierarchicalLinear different under decades, appearing in level elucidate one has to order relationships. several been 2004) It (Luke overthe past developed than more on collected data to applied model statistical a is Model Level Multi The 2.3.1 level, beaggregate will used. regression Level Modeling Hierarchical) (Mix for intesting or Effects (MLM) and hypothesis the the hypothesis for the influence of ideology individualthe shifton level willwith be tested Multi The levels. different two the for used be will models statistical different two Therefore, shift of influences thetotal party number party the ofvotes that elections. duringwon the heshe level, orOn oncesupported? ideology aggregate the whether the paperinvestigates the decide notto participatein the elections as a resultof the change of the positions of the party that to individual the influence will shifting ideology the Does individuals. of behavior voting the investigation, individual the level can be definedas waythe in whichideology influencesshift Multi Level Modeling 30 CEU eTD Collection of this model is judged as useful to be presented 8 ideology ideology shift on individualthe level within Multi the Level Modeling. logisticof isthis regression mostresearch, the appropriate model for measuring influence the of between for needs the limitations, these despite Yet, some issues. produce variables can also independent multicolinearity and assumed, not is homoscedasticity Additionally, distributed. beneeda condition,variablesindependentvariables normally not not to is dependent and and do (Szekely, Alinearitself relation between 2007) dependent squaresregression. least as ordinary in the changes the not but variable, dependent the of odds log in changes the calculates probability occurringby a certain estimation.event of accounting maximumlikelihood forthe It instead of continuous. The binary logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes calculates the isvariable categorical dependent because the beused will regression as0.Logistic coded as coded dichotomous variables, which include being nonvoters codedas1and all beingothers This research isfocused on explaining the third possibility. The variable apathy political willbe voters: they can shift the voting preferences, keep voting for the same party or decide not to vote. individual ideology level. shifton for ideology shift The the cause threepossible outputs can Logistic regression will be used in the Multi2.3.2 Level Modeling to measure the variable. influence of the logistic for regression analyzing the influence ofindependent variables on politicalthe apathy Although, logistic regression is used within Multi Level Modeling, the separated explanation of the basic meaning basic of the explanation separated the Modeling, Level Multi within used is regression logistic Although, Logistic Regression 8 . 31 CEU eTD Collection Ǻ Political Apathy= The model for linearthis regression is: electoral its leader cycles. two changed between party the whether and GDP percapita, the measured with situation general economic the if participate it isparty, belongsor inthe opposition or such to whetherthegovernment party as existent, also are variables control Several variant. primary the being variable shift ideology with canbe orpredictors, apathy independentvariable party explainedbyseveral the variables if in is model,party can regression test variance the used. Inthis the a multiple regression level, For the measurement of the influence2.3.3 of the party ideology shift on the aggregate (party) Ǻ Ǻ Ǻ with Democracy + Union Membership + Political Apathy Political = Model party on individualthe and party level is: forThe model, equation multilevel the measures theinfluencelogistic regression which of the 4 3 2 0 GDP +e = = = Ȋ Ȋ Ȋ 30 20 00 Aggregate Level + + + Ȋ Ȋ Ȋ 31 21 01 Prty Ideology Shift + Party Ideology Shift + Party Ideology Shift ȕ Ǻ ȕ 10 0 0 + Govermental Performance Govermental + ȕ Ǻ 5 ȕ Urban/Rural + 1 1 Party Ideology Shift+ Party IdeologyShift+ Political Participation + Participation Political Ȋ Ȋ Ȋ 32 02 Numberparties +r of 22 Turnout + Number of parties + r ȕ 6 Gender + 32 ȕ Ǻ 11 2 Ȋ Government/Opposition+ Information* Party Ideology Shift +e 03 ȕ 2 number of parties +r Political Information + Information Political ȕ 7 Age + 3 2 ȕ 8 Religiosity + 0 Ǻ ȕ 3 Leader Change+ 3 Education + Education ȕ 9 Satisfaction ȕ 4 CEU eTD Collection coding party positions limits their use for the purposesincluded inboth models. In casethe of of and Laver’s Benoit lackapproach, the of cyclestwo this of research. Despite the systematic are countries same the because sample the of additional reduction cause would Module 1, which the in value the from is subtracted 2 Module Database CSES the in valuation expert’s shift, from one toten, not every ideology shift can be registered. To compute the score of the ideology left-right scale or Benoitin surveys Theadvantages Database. of with the on comparison Manifesto expert database, this and Laver (2003)As previously mentioned theideology shiftscore will frombe constructed Comparativethe Party approach, are that in the case with2.4.1 left-right scale, 2.4 Change+ 9 Political Apathy The equation for this model is: variable differentof the dependent political operationalization the the variable.apathy models both level. lieswithin differencebetween The aggregate which measurestheeffect on variables willbeusedinhas control been Theshift same regression, as theprevious observed. ideology party the time which over electoral cycles two the from party each for results electoral party level. variables In this politicalregression, by apathy bewill constructed computing the the on apathy political and shiftideology a party between relation strict is there not that claims linearinvestigateAdditionally, thehypothesis, another will regression berun second which to This variable for Political Apathy is constructed differently than then the variable in the previous model previous the in variable the then than differently constructed is Apathy Political for variable This Variables Ideology ShiftScore Ǻ 4 GDP +e 9 = Ǻ 0 + Ǻ 1 Party IdeologyShift+ 33 Ǻ 2 Government/Opposition+ Ǻ 3 Leader CEU eTD Collection protectionism, justice, social welfare, multiculturalism and minority groups. marketregulations, free democracy, enterprise, human integration issues, rights, European by constructed important program computing thescoresfor includingissues international affairs, ideology theparty What variable are mentioned, be Aspreviously variables? will these score variable. score continuous importance for the citizens are included in the construction and broad have of that the party variables ideology only and sample the from excluded are they importance, contextual and regional limited have Database with CPM are constructed that variables adequately program represent the positions in party the during the elections.many Since, the of can they and, thus, in programs the most common arethe variables these that shows also Database CPM the of analysis The thesis. the of needs the to corresponds completely variables purposes of this thesis, the number of for the in party programs, 100variables more than recognizes Although, CPMDatabase the the variables will be decreased. The from domains. seven variables selectionby computing formed 22 will be ideology score party. party The of these 22 score for the party ideology of the parties in the previous elections, when the voters voted for that for party score ideology Manifesto’s induringelections programs orfrom the recent the the mentioned As the by party beshiftvariable previously ideology subtracting constructed will the presentlimitations and problems. to expected not are Database CMP of the disadvantages the of research, this purposes For the favorable. database this of use the make to continue approaches other of limitations mentioned previously the for CMPDatabase, the reported (2008) Laver Mikhaylov Benoit, and that error code 34 CEU eTD Collection those integrations are not integral and complex as EU. of neither that fact ofthe because included, not were integration regional include that variables other side, other the big importance forEuropean party systems which consist the majority of the sample, this variable is included. On 11 process electoral the importance for the electoral outcome its was emphasized, therefore and country but the of nevertheless problem internal international and security affairs a highest as still also play raised was crucial issue this role U.S. in with case 10 stepsfuture of European Union. Theimplementation of new politics integration and further has whichwithin states, arefacedmembers of the surrounding parties EU the with challenges the also but EU, of part be a to aspire that in countries only not achieved been has significance This relationsplace domain inthe party butalso takesvery important in programs, issues. domestic European Integration will depend heavily on the position of the party during the elections and its position shift. will in primaries win the that positions candidate’s the andasaresult, candidates, party different among issues relations international concerning when differs sometimes parties the of position the site, other the On Iraq. and Afghanistan in interventions war the of result a as mainly issue, more pressing become a had citizens American the of security the that of perception resultthe as W. hisa mandate Bush George second won incumbent, candidate andrepublican elections, international of field in the held was campaign in the debate main the that confirmed States forcrucial voters’ factor example,For Presidentialthe decision. 