1. SE Parteien und politische Konfliktlinien in Westeuropa: Kontinuität und Wandel
Referat: Daniel Winter
Wechselhaftigkeit im Wahlverhalten
Niedergang der Parteien
Electoral Volatility and Party Declines in Western Democracies
Andrew J. Drummond

2. Analyse von Rose und Urwin
 1945-1970: Untersuchung westlicher Parteisysteme
 These: frozen cleavages
– Cleaveges bleiben bestehen
 1970-1995: Drummond verwendet die Methode für diesen Zeitraum

3. 4 Indikatoren zur Analyse der
Stabilität von Parteien
1. Indikator: Wählervolatilität (elecoral volatility)

4. WAS MEINT
Wählervolatilität?
= Wanderung der Stimmen zwischen aufeinanderfolgenden Wahlen

5. 4 Indikatoren zur Analyse der
Stabilität von Parteien
1. Indikator: Wählervolatilität (elecoral volatility)
– wird folgendermaßen ermittelt:
Berechnung eines jährlichen Koeffizienten (im Vergleich zu den nicht
alljährlichen Wahlergebnissen).

6. 4 Indikatoren zur Analyse der
Stabilität von Parteien
2. Indikator: Elastizität der Parteienuntersützung
– wird folgendermaßen ermittelt:
Prozentuelle Differenz zum besten und schlechtesten Wahlergebnis einer
Partei.

7. 4 Indikatoren zur Analyse der
Stabilität von Parteien
3. Indikator: Variabilität (variability) der Parteienuntersützung

8. WAS MEINT
Variabilität?
= Streuung der Parteiunterstützung im langfristigen Fokus

9. 4 Indikatoren zur Analyse der
Stabilität von Parteien
3. Indikator: Variabilität (variability) der Parteienuntersützung
– wird folgendermaßen ermittelt:
„Wo befindet sich das Pendel meistens?“
= langjähriger Durchschnitt der Parteienunterstützung

10. 4 Indikatoren zur Analyse der
Stabilität von Parteien
4. Indikator: Verlauf von Gewinnen und Verlusten
– wird folgendermaßen ermittelt:
Verlaufen Gewinne und Verluste konstant oder sprunghaft?

11. Analyse 1970-1995
 Drummond wendet die 4 Indikatoren an, um festzustellen:
 Sind Cleavages wirklich frozen?
 Sind Parteien und das Parteisystem immer noch stabil?
(wie Rose und Urwin feststellten)

12. Volatilität 1970-1995
in den einzelnen Staaten
Balken über der x-Achse: stärkere Volatilität
Balken unter der x-Achse: schwächere Volatilität

13. 634
Elastizität 1970-1995
634
Table 1: Summary of Stability Measures by Region and Period
Table 1: Summary of Stability Measures by Region and Period
Anglo-American nations Scandinavian nations Continental nations All regions
1945–70 1970–95 nations
Anglo-American Change 1945–70 1970–95 nations
Scandinavian Change 1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 All regions Change
Continental nations 1970–95
Stability measure (N) (N) (sig) (N) (N)
1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 1970–95 Change (sig) (N) (N) (sig) (N) (N)
1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 1970–95 Change (sig)
Stability measure
Median volatility (N)
0.20% (N)
0.26% (sig)
+0.06% (N)
0.14% (N)
0.21% (sig)
+0.07% (N)
0.15% (N)
0.23% (sig)
+0.08% (N)
0.15% (N)
0.22% (sig)
+0.07%
Median volatility (21)
0.20% (22)
0.26% (0.827)
+0.06% (30)
0.14% (36)
0.21% (0.246)
+0.07% (41)
0.15% (44)
0.23% (0.501)
+0.08% (92)
0.15% (102)
0.22% (0.216)
+0.07%
Median elasticity 8.4%
(21) 12.4%
(22) +4.0%
(0.827) 5.3%
(30) 8.8%
(36) +3.5%***
(0.246) 7.8%
(41) 6.6%
(44) -1.2%
(0.501) 7.0%
(92) 8.4%
(102) +1.4%*
(0.216)
Median elasticity (21)
8.4% (22)
12.4% (0.109)
+4.0% (30)
5.3% (36)
8.8% (0.001)
+3.5%*** (41)
7.8% (44)
6.6% (0.689)
-1.2% (92)
7.0% (102)
8.4% (0.042)
+1.4%*
Median variability 3.1%
(21) 4.0%
(22) +0.9%
(0.109) 2.0%
(30) 3.3%
(36) +1.3%***
(0.001) 2.8%
(41) 2.6%
(44) -0.2%
(0.689) 2.6%
(92) 3.2%
(102) +0.6%*
(0.042)
Median variability (21)
3.1% (22)
4.0% (0.177)
+0.9% (30)
2.0% (36)
3.3% (0.001)
+1.3%*** (41)
2.8% (44)
2.6% (0.940)
-0.2% (92)
2.6% (102)
3.2% (0.021)
+0.6%*
A N D R E W J. D RU M M O N D
(21) (22) (0.177) (30) (36) (0.001) (41) (44) (0.940) (92) (102) (0.021)
A N D R E W J. D RU M M O N D
Note: Data used in this piece were taken from Mackie and Rose (1991), from the online Election Results Archive hosted by the Center for Democratic Performance at the State University of
New York – Binghamton and from Rose and Urwin (1970). Two-tailed significance levels for differences between medians calculated using Wilcoxan Mann-Whitney U test: * = significant at
Note: 0.05, ** = significant at pwere taken from Mackie and Rose (1991), from the online Election Results Archive hosted by the Center for Democratic Performance at the State University of
p Data used in this piece 0.01, *** = significant at p 0.001.
New York – Binghamton and from Rose and Urwin (1970). Two-tailed significance levels for differences between medians calculated using Wilcoxan Mann-Whitney U test: * = significant at
p 0.05, ** = significant at p 0.01, *** = significant at p 0.001.

