Partisan ID

Explaining the vote

^^Columbia school 1950s^^: voting behaviour→^^long term factors, campaigns dont matter, social idea w/class^^ (income, region, race etc)= ^^social theory of voting, shouldnt change a lot overtime^^, campaigns re-inforce pre-existing dispositions

$Michigan School 1960$s: $medium to short term factors, PID = unmoved mover$

$social structure matters but much vote swings, spatial theory overpredicts, social theory underpredicts → middle ground is partisian ID=$ stable + psycho connection, independent of current vote preference (may overlap but not inherent)

Affectivity w/ partisan ID

PID: implications

==psychological attachment==, ==stable overtime==, ==independent of current vote preference==

key to partisan competition, ==concept of voter base==, rarely single issue voter

In US= bipartism + registration

CAN= more ==partisan inconsistency== (split identifiers) + partisan instability, weaker concept than in US bc of nbr of parties (come & go) + prov/fed (more parties = more split ID)

1988: free trade election

Malroney vs Turner = yes vs no to NAFTA

@@C@@: 30-35% @@PID, pretty stable@@, no massive partisan re-alignment BUT @@vote intention all over the place@@ (50-35-45)

%%L%%: pretty %%stable%% too (30% ish) but %%vote soares then get lower%%

=>^^debate caused vote fluctuation but doesnt seem to impact PID much^^

PID: unmoved mover?

^^Reasonably stable but moves other things^^ example debate: will hit different ID more than strongly ID and nonID