2004 intheUnited Elections can be a international relations shown that have elections with experiences domain. Previous the positions parties of relations theinternational for variable integration represents the external in Thisvariable European international inparty the with conjunction relations programs. of connotation positivethe andnegative such CPM Database forms as, the measures that International affairs The case of USA and Presidential Elections 2004 is only one example of the importance of this variable. In the Although, the European Integration variable has no effects on the political parties out of Europe, because of the of because ofEurope, out parties political the on effects no has variable Integration European the Although, 10 (positive (positive (per107) negative(per109)) and 11 (positive (per108) (positive andnegative(per 110)) 35 variable includes scores for belongs to the external the to belongs CEU eTD Collection some of the most crucial in determining election outcomes. election crucial some of in most the determining they because variables, these to limited is selection the such culture, as ideology score, party the thereareanother variables and welfare Although, thatcanbelifein quality included of domain. Education Expansion andLimitation (per 506 andper 507) Social Justice (per503), StateExpansionandLimitation(per504 Welfare andper505) and differ significantly from each other in terms of position. where parties andtheyarepoints campaigns, issueseconomic within often that arise important adequately represent variables most These economy are includeddomain. the within that (405) Protectionism (per403), Regulations Market (per401), Free Enterprise andimportant frequently mentioned by citizens in public opinion surveys as being serious issues. variablessystem These two expressdomain. inthis mainparty the positions area, and aremost Political Corruption (per 304) andDecentralization (301) isby making process treated parties. the – decision the which in way the and society in the citizens of involvement the democratization, includesThe toward the along the issue. positions partiesdomainthe on this path also of with domain.issuesWithinfreedomsbasic human rights surrounding thedomain,andare represented democracy and rights human the in parties the of positions main the explain that variables Freedom andHumanRights (per201) andDemocracy (per202), issueswhere European areconcerned, so ideology the isshift highly expected. inconsistence haveshown parties time, over However, outcomes. inelection factors decisive be to shown been has this and states member of politics domestic in the role important an played 36 will be included from politicalthe are variables selected form are variablesthe selected can be defined as the set of set as the be defined can are variables CEU eTD Collection votingfor certain party elections,political the previous during voting andnot at all the during On individualthe level, research the will focus on analyzing those individuals which reported 2.4.2 needsthe paper. of suitthe picture of the political programs of the parties. Therefore, this equation will be used especially to donotoffer acomplete in database in time. offeredthe dimensions The to ideology shiftregards of differentiation withincan among parties, andtherefore and party show moreadequately mentioned as important in electoral cycles. The variable also reflects the fact that there theare spots variable that is computedexplanations for this of the left-thesis right meets theoretical the to according computed five dimensions programmatic has Although Database the all of the requirements and aspects variable. into thatpartyideology willbescore the aspects factored that are Rights Inland andAbroad (per7051 and7052). issues of the surrounding parties positionsthe of the speakto The finalvariables themselves to be very important issues and points were parties differ from each other. shown have variables these society contemporary In issues. rights minority other and sexual include of thepositions regardingfamilyparties prohibition, religion, values, censorship aswell variables morality traditional The process. making decision voter’s the to incontributing factor crucial most because the aremost among from domain of fabric society havechosen the been Traditional Multiculturalism Morality 604)and 608) 603 andper (per (per607 andper Political Apathy Variable positions of positions of parties,the as explained byLaver and Budge(1992), 37 The and previously variables discussed Minority CEU eTD Collection an ideology an ideology shiftoccurs. if even party the for vote to continue would voters these that mean affiliation would membership members for of organizationsthese usually left-wing vote social democratic parties, or and that is that variable membership union trade the surrounding assumption The in politics. interest variables, model multilevel the includes also variables for membershipin trade unions and from Apart can influence the models. control variables demographic useof that the these socio- andused common thestandard are and income dwelling, gender, urban-rural occupation, evaluated. The model includewill thesocio-demographic variables ascontrol variables. Age, and their effects on the dependent variable, but only to included of control prepositions The thevariables purpose areassessingnot the with theoretical control their effects when the results are 2.4.3 previous ballot. the on party the for voted but cycle electoral second inthe party political a certain for voting abandoned that voters the of percentage the represent will variable this hypothesis, first the For secondconstruction. the for in variable the be will included electoral cycles of course the two parties won over that votes of the in thepercentages shift The effectively. hypotheses different two the investigating of purposes the for differently, becoded will apathy political for variable with nonvoters and all as twovaluesthe other theof variable. On aggregate(party)the level, the MultiFor Level Logistic Modeling, political the apathy variable is ascoded a dummyvariable, differently forcoded Multi Level Modeling, Regression and level). (aggregate following elections. Since, three different models will be run, the political apathy variable will be Control Variables Control 38 CEU eTD Collection preferences from the parties in power, no matter the effects of the ideology ideology shift. matter the effects noof the in parties the from power, preferences a shifting or non-voting for reasons the of one be can evaluation A negative overall. Government variable thatwill be included will how individualsaddress the evaluate performance of the control last The shift. ideology party on the aninfluence has leader the of change the as whether party, aswell that about by citizens held the perceptions theoverall affects leader change of the the whether control will which included, be will variable leadership in a change Also, promises. lose because potential thisalsobut to visibility, of unsatisfied hasagreater their support becausevotes of attract to more possibilities has in The government party and supporters. voters their of front in party the of position the control will which variable, government/opposition Another variablein beincluded level analysis aggregate is will that the the ideology shiftis employed. This variable controls the chance party ideology shift tobe noticed. interaction information Therefore, betweenpolitical previous based onthe assumption, and party politics. for information of level the controls indirectly variable This parties. political the within for biggerinterest the politics, chances are the anindividual that notice anideological will shift the higher the that is assumption The actions. party the for knowledge of level individual’s the about information gives which variable control is a variable in politics interest The 39 CEU eTD Collection results can be explained by the effects of religiosity on the model. in the difference the and same, the are models both in the included variables other all difference, explanations of low turnout, the two models were separately run.in the Apart from individual an this of single religiosity the of importance the of claims the on Based model. forthe available sample the decreases additionally andtherefore studies, electoral surveys of the of all in the included not was variable religiosity the that fact in the lie construction, this for The reasons thisfactor. excludes that variable, second individual and as a inclination an the of For Levelmodels includes Multi beenconstructed: the one that Modeling have the two religious 2.5 regression. with linear is tested also hypothesis second with linear The regression. level isa tested using aMulti Level Model,Logistic and of the influence party the ideology shifton party the will also Themultilevel beinvestigated. on effects individualandthe level party are measured party ideology shift measured are individual on an level,but also effects the on party the level the effectsof the in chapters, previous mentioned gap. Asalready fill that to serve thesis will and hasbeen yetnot ideology this investigated, apathy shift political of The influence party on Data Interpretation and Analyses the results of Multi Level Regression:Logistic Results 40 CEU eTD Collection with the religiosity variable. religiosity the with ideology react party the of models, tothisandBoth to change. previously mentioned, as differ moreassumption politically informed that citizens aremore notice inclined theshiftto in the shift as variables.variables. Theincluded models also interaction between political information and party ideology TheOn reasonparty level,behind with a party. thethe constructionelection’sspite of political the ideology shiftthan citizens other do nothave