Polarization

Big tent parties

american name for $brokerage parties$, pros= $ideological incoherence$ is a pol virtue bc can $get more ppl$ and have more $debates, overlap across parties = make compromise easier$, enough diversity in each big tent parties will lead to compromise

cons= so many ppl will lead $to conflict on issues within party$ cf Conservatives, $may weaken their ID$ and overall ability to get things done

Partisan sorting

when ==preferences of partisan identifiers== become more ==uniform/distinct on a given issue==, we sort ourselves based on our opinion on an issue (cf abortion). If ==no sorting==, opinion on issue ==won’t give you a hint== abt PID

Partisan polarization

@@decreasing overlap in distribution across partisans@@, @@increasing distance between PID means@@ and @@tighter distribution@@: more important degree of sorting (more extreme)

Kevins and Soroka (2018)

Trying to see i%%f partisan sorting increased overtime%% in CAN

using %%preferences%% for %%redistribution%% (Standard of living, reduce the gap and get ahead)

ANOVA compares average preference for redistribution %%across PID, vote choice and income tercile%%

Nul = no difference across means (aka no sorting)

Ha= at least one mean (PID, vote choice and/or income tercile) is different (sorting but not evident which means causes)

Income is not extremely relevant as in it is not a sorting element (or a weak one rather) but %%PID and vote choice are more significant and are closely related%% (which makes sense but again not because PID is C that vote will also be C)