14. 34
Variabilität 1970-1995
634
Table 1: Summary of Stability Measures by Region and Period
Anglo-American nations Scandinavian nations Continental nations All regions
Table 1: Summary of Stability Measures by Region and Period
1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 1970–95 Change
Stability measure (N) (N) (sig) (N) (N) (sig) (N) (N) (sig) (N) (N) (sig)
Anglo-American nations Scandinavian nations Continental nations All regions
Median volatility 0.20% 0.26% +0.06% 0.14% 0.21% +0.07% 0.15% 0.23% +0.08% 0.15% 0.22% +0.07%
1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 1970–95 (0.246)
(21) (22) (0.827) (30) (36) Change 1945–70 1970–95 (0.501)
(41) (44) Change 1945–70 1970–95 (0.216)
(92) (102) Change
Stability elasticity
Median measure (N)
8.4% (N)
12.4% (sig)
+4.0% (N)
5.3% (N)
8.8% (sig)
+3.5%*** (N)
7.8% (N)
6.6% (sig)
-1.2% (N)
7.0% (N)
8.4% (sig)
+1.4%*
Median volatility (21)
0.20% (22)
0.26% (0.109)
+0.06% (30)
0.14% (36)
0.21% (0.001)
+0.07% (41)
0.15% (44)
0.23% (0.689)+0.08% (92)
0.15% (102)
0.22% (0.042)
+0.07%
Median variability (21) 3.1% 4.0%
(22) +0.9%
(0.827) 2.0%
(30) 3.3%
(36) +1.3%***
(0.246) 2.8%
(41) 2.6%
(44) -0.2%
(0.501) 2.6%
(92) 3.2%
(102) +0.6%*
(0.216)
Median elasticity (21)
8.4% (22)
12.4% (0.177)
+4.0% (30)
5.3% (36)
8.8% (0.001)
+3.5%*** (41)
7.8% (44)
6.6% (0.940)
-1.2% (92)
7.0% (102)
8.4% (0.021)
+1.4%*
A N D R E W N DD RU MJ. D RU M M O N D
(21) (22) (0.109) (30) (36) (0.001) (41) (44) (0.689) (92) (102) (0.042)
Note: Data used in this piece were taken from Mackie and Rose (1991), from the online Election Results Archive hosted by the Center for Democratic Performance at the State University of
New York – Binghamton and from Rose and Urwin (1970).+0.9%
Median variability 3.1% 4.0% 2.0% 3.3% +1.3%*** 2.8% 2.6% -0.2%
Two-tailed significance levels for differences between medians calculated using Wilcoxan Mann-Whitney U test: * +0.6%*
2.6% 3.2% = significant at
p 0.05, ** = significant at p (21) *** = significant at p 0.001. (30)
0.01, (22) (0.177) (36) (0.001) (41) (44) (0.940) (92) (102) (0.021)
A J. R E W M O N D
Note: Data used in this piece were taken from Mackie and Rose (1991), from the online Election Results Archive hosted by the Center for Democratic Performance at the State University of
New York – Binghamton and from Rose and Urwin (1970). Two-tailed significance levels for differences between medians calculated using Wilcoxan Mann-Whitney U test: * = significant at
p 0.05, ** = significant at p 0.01, *** = significant at p 0.001.

15. Analyse 1970-1995
 Worin liegt der Grund für die zunehmende Instabilität?
 Im Aufkommen der New Policy parties?
Table 3: Summary of Stability Measures by Party Age and Time Period
Old parties Interwar parties New parties New + NP parties
Stability 1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 1970–95 Change 1970–95 Change
measure (N) (N) (sig) (N) (N) (sig) (N) (N) (sig) (N) (sig)
Median 0.19% 0.15% -0.04% 0.19% 0.27% +0.08%* 0.18% 0.23% +0.05% 0.25 +0.07%
volatility (39) (39) (0.901) (30) (23) (0.031) (23) (23) (0.717) (40) (0.847)
Median 8.0% 10.2% +2.2% 5.8% 11.5% +5.7%** 7.0% 7.7% +0.7% 6.7% -0.3%
elasticity (39) (39) (0.197) (30) (23) (0.007) (23) (23) (0.460) (40) (0.830)
Median 2.7% 3.5% +0.8% 2.0% 3.5% +1.5%** 2.6% 2.