who this type of relationship turnoutof in party for the keep voting likely to more are unions of these members the arethat thisexpectations interactionand the unionsof trade traditionally social supportthe left-wingdemocratic andother andthe parties, number is a ofresultmembers and Visser 2006), (Streeck explanations variable.theoretical membership the Basedon parties of the in whichisincluded is the model “connectedness” union 1992), explains (Teixeira the social were the that variable, included important very other The performance. and governmental overall of democracy opinion with personal satisfaction as such effects, as institutional controlinclude model the into factored measured by political activity and contact with candidates. Other control variables that have been urban/rural origin, butalso political the variable, information political which participation, education variablesand of socio-demographic asage,gender, explanatory a group variable and Statistical Computing 12 ( and nlme the 2.9.0 Model Rversion using at The packageavailable was Multilevel tested http://cran.r-project.org RDevelopment Core Team. 2009.R: Alanguage and environment forstatistical computing. , Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org. ) 12 . The model includes the party includes. Themodel party ideology the variableshift asan 41 R Foundation for CEU eTD Collection Satisfaction with democracy Government performance Political Inf* PIDL Shift Political participation Political information Party Ideology Shift Ideology Party Union membership Number of parties Rural Urban Religiosity Education Variables Intercept Turnout Gender Age Table 1Multi Level Modeling -0.00347162 -0.00919311 -0.00156868 -0.00071157 0.00575858 0.01034896 0.00283425 0.00430763 0.00496847 0.01350476 0.00367894 0.02754098 0.00428616 0.07111811 Coeficients (model 1) / 42 (model 1) p-value 0.1872 0.1293 0.0934 0.5764 0.0000 0.0000 0.0049 0.1217 0.0005 0.1097 0.0000 0.1778 0.6958 0.2487 / -0.00623123 -0.00987457 -0.00141384 -0.00145155 -0.01601866 -0.05492012 0.01096020 0.01391085 0.00010801 0.00381068 0.00556947 0.00990812 0.01266392 0.03175934 0.00065135 Coeficients (model 2) (model 2) p-value 0.0083 0.0364 0.1161 0.0000 0.0000 0.5980 0.2072 0.5429 0.1837 0.0013 0.0122 0.0050 0.0000 0.5220 0.4376 CEU eTD Collection level? Only several variables of all of those that were included are significant, but even the even but significant, are included were that those of all of variables several Only level? these results confirm the first hypothesis for the effects of the party ideology shifton individual The results from these two models in the Multi Level Regression Model are open for debate. Do 2.5.1 variable, that have effect on party level, are significant with p<0.05. highly In performance model this significant. variableand numberofpartiesthe government the areagain variables membership union anddemocracy satisfaction with age, education, trade this, Besides p<0.001. of significance a with significant more is variable information political model, in this model the significance is p<0.01. Additionally, the interaction between this and the model. first ideology variablein butshift Theparty significant, isagain theprevious unlike in the that significant are model in this variables more significant, not is variable religiosity the The variable religiosity second model,is differentresults.Although, wherethe included,shows is these variables very low. of power explanation the therefore and low very are values their variables, the of significance significant. p<0.05. All However, variablesare notbesidesthe model in other the the of and with p<0.000, for significant variable satisfaction the with is with democracy the significant membership are as andunion variables such age, education some of Additionally, control the ideology shiftis also significant with p<0.05. is betweeninformation with variable andand party significant p<0.1, the interaction political shift ideology party The significant. are variables several and small is intercept the of value The results in Table 1 show in that firstthe model, which excluded the religiosity variable, the Whatcanbeconcludedfromtheresults –Discussion 43 CEU eTD Collection the interaction with political information are significant or marginally significant in both models. in both significant marginally or significant are information political with interaction the inproduced models, has this the expectation beenconfirmed.ideology Party andshift, especially results the of basis the On former. the influences latter the that and variables, independent and justpoliticalbut apathy, it that would is thatthere show arelationship between dependentthe of variance the large model explain this would that expectations no were In general, there nonvoters, with 7.9% in the first model and 7.3% in the second model. of number small of because relatively isstilllowthe model’s power the large. However, is model(s) relatively the samplesize of the expected, than values aresmaller the Although, in general. models the questions which small, are variables the for as as well intercept the for determined firsthypothesis the that for the individual is Nevertheless,level supported. the values isvariable shows significantAccording valuethat this,considering. worth can be it to model’s second the debate, of matter a is variable this of significance the variable, religiosity The party ideology shiftvariable is also significant models. inboth While in model the without morebecoming apathetic, voting. and not likelymorenotice the theshiftto ideology respondtothisthe of and parties of to shift, by insignificant models, both which individualsshows that more are that politically informed are is information political and apathy political between interaction the Conversely, apathy. political significance in model,the although have assumptions the shown variables these that influence any show not did variables participation political and information political The significant. that the general theory uses as explanatory variables for low turnout, in this model, are not On values significant low. hand,variablesof isrelatively other these the variables anumberof 44 CEU eTD Collection higher the possibility anindividualthat be votewill inclined forto another party, ideology given and support a differentto determine if party.individuals are more likely to be apathetic Thus,and not to vote, or to switch their votesthe assumptionThe number of in parties model this is which significant, shows that the number of helpsparties that the higher the shift. ideology numbera result of party of parties, the as likelyapathetic tobecome more religion are one if to believers or apathy, political influences religion certain a how explain can religions different between variation the Conversely, findings. the limits also belongs individual that religion which to not and individuals the of religiosity the of degree the shows only variable this that fact the Nevertheless, voters. influence strongly institutions donot anymore strong and andreligion religion decreased, religious areas values as has in general importance religion of the the scholars (), that other of claims confirms the still yet 1999), (Teixeira, elections in the turnout the of variation the explains extent, certain a to religiosity, that findings the contradicts religiosity of variable the of insignificance the hand, increases the explanatory power of the model, while alsoincreasing its significance. On the other The likely, moreother, is explanation adding thatthe of a newvariable models tothe just issmaller. apathy political on shift ideology of party influence the from sample, the were eliminated that in countries that and clear, more are the results etc.), (Norway, Denmark several countries of elimination becausethe of findings can be the result These of insignificant. twois possibilities. variable religiosity the but significance, higher shows The shift first ideology party is that due to the decreasethe example, For of variables. the significant samplemore are there included, is variable religiosity the when Another pattern from the models that is worth considering is the fact that in the second model, 45 CEU eTD Collection variance in political apathy in the sample. It is a reasonably low value of is in low apathy makes value reasonably variance the sample. in R², which of the It a political According to the adjusted R adjusted the to According government/opposition, leader change andGDPpercapita.government/opposition, abandoned voting for theparty.variablesmodel control in The this consisted of of that voters the from percentage the constructed variable was party apathy mentioned, the elections will abandon choose to votingfor party the in the currentelection.As previously party voters who past supported during apathy, political a of previous andwhetherresult as political usingapathy, shiftinfluences aparty ideology toexaminehow lineartested regression a The first hypothesis, a part of which2.6 was tested with Multi Level Modeling,significance. was additionallyinfluence political apathy. membership union variable, The as showed was expected, expected likeinsignificance,is to showedwere not Othervariables shift, gender, the that true. Partylevel: Results ² (Table independent 2),the variables account for some 13.3%of Durbin-Watson Adjusted R² Adjusted Table 2.Model summary Sig. R² N R F 46 8.961 .000 .754 .387 .149 .133 121 CEU eTD Collection Party Ideology Shift politically apathetic behavior. apathetic politically inis instead opposition being leads of a2.010increase inpowerthis for to of possibility the party a 0.251the apathy. increase for party If to leads inthepossibilities party ideology the shift a in increase unitone areheldconstant, variables independent other the apathy.of all Providing p<0.000, which strongly hypothesisthe supports for theinfluence variableof this on political (political apathy) wouldbe 4.462. variable variables of value If thevalueindependentdependentthe of would be0,the all of of 4.462. aconstant independent provided variables of set chosen to the political apathy applied overall value of model the (F) is highly atthe significant <.001 leve combination independent variables,of employed here, weak relatively predictors. The results from Table 2 show that the party ideology shift variable is highly significant with significant is highly variable shift ideology party the that show 2 Table from results The Government or Government Leader Change Leader Opposition (Constant) Party in GDP -1.129E-5 .000 Unstandardized 2.010 4.462 -.839 .251 Coefficients B Error 1.680 .654 .053 .658 Std. Table 3Coefficients Table Standardized Coefficients -.017 -.082 Beta .199 .309 47 T -1.275 .204 3.073 .003 4.759 .000 2.560 .009 -.266 .791 Sig. l. The l. Colinearity Statistics Tolerance .990 .993 .992 .998 regressing index for However, 1.010 1.007 1.008 1.002 VIF the CEU eTD Collection variables, was andrun has shown a high significance P<.001and adjustedR²=.102,which helps the control model, excluded Additionally, which separate shift the ideology apathy. on political of party effects importance of the showthe definitely results the that indicates significant, being government/opposition just with insignificant, are variables control the of three of out two that is The fact ballot vote not 8-10%. ofindividuals thatdid current approximately percentage on the the considered, are factors all when However low. relatively is which is 13.3% behavior Nevertheless, the explanatory power of this variable on the variation of the reasons for ideology shift.apathetic isparty forcertain resultthe of party voted having previously after elections, the on voting abandoned that individuals that shows model the precisely, More level. party the on apathy political influences variable this that confirms variable shift ideology political the of The results of the linear regression model have confirmed the expectations. The high significance 2.6.1 significant. (t=-.261, p<.791). not is also variable The GDP apathy. of political predictor a significant not is variable this that indicates electoral which cycles”, two between change variable “leader dichotomous the predictors of political apathy.The small t-value, with a low significance (t= -1.275, p< .204), has thesethat independent variablesmakecontributions significant model, tothe beingsignificant p<.005)permits (t=3.072, theconclusion and belonging parties the government/opposition to The high significance of valuest-test for variables the for party ideology p<.001)shift(t=-4.759, the hypothesis the Interpretation ofthe results:Are there enough arguments tosupport 48 CEU eTD Collection the political political the be apathy ideological can todetermine the included the parties, between distance database, the number of variables was limited, but since important variables that can influence on of limitations becausethe the of mentioned, Aslow previously turnout. addressing theissuesof lowphenomenon of turnout, and apathy contribution political or asubstantial provides to of the inexplanation factor general animportant the represents therefore apathy, and the value R²explains significant, of morethan variation adjusted inpolitical the the 10% of affect the explanatory of model.power this Inaddition to the party ideology shiftbeinghighly can variables control several toinclude intentions not as aswell database, the of The limitations votethe choiceis notofinterest to thesis,this andso this does not work address this topic. of importance The apathy. political in creating significant be a to not shown been has variable and are especially evident in new post-communist democracies (Lewis, 2004). The leader change leaders, role of important party political thehighly claims detailing theoretical basedon been the not for voters partylevelinfluencethe theparty. tovote have certain assumptions could These The whileincludingassumptions, variable this inthemodel, werethatachange in leadership at is notsignificant, and thus does notprovide an explanation for political apathy on party the level. electoral cycles” two between “leader change variable dichotomous the expectations, to Contrary not thishave variable does anyinfluence dependenton the variable. that demonstrate results insignificant Thehighly economic situations. countries with different in shiftideology from party the resulted that behavior in apathetic adifference the existed GDP ascontrol level (country) variableincludedmeasure on macro the was also toif there variables. control the to just not confirm model toaparty canbeto ideology results previousshiftthe attributed the andthat of 49 CEU eTD Collection not explain does therefore and value, low extremely isan It sample. the within apathy political in variance the model. Additionally, R adjusted the to According the value of the F-test is also extremely low and the Table 3 adjustedthe R² then hypothesisthe will be supported. in both models. If the model does not show significance, but does have a relatively fromareused variables same The control each are subtracted ishighother. ideology measured, shift value of results of the The political is variable apathy variable such coded. was differently coded electoral the that party in the of purposes secondthe hypothesis, whichpoliticalcurrent also apathy explores on party the level, the and previousThe first three electoral models, presented ballots,2.7 above, the were timeconstructed over model. of the power explanatory the increase whichto test theparty first variables canadditionally party type the system,vulnerability parties, these the degree of of hypothesis. For the SecondHypothesis ² N Sig. F Durbin-Watson R² Adjusted R² R (Table 4), the independent variables account forindependent –.011%of some accountvariables the 4), (Table Model summary Model 50 121 .828 .372 .886 -.011 .006 .079 CEU eTD Collection Party Ideology Shift 2.7.1 will yieldnot any results.findings, These then, support and flawed is model the that demonstrate coefficients variable the and summary model the both general, In model. the to effect any have not do variables the that shows which low, very also is The coefficients of the variables in Table 5 are also highly insignificant and the value of the t-test isapathy, refuted. ideology hypothesis inmodel, addressestheinfluenceofparty shift political this which on significance is p<.828,which confirms thatthe model applicableis not and thatthe null GDP per capita Government or Government Leader Change Leader (Constant) opposition Party in in Hungary Interpretation oftheresults:Labour Party inGreatBritainand FIDESZ -2.542E-5 Unstandardized 1.079 -.906 -.010 .021 Coefficients B Error 2.287 -.846 .000 .070 .853 Std. Table 5Coefficients Table Standardized Coefficients -.028 -.070 Beta .019 .000 51 -1.071 .285 the second hypothesis. second the -.435 .664 -.011 .991 .472 .297 T .638 .767 Sig. Colinearity Statistics Tolerance .993 .995 .996 .999 1.007 1.005 1.004 1.001 VIF CEU eTD Collection more see Muller and Strom, Policy, Office or Votes - How parties in western Europe make hard decisions (1999) 13 (Muller and Strom 1999) (MullerStrom and votes maximize their to in Parties, an attempt more voters. attract they simultaneously result, and,asa voter average the move to to closer cause parties also can shift ideology party the But, apathetic. decide and of tovote acertainnot voters showed, become the previouspercentage the hypothesis and, as it some supporters alienates shifts, ideology because when votes, party in the theloss of results parties the of movement the shown, been already Ashas is biggest. voters of density the where spectrum, of political the center the to closer align themselves to inanattempt positions scale of political the ideology and, parties are adjusting theirprograms party andideological left-right of in the center the concentrated predominantly are voters stressed, As Downs (1957) voters. the of positions ideological the on depend parties the of positions political the factthat the from stems electoral in outcome better result level can party the shiftan ideological at fact that claims of firstthe hypothesis? questions attention. needadequate Both The behind reasons the inwith the firstthe contradiction from hypothesis Are findings the for findings? reasons these This model raises some very important questions that are worth addressing such as: What are the positions and,in isgeneral, orientated toward keeping their and stable voters supporters. same the keeps thus and party, constant ideologically is an -- party sticker the – type The forth electoral arecontinually with types goal the theirchanging better positions of results. achieving and aggregator,predator three four sticker,the typesof of hunter, distinguishes these parties: considering model of in Laver’s political andtypes of party parties competition (2005) he which ideologicalmore electoral positioning willyieldand votes better outcomes. Additionally, when The authors distinct between three types of parties vote orientated, policy orientated and office orientated. For orientated. office and orientated policy orientated, vote parties of types three between distinct authors The 13 change their ideology ideology changepositions based thatnew theassumption their on 52 CEU eTD Collection Parliamentary Elections. The ideological shift of the party was so dramatic, that the partynot the dramatic, that party the was so shiftof Theideological Elections. Parliamentary (AllianceFIDESZ in of Young Democrats) Hungary, after unfavorablethe outcome of 1994 the the of shift ideological inthe is shown thesis this of claims the confirms that example Another an about win.electoral brought and apathy political of as aresult lost votes the overtook shift the of aresult received as votes new power. Thismanifesto was another example of ideologythe shift of the party, butin this case the ingaining party the resulted and elections successinthe produce Tony Blair, of leadership resulting manifesto in “New inthepublication under new of the Labour”, the1996, called continuous transformation Party, Labour the of with Foot’s startingsuccessor Neil Kinnock, and can in increasecause foran number votes the of party the an and, thus, electoral win. The The changes Labourthe that Party in 1990s undertook how party demonstrate the ideology shift votes. only Party the end captured of the party. new-formed Labour the In the Social 27.6% democratic to shifted voters support number whilevote, of their a substantial decided tosimultaneously not party the since 1918. Asa resultof dramatic this ideological shift, significantnumbersvoters of move (Jenkins, Owen, WilliamsRodgers,1981)and resulted in electoral worst the outcome for the left. The new party in this moveof toward Foot, party an resulted enormous the Michael of inauguration writer the manifesto that was introduced parliamentary elections in 1979 andwith changethe of leaderthe of party the and the was considered in after theelectoral the 1980s, defeat the beginning Atthe of supporters. cause apathetic to be a strong socialist illustrates of howaparty 1990s, influencethe ideology can and also electoral shiftoutcomes, partyinThe middle period in between Labour theto GreatBritain, the especially early 1980s 53 CEU eTD Collection West German Ecologic Party and this fact is present in Mair’s (1987) analysis of the Irish party system. party Irish ofthe analysis (1987) Mair’s in present is fact this and Party Ecologic German West party dealignmentBritain inin theperiod of1964-1974.Kitschelt, also stresses party Belgian inthe movements and 14 shift, butthese cases unambiguously supportthe claims twothe of hypotheses. from developmentaparty ideology thatresults individuals of the behavior within apathetic the Additional investigations from a historical should be perspective in toconfirmundertaken order thishypothesis. to test constructed hypothesisthe model andthefindings of quantitative the validity claimspresentedthe by twocases,of previousthese the examples claims the support of andimportance the the can diminish evidence lack empirical the of quantitative, Although, becoming biggest the opposition party 2002. after The inbecame party Hungary, biggest the one of being in inpower (1998-2002)and period the lot of voters becoming apathetic, but also with an attraction of new voters positioned on the right. a changedwith of supporters party the Molnar),andthestructure (Peter leftmembers party the conservative party (Kitschelt1999) a into liberal a from transformed completely but scale, – right left the on moved only Anotherworks that present party ideology shifts canbeCrewe, find in Sarlvik andJames (1977) who explain the 14 . As a resultof ideology this several shift, party prominent 54 CEU eTD Collection especially in terms of the adequate representation of the interests citizens. of interests the of the representation of adequate the in terms especially ispolitical a apathy for democratic “disease” anddemocraticserious systems hurtcan values, This thesis, notexplore although does issue, this strongly argumentationthe supports that Naziregimes. and undemocratic of totalitarian inthe establishment the resulted Germany, which values of and lesseducated, the the highin levels of turnout such systems asWeimarunstable often undemocratic to the pointed have democraticstability concerned about hand, theorists other the On support. citizen and legitimacy political encourage and reflect turnout of levels higher that argued have participation citizen favoring theorists hand, one On systems. democratic andstability of ofpolitical apathy on legitimacy the theimplications concerning literature theory democratic the within exists debate substantial a general, In solved. been yet not has puzzle the that shows apathy political the influence that factors all of review comprehensive The explainon ideology variable party the to political the apathy. cause the political apathy. This thesis, usinga quantitative approach, suggestsanew model based and influence to ability the have factors political and socioeconomic that explanation the on not invote to avoid in andelections to participation politicalthe process, andthesecondbased choice individual the on based one components, two has phenomenon a as nonparticipation that explains who DeLuca, of theory the on Based phenomenon. this of importance and meaning the of explanations theoretical broader gives thesis for The apathy. as ameasurement turnout voter low in characterizationof the analyzedfrom apathy. and is apathy this paper considered Political This investigatesthesis influencethe of party ideology shifton phenomenonthe of political Conclusions 55 CEU eTD Collection importance of party ideology onthe I site, other But, political itsideology on apathy. of importance influence and party have wereinvestigated scholars the Among recognized political within parties, factors that the general. in politics for disinterest demonstrate and be apathetic to or ballots their cast and active be politically to whether in tothe decision of determining citizens contributes “behavior” their“political and arena”, in mainthe actors parties arethe that assumption the to According apathy. political to parties political of contribution the especially factors, institutional to attention pays also thesis This employed. but variables arealso other procedures, the USA, many authors dedicate a significantportion of their analyses to the registration in frameworks of legal the characteristics specific Becauseof the factors. orinstitutional political factors used as an explanation for the low turnout, the other papers emphasize the importance on socio-demographic the moreinvestigations concentrated are findings and,while some past of thesubjectof thathavebeen factors most important the areviewof includes The thesis apathetic. maximize their personalto inanattempt make decision their voters claims that which model, choice and arational profit, by choosing whetherfocusing a group (ethnocultural), party deterministicthe group on and personality (institutional) to vote for some politicalmodels: ofvariables asocially groups or inthreelarge be thiscan classified phenomenon party or acting is variables “panacea”forthere or of political includedintheexplanation Thefactors no apathy. previous work has shownmethodAll cure this to apathy.best themust concerns be addressed basic question than that the that there is no issue, this investigate that scholars “magic relevant by all diagnosed hasbeen and exists if disease the So stick” than can solve the problem, and that 56 CEU eTD Collection Nevertheless, besides the significance, the values of the intercept and variables are very low, arevery andvariables of intercept valuesthe the significance, besides the Nevertheless, individual. with theeducation, democracy membership of the and satisfaction union age, the were regression in this variables significant Other availability. information political ideology forshift ideology and interaction the asignificancep<0.05 of betweenparty shift and for party the p<0.1 hasshownsignificance Regression Logistic Level Multi from the The results religiosity. inclusion for the of variable over the of variablethe for political apathy. In the Multi Level Modeling, twomodels were run that differ coding in the differ they level, party the on are regressions linear both the Although, hypothesis. second the for testing regression anda linear hypothesis, thefirst test to linear regression and Modeling Logistic Multilevel models: different three introduced I hypotheses, these testing In the party. party electorallevel canalsoresultlevel. Theideologyshiftonthe result for inamorefavorable H2 among pastsupporters oftheparties party weretested: hypotheses differentlevel. Thetwo party ideology further howthis andinvestigates party thesisgoes factors influences shift on the these in voting,certain political elections toabandon of party resultprevious asadirectthis But shift. for voted that individuals a party ideology shift isthatcan cause of thesis this The startingpoint explanation of the political apathy or low turnout considers. academic deserves within the place earn the that not variabledid believe that this strongly H1 The party ideology shift will not always cause a decrease in the number of votes party of onthe will adecrease inthenumber always cause Thepartyshift not ideology The ideology shift of political partieswillThe ideologyshift of cause politicalapathyonthe individual level 57 CEU eTD Collection power of the model. the of power explanatory the strengthen can variables relevant new of employment the that means which model, in the variable religiosity the of effect the of result be a might inconsistencies the that in for explanation results expectations. The linewith suggests these differences are more second the Denmark), model (Norway, in second the several countries of absence the as a of result that and models, in both different are samples the that fact in the lies pattern this for explanation The significant. is highly variable shift ideology party the first, the to contrast in model, andmore in in variablessignificant the model, second weresignificant, variable second the a religiosity was not that besides the fact wasthat of models the characteristic specific Another and expected. werereasonable results the consequence, asa and, persons, apathetic political the or werenonvoters 7.3%of (or consequently) cases the just large 7.9% sample, In therelatively party the ideology shiftin thefirstmodel are rootedin lowthe explanatory of power model.the of significance marginal aswell and variables, intercept the of lowvalues the for The reasons werevery andlow. for variables theintercept model, values the first the in As significant. also were parties of number the and government the of performance the significant, general stay education, membership,that and democracy the satisfaction of union comparisonmodel, first with variablethe the where religiosity besides wasexcluded, age, interaction between variablethis political and information was also significance with p<.0013. In and the p<0.0083, ideology with variable wassignificant party butthe shiftsignificant variable, employed was variable religiosity the When model. the of power in explanatory low avery shows which the model, the results were different. The religiosity in this model was not a 58 CEU eTD Collection with very low votes when the shiftis in opposite of the voters prepositions. ideological shift directs the party towardin Hungarythe center where show the density that of thea likely The Partyinscenario. cases Britain inLabour of Great the 1980sand 1990s FIDESZ and partyvoters is bigger,ideology or shift party the probability than apathetic more will itthat is newvoters, individuals produces a very can result in a better the because contradictory, model are not of this findings the apathy, political influences electoral outcome thatparty isideology Although, hypothesisshows elections, theprevious shift the accepted. when the in of party the votes inthe a decrease necessarily causes not shiftdoes ideology party that claims which means thatthe null hypothesisis refuted. Asa resultof the secondthis, hypothesis, which The model third show any not does of significance variablesthe and the R² adjusted = -.011, political apathy. of phenomenon the of explanation the to contributes that variable important is an variable shift ideology party thus,canbe the that concluded variation. It, of additional 3.1% explainjust variables control selected additional andthe mostly variables, these result of the to contributing model, R²that adjusted the of the= 0.102,shows explanatory is model power the themainfactor the in is employed shift ideology party just when that, fact the to According significance. show not did GDP, capital per and leaderchange in model, introduced the were that variables other government/opposition variableisandexplain significant helpsto also political apathy.Two hypothesis at looks that theinfluence of politicalthe apathy level.on party The supporting the variableideology shift adjustedR²=0.133, and significancehigh party the of a totestlevel, first model, the hypothesis ontheparty showed introduced The linear regression 59 CEU eTD Collection whole sample, and the reasons for low explanatory the of 10% than less power are of elections the models current inthe can benonvoters The attributed analyzed. was to behavior thiswhom in individuals of category the whencomparing large isrelatively size sample hand,the On other the reasons. of technical as aresult strictly processes, case selection numerous as aresultof victimized was sample the of quality the of them,for running unlimited model.the sample Although, the models, endangered hasnot and fulfills all criteria required databasesboth compatibility wasvery of itself problem presented serious when that constructing Laver upon andwhich Mikhaylov has(2008), (see chapter3:Data), already elaborated thenon- byBenoit, reported error coding systematic with the Database CPM the of limitation serious shift limitationsadditional caused and shortcomingsfinal within sample. the Besides very the forideology party variable the hand, of construction the limited. On other variables wasvery control the selection of the Therefore, measure apathy. political to variables institutional include database not enough relevant for variables, this does socio-demographic except models, question forvoting mainlythereport inprevious and Nevertheless, current elections. the of needs the for obligatory was that criterion minimum the satisfies CSES the Europe, One of basic limitations of this research lies in the databases. In model can be useful for field.this deficit the of of improvement the to looking panel researches further limitations, of lot a databasedespite and hypotheses, for influences politicalthe Thereof apathyorlow is turnout. bothenough evidence tosupport In the end, the results from all of these models leads to the conclusion that party ideology shift Limitations ofthe research and the sources possible of error 60 CEU eTD Collection individual and party individual levellevel. introduction the and party state However, thirdof coulduseful to bevery the analyses: of levels two with Model Regression Logistic Level aMulti introduced thesis The research. for further aspects arepossible aspects these Nevertheless, issues. it on these ideology shift party important mostthe issue for the individuals inis determining and voting pattern, theeffect of interaction was insignificant both MLM models. Also, models the donotinclude consider what The employed. was also shift ideology party and information political between interaction and, the variable limitation, information additionally, was introduced political overcome this the aware of politics,citizens are that assumption in can befound starting the project of the limitation Another very and thus they in databases. ones the from existing the used are able for the purposesof projectjustand wasthe variable one models, constructed the werespecially to notice a in were employed level, that ontheparty party five variables Four out of (party)level. aggregate the ideology for variables control was the lackof project of the limitation serious the mentioned, As already shift. In an attempt adequately solved. to party. Nevertheless, this problem itselfonly inpresented afew situations and the issue was single process as in electoral the participated inand other coalition, of cycleswerepart electoral in that of parties the one and new parties shiftof the of in problem coding the another appeared variable, shiftideology party the of construction the and CPMDatabase the When considering significant. still is research the of relevance the sample, small arelatively besides Nevertheless, fact. 61 CEU eTD Collection apathy. Some of the very important variables that could explain the variation of apathy political of variation the explain couldvariables that important apathy. very of the Some interestanddomainideology between of explanation relation andthe shiftparty political spread the andto variables morerelevant include to purpose be with planned research can of relevantlevel party variables shouldthat beincluded in models.the Therefore, furtherthe The models included several variables.control However, variables those donot debilitate the list database. andcomprehensive adequate levels. Theintroduction of model,this pre-condition, as would require the buildingof a more couldproject, include introductionthe threelevelof the MLM, with individual, party and state studiesTherefore, possible future stem in field,andfrom this which limitationsthe this of aspects. which itnotproduce have beenfully examined,and also in differ longitudinal the and state factors the and phenomenon, complex very is apathy Political problem. the explain completely can not but apathy, political causesof the indetermining variable relevant another is just from ideology are compatible project shiftthe drawn Party results. conclusions the final the with of expectations starting The field. the to contribution notable a gave but turnout, of problems the solvenot very political reasonably, the explanation of Thisproject, apathy. did of phenomenon The findings of the thesis have shown that the party ideology shift drawn. is a relevant factor be can conclusions in worthy from academically which, results level model two the produces the thesis, this of purposes the for Nevertheless, apathy. political of phenomenon the of explanation Recommendations forfurtherresearchinthefield 62 CEU eTD Collection apathetic behavior. apathetic aspects politicalbutand theireffecttois whichlikely issuemost apathy,also cause the to both is between arelationship not only if there measure can research This issueare examined. important andissue inmodel thefor whichthemost ideological voter the that in shift relation to the of introduction the concern would can beinvestigated, that apathy aspectof political Another model. the strengthen also could level state the on variables relevant several of employment the Also, level. state the on parties political between distance ideological vulnerability the party system the of type acountry,the within degree of party of the system, or and to contribute models not could the butwere in employedinclude model, this degreeof the 63 CEU eTD Collection recoding is not adequate for the purposes of the models, the frequencies will not be shown. be not will frequencies the models, the of purposes the for adequate not is recoding Apathy. AlthoughParty Ideology Shift and Political Apathy are most important variables, because the possible 15 Appendices Total Missing Valid Total Missing Valid Maximum Minimum Variance Std. Deviation Median Std. Error ofMean Mean N The AppendixThe does not include frequencies forcontinuous variables like Party Ideology GDPShift, and Political System Total PARTY GOVERNMENTAL 0PPOSTION pARTY System Total leader the changed they party kept the same leader Missing Valid Aggregate (Party) Level Variables Frequency Frequency NONPRT LIDERChn 4.94625 121 120 GvrOpp 24.465 5.6000 .48270 6.1133 45 75 121 120 20.00 1 47 73 120 1 .00 Statistics 1 Percent 64 51787636.86 Percent 7196.36275 36523.0000 36776.5372 654.21480 100.0 GDP 53451.00 19499.00 99.2 37.2 62.0 100.0 99.2 38.8 60.3 .8 .8 121 7 0 Valid Percent Valid Percent SHIFT 5.93337 15 35.205 4.7300 .53940 5.7693 27.78 100.0 37.5 62.5 121 100.0 .00 39.2 60.8 0 LIDERChn Cumulative Cumulative Percent Percent .48615 .04438 .0000 .3750 .236 1.00 120 .00 100.0 1 62.5 100.0 60.8 GvrOpp .49017 .04475 .0000 .3917 .240 1.00 120 .00 1 CEU eTD Collection Valid Valid (listwise) N Valid country Number of parties per PolApath PidShift TURNOUT ELECTORAL INFORMATION POLITICAL DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WITH SATISFACTION GENERAL PERFORMANCE: GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION: POLITICAL RESIDENCE RURAL ORURBAN RELIGIOSITY MEMBERSHIP UNION EDUCATION GENDER AGE Total OF A UNION A MEMBER NOT RIS 2. UNION A OF MEMBER RIS 1. Total ballot the cast not R did ballot the cast R did Freque ncy 6954 6443 511 Statistic N Political Apathy Political Multi LevelMulti (ModelModeling withReligiosity) Percent 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 6954 Frequency UNION MEMBERSHIP UNION 100.0 92.7 7.3 Minimum Statistic 6954 5083 1871 56.64 Valid Percent 5.00 .00 .00 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Percent Descriptive Statistics Maximum Statistic 100.0 100.0 65 92.7 73.1 26.9 7.3 10.00 27.78 80.11 1.00 100 4 4 2 4 4 2 8 2 2 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Statistic 70.8622 7.1730 5.8652 49.89 .0735 100.0 100.0 2.41 2.49 1.67 2.68 2.28 1.73 5.39 1.49 1.17 92.7 73.1 26.9 Mean Std. Error Cumulative Percent .02029 .00313 .06113 .09369 .009 .009 .006 .014 .012 .005 .021 .006 .186 .004 100.0 26.9 Deviation Statistic Std. 1.69172 5.09766 7.81263 15.512 .26095 1.170 1.765 .772 .709 .472 .986 .443 .500 .374 Variance Statistic 240.630 25.986 61.037 2.862 1.368 3.116 .068 .140 .596 .503 .222 .973 .197 .250 CEU eTD Collection Valid Valid Valid Valid 3. NOT VERY SATISFIED VERY 3. NOT 2. FAIRLYSATISFIED 1. VERYSATISFIED Total JOB BAD VERY 4. JOB BAD 3. 2. GOOD JOB 1. VERY GOOD JOB Total 4. VERYRELIGIOUS RELIGIOUS SOMEWHAT 3. RELIGIOUS VERY 2. NOT BELIEFS 1. HAVENORELIGIOUS Total 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 Total ALL 4. AT SATISFIED NOT Frequency 1789 6954 1760 1126 GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE: GENERAL PERFORMANCE: GOVERNMENT 454 862 963 Frequency Percent SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WITH DEMOCRATIC SATISFACTION 100.0 25.3 12.4 16.2 13.8 25.7 Frequency Frequency 6954 2399 3676 6.5 618 261 RELIGIOSITY Number of partiesper country 6954 2377 1888 1947 6954 2123 3601 Valid Percent 742 650 580 Percent 100.0 34.5 52.9 Percent Percent 8.9 3.8 100.0 66 25.3 12.4 16.2 13.8 25.7 6.5 100.0 100.0 10.7 34.2 27.1 28.0 30.5 51.8 9.3 8.3 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Percent Valid Percent 100.0 34.5 52.9 100.0 8.9 3.8 93.5 68.2 55.8 39.6 25.7 100.0 100.0 10.7 34.2 27.1 28.0 30.5 51.8 9.3 8.3 Cumulative Percent Cumulative Cumulative Percent 100.0 Percent 91.1 56.6 3.8 100.0 100.0 89.3 55.1 28.0 90.7 60.1 8.3 CEU eTD Collection Valid N (listwise) N Valid country Number of parties per Polical Apathy Pid Shift TURNOUT ELECTORAL INFORMATION POLITICAL DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WITH SATISFACTION GENERAL PERFORMANCE: GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION: POLITICAL RESIDENCE RURAL ORURBAN MEMBERSHIP UNION EDUCATION GENDER AGE Valid Total COMPLETED DEGREE UNDERGRADUATE 8. UNIVERSITY INCOMPLETE DEGREE UNDERGRADUATE 7. UNIVERSITY SCHOOL VOCATIONAL / TRADE 6. POST-SECONDARY COMPLETED 5. SECONDARY SECONDARY 4. INCOMPLETE COMPLETED 3. PRIMARY PRIMARY 2. INCOMPLETE 1. NONE Statistic Multi Level Modeling (Model Without Religiosity) (Model Without Level Modeling Multi N 11273 11273 11273 11273 11273 11273 11273 11273 11273 11273 11273 11273 11273 11273 Frequency Minimum Statistic EDUCATION Descriptive Statistics Descriptive 6954 1669 1901 1397 45.40 228 755 888 112 5.00 .00 .00 18 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum Percent Statistic 67 11.00 27.78 80.11 100.0 1.00 24.0 10.9 27.3 20.1 12.8 100 3.3 1.6 .1 2 4 4 2 4 2 8 2 Valid Percent Statistic 68.8021 7.4832 6.0963 .0791 50.29 1.14 2.29 2.38 1.72 2.57 1.69 5.40 1.49 Mean 100.0 24.0 10.9 27.3 20.1 12.8 3.3 1.6 .1 Std. Error .01615 .00254 .04890 .09293 Cumulative .003 .007 .007 .004 .011 .004 .016 .005 .145 Percent Deviation 100.0 Statistic 76.0 72.7 61.9 34.5 14.4 Std. 1.7 1.71463 5.19213 9.86667 .1 .26995 15.402 1.193 1.702 .343 .737 .691 .447 .463 .500 Variance Statistic 237.211 26.958 97.351 2.940 1.423 2.896 .073 .118 .543 .477 .200 .214 .250 CEU eTD Collection Valid Valid Valid 1. R IS MEMBER OF A OF MEMBER RIS 1. Total COMPLETED DEGREE UNDERGRADUATE 8. UNIVERSITY INCOMPLETE DEGREE UNDERGRADUATE 7. UNIVERSITY SCHOOL VOCATIONAL / TRADE 6. POST-SECONDARY COMPLETED 5. SECONDARY SECONDARY 4. INCOMPLETE COMPLETED 3. PRIMARY PRIMARY 2. INCOMPLETE 1. NONE Total ballot the cast not R did ballot the cast R did Total OF A UNION A MEMBER NOT RIS 2. UNION Frequenc 11273 10381 y 892 Political Apathy Political Percent Frequency UNION MEMBERSHIP UNION 100.0 92.1 Frequency 7.9 Frequencies 11273 7778 3495 11273 1407 3709 1729 1484 2581 Valid Percent 237 114 12 EDUCATION Percent Percent 100.0 100.0 68 92.1 69.0 31.0 7.9 100.0 12.5 32.9 15.3 13.2 22.9 2.1 1.0 .1 Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Percent 100.0 100.0 92.1 69.0 31.0 100.0 12.5 32.9 15.3 13.2 22.9 2.1 1.0 .1 Cumulative Percent Cumulative Percent 100.0 31.0 100.0 77.1 75.0 62.5 29.6 14.3 1.1 .1 CEU eTD Collection Valid Total ALL 4. AT SATISFIED NOT SATISFIED VERY 3. NOT 2. FAIRLYSATISFIED 1. VERYSATISFIED SATISFACTION WITH DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WITH DEMOCRATIC SATISFACTION Frequency 11273 2882 6493 1129 769 Percent 69 100.0 25.6 57.6 10.0 6.8 Valid Percent 100.0 25.6 57.6 10.0 6.8 Cumulative Percent 100.0 93.2 67.6 10.0 CEU eTD Collection Avey Michael J.1989. Michael Avey Cloward, A. ;Richard Piven Fox Frances Voteby Don't Americans Why 1989. Review: R. Paul Abramson References: Benoit K, Michael Laver. 2007. Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand- expert surveys Comparing positions: party policy 2007. Estimating Laver. K,Michael Benoit Benoit K, Michael Laver, Slava Mikhaylov. 2005. Catholics. Dutch Change: TheCaseof Electoral and Electoral Bakvis, Herman.Stability 1981. Boyd Richard W.. 1988, Review: Why Americans Don't Vote: Turnout Decline in the United States, 1960- States, theUnited in Decline Turnout Vote: Don't WhyAmericans Review: 1988, W.. Richard Boyd and Ideology, Participation, Electoral 2000. Radcliff. Benjamin C., Alexander Pacek E., Robert II Bohrer, Boix, 1998. Carles. Benoit Kenneth, Laver Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies, Public Choice, University Press on behalf of the American Association University Pressonbehalf of theAmerican for PublicOpinionResearch coded content analysis. Positions Policy of Statements science politique. 3pp. Canadian No. québécoisede 519-555 Société and the Association Political Science politique, descience Revue canadienne Political Science/ Canadian Journalof Greenwood Press. 1984. by Ruy A. Teixeira Source Teixeira A. by Ruy 1984. Association. Science Political the Southern of onbehalf Press University Cambridge Europe. Post-Communist in Politics Party worldDemocratic Strategies in the economy Comparative Politics. Vol. 62, No. 3 (1989), pp. 299-300 Springer. 299-300 pp. 3 (1989), 62, No. Vol. The Demobilization of American Voters: A Comprehensive Theory of Voter Turnout, Voter of Theory A Comprehensive Voters: American of Demobilization The Political Parties,and Equality–Conservative Growth andSocial Elsevier, Science Direct . : The Public Opinion Quarterly, Opinion Public : The Treating Words asData with Error: Uncertainty in Text The Journal of Politics 70 . , Cambridge University Press. Vol. 52, No. 4 pp. 589-591 Oxford 589-591 4 pp. 52, No. Vol. , Vol. 62, No. 4 pp. 1161-1172. 4 pp. 62,No. , Vol. Routledge Research in Vol. 14, CEU eTD Collection DeLuca, Tom,1995. DeLuca, Finkel, Steven E. and Karl-Dieter 1991. Party Identification and Participation in Collective Political Action, Franklin N. Mark, Cees Van der Eijk. 2004. Degolyer, Michael E, Janet Lee Scott (1996), The Myth of Political Apathy in Hong Kong The 1954. Maurice, Duverger, Myth of Diamond Larry, Richard Gunther.2001.P Larry,Richard Diamond SarlvikCrewe Ivor,Alt in Bo, James, 1977.PartisanDealignment Britain 1964-1974, Book R The J. 2007. Michael Creawley Costain, Anne N.1980.Changes in Rolethe ofIdeology inAmerican National Nominating Budge I., Robertson D. Hearl D. 1987. Brady in Brady 1995.Ideology P. Schwartz. David,Congressional Edward andVoting: The Interests 2006. Paul. Bliese Southern Political Science Association. The Journal ofPolitics, established democracies since 1945 68-78. pp. Kong of Hong Future 547, The Vol. Science, andSocial oftheAmericanAcademyPolitical Apathyin Hong Kong Annals Political Press. Journal ofPoliticalScience 1 pp. 73-86, University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science Association; Conventions and among Party Identifiers, 19 democracies in Programmes Election War Springer; Politics of Abortion inpckage, the U.S. Senate, MultiLevel Models in RABrief introduction to R, the multilevel package and nlme Two faces of Political Apathy Political of faces Two Political Parties Vol. 53, No. 2 pp. 339-371 Cambridge University Press on behalf of the , Vol. 7,No. 2, pp. 129-190, Cambridge University Press; Imperial College London. Ideology, Strategy and Political Change: Spatial Analyses of Post- , University Paperbacks. olitical Parties and Democracy , Cambridge University Press. Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in competition electoral of dynamics the and turnout Voter , Temple University Press. University , Temple 71 , Cambridge UniversityPress. The Western Political Quarterly Public Choice , Vol. 84, No. 1/2 pp. 25-48 1/2pp. No. 84, , Vol. , The John Hopkins University Hopkins , TheJohn , Vol. 33, No. , Vol. 33, British CEU eTD Collection Laver M.andK. Benoit 2003. Extracting Policy Positions from Texts UsingPolitical as Words Kitschelt H. 1994. H. Kitschelt J. Anthony McGann, Herbert, Kitschelt, Kimber Jon 1987. The Ideological Position and Electoral Appeal of Labour Party Candidates: An 1988. KitscheltHerbert DecisionHillygus G.2005.Moral D.Sunshine Shields and Todd andVoter in MakingIssues the Harrop Martin Harrop 1977. Beliefs,FeelingsThe British Case and Votes: Hil Kim Quaile andJanE.Leighley. Ideology, 1993.Party and Organization, Competitiveness Fox Piven Frances, Richard A. Cloward. 1988. Fox Piven Frances, RichardA. Cloward.2000. Data, Arbor 1995. Arbor Political Science Election General 1983 the at Performance Labour's of Analysis University of New York. pp. 127-154,Ph.D.Program 2 (Jan., 1988), 20, No. in Political Science of City the Parties: ANew Dynamic ofPartyPolitics inWestern Europe? Association. Science Political American 2004 Presidential Election, Science Vol.No. 4, 37, pp. 1158-1178, MidwestPolitical Association;Science Elections, in Gubernatoria Forces as Mobilizing the University of Michigan. that way. American Political ScienceReview American Political , Vol. 7, No., Vol. 7, 3pp. 301-320, Cambridge University Press; Beacon Press. The transformation ofthe European Social Democracy , Vol. 17, No. 3 pp. 371-379, Cambridge University Press. Organization and Strategy of Belgian and West German Ecology Belgian and West German of Organization andStrategy Political Science andPolitics, The radical right in Western Europe: a comparative analysis Why Americans still don't vote: and why politicians want it Why Americans don't vote, 72 vol. 97No.2. American Journal ofPoliticalScience , Cambridge University Press. Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 201-209 2, Vol.No. 38, Pantheon Books, Original from PantheonBooks,Original British Journal ofPolitical Comparative Politics, Vol. British Journal of British Journal , Ann , CEU eTD Collection McCann James A. 1995.Nomination andPolitics Ideological Polarization: Assessing the Models Level Multi 2004. A. Douglas Luke McAdams John C. and JohnR. 1987.Determinants Johannes. of Spendingby House How MuchTurnout: CanWeExplain? Matsusaka JohnG.andFilipPalda.1999.Voter 1987. Peter. Mair Luttbeg Norman R. and Michael M. Gant. 1985. The Failure of Liberal/Conservative Ideology as Leighley Jan E. 2001. Review: Why Americans Still Don't Vote and Why Politicians Want It That Way by Defection, Voter and Issue Distance, Ideological Extremity, G.1994). Lawrence David Tradition, The Spanish Voter: (1986), ThomasandMichael S.Lewis-Beck D. Lancaster Association. Political of Science Southern the onbehalf 101-120 CambridgePress University Involvement, Campaign of Effects Attitudinal Association. Science Political Midwest University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Challengers, 1974-84 Choice Pinter. a Cognitive Structure, Press AssociationOxford Opinion onbehalfoftheUniversity forPublic American Research. Frances FoxPiven; Richard A. Cloward of Utah. University Quarterly Research University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association. Economics, Ideology The Journal Politics,of Vol.No. 48, 3pp. 648-674, Cambridge , Vol. 98, No., Vol. 3/4pp.431-446, 98, Springer. The changing Irish Party System: Organization, Ideology and Electoral Competition , Vol. 47, No., Vol. 47,2pp. 397-421, Sage Publications, Inc.on behalf of the American Journal ofPolitical Science, The Public OpinionQuarterly Sage Publication The Public Opinion Quarterly, 73 The Journal of Politics The Journal of London. , Vol. 49, No. 1pp.80-93,OxfordNo. , Vol. 49, Vol.No. 3pp.457-483 31, Vol. 65, No. 4 pp. 610-612 , Vol. 57, No. 1pp. No. , Vol. 57, Political Public , CEU eTD Collection Orbell John M. 1973.Intra-Party Fougere. Geoffrey and and Conflict theDecay Ideology of Political to Participation, Three Routes Party 1976. Olsen, MarvinE. Olsen Marvin E. 1965. Alienation and Political Opinions, of Primary Voters, IdeologicalPresidential Representativeness Norrander Barbara.1989. [A Method of Estimating the Personal Ideology of Political Representatives] 1984. Mutz Diana C. 2002. The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation, forPolitical Networks ofCross-Cutting The Consequences 2002. Mutz DianaC. Müller Wolfgang C. and Kaare Strøm. 1999. Miller Warren E. andJ.Merrill 1996. Shanks. Merrifield John. 1973. The Institutional and Political Factors that Influence Voter Turnout. Factors thatInfluence and Political 1973.TheInstitutional John. Merrifield 200-212. the Southern Political Science Association. Science Southern Political the Politics Journal of Association. Science Political Quarterly Midwest Political Science Association. Science Political Midwest Political Science American Journalof Association. Science Political Review Science American Political Journal ofPolitical Science Europe make hard decisions. Press. University Vol. 77, No. 3 pp. 657-667. 3 pp. 77, No. Vol. , Vol. 29, No. 4 pp. 550-562,University, Vol. 29,No. of behalfUtah of on Western the , Vol. 35, No. 2pp.439-458,, Vol.No. Cambridge 35, University Press onbehalf of , Vol. 46, No. 4 pp. 838-855. 4 pp. 46, No. , Vol. Cambridge University Press. Policy, Office or Votes? How political parties in Western , Vol. 78, No. 3p.794Publishedby:Vol.American 78,No. , 74 The New American VoterThe New American , Vol.No.3pp. 33, 570-587Publishedby: The Public Opinion Quarterly published byHarvard The Western Political , Vol. 29, No. 2 pp. Public Choice American The The , CEU eTD Collection Sandell 2005. EricJulianna and Plutzer. Salamon, Lester M., Stephen Van Evera. 1973. Fear, Apathy, and Discrimination: A Test of Three Rosenberg Morris, 1954-1955. Some Determinants of Political ReiterL. 1979.Why Howard Down? Is Turnout The Public Opinion Quarterly,No. 3 43, Vol. Apathy , Powell, Jr.1986.Americanin G.Bingham Turnout Voter Comparative Perspective. Locations, Abstention,and Gershtenson.Ideological L. andJoseph 2004.Candidates' Dennis Plane Keith Poole.The Relationship between Information, Ideology, 1987. ThomasPalfrey R.and T. Payne James L. and Oliver H. Woshinsky. 1972. Incentives for Political Participation, Variation Political Joel.Explaining inDifferences, Paddock, Ideological State 1998. Interparty Behavior 1288-1306. Explanations of Political Participation. Research Opinion Public Vol. 18, No. 4 pp. 349-366, Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Opinion Research pp. 297-311 Association. ScienceReview American Political Elections. Senate Midterm U.S. Turnout in Association. Science Political Midwest and VotingBehavior, 518-546. pp. 4 24, No. of Utah. University Quarterly Research , Vol.No. 2pp. 27, 133-162 Springer. Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Publicthe AmericanAssociation UniversityOxford for of Pressonbehalf . , Vol. 51, No., Vol. 51,3pp. 765-780, Sage Publications, Inc.on behalf of the American Journal ofPolitical Science Divorce andVoter Turnout intheUS , Vol. 80, No. 1 80, , Vol. pp. 17-43. American Political Science The American Political Science Review Political Behavior 75 , Vol. 26, No. 1 pp. 69-93 Springer. 69-93 1 pp. 26, No. , Vol. , Vol.No. 3pp. 31, 511-530 The Public Opinion Quarterly Families Political World Politics , Vol. 67, No. 4 pp , Vol. The , CEU eTD Collection Wattier Mark J. 1983. Ideological Voting in WattierMark J. 1980RepublicanPresidential VotingPrimaries. 1983.Ideological Seligson Amber L. 2003. Disentangling the Roles Stanleyof Ideology Kelley, and IssueJr. 1977. Positions Reviewed in Electoralthe Rise of ReformThird and Voter Participation: Federal Registration - A Verba Sidney, Gary R. Orren. 1985. Orren. R. Gary Sidney, Verba Van Holsteyn. Joop J. M. 2005.1989. A. Wright L.J., Tivey Review: Voter Turnout A. 1992. Ruy Teixeira and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition inJ. 1993. W. Stankiewicz Shapiro, Robert Y. 1997. Review: The New American Voter by Warren E. Miller; J. Merrill of the Southern Political Science Association. Science Political Southern the of Politics Journal of Parties: TheCaseof Argentina. Science Review False Remedy for Voter Apathy by Kevin P. PhillipsPolitical Science. ; Paul H. Blackman (Sep., 2005), pp. 663-664 American Political Science Association Established Democracies since1945 byMarkN.Franklin Routledge. Shanks. Publications, Inc. on behalf of the University ofUtah. University ofthe behalf on Inc. Publications, Political Science Quarterly Political Science The disappearing American voter , Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 1198-1199. pp. 3, 71, No. , Vol. In Search of Political Philosophy: Ideologies at the close of twentieth century. Party Ideology in Britain Ideology Party , Vol. 45, No. 4pp.1016-1026,Cambridge onbehalf No. Press 45, University , Vol. Equality in America: the view from the top, the from view the in America: Equality Political Research Quarterly , Vol. 112, No. 2, , Vol.pp. 313-314 112,No. The Academy of , Routledge. 76 Published by Brookings Institution Press. Institution byBrookings Published Perspectives on Politics , Vol. 56, No. 4 pp. 465-475. Sage HarvardUniversity Press. The American Political , Vol. 3, No. 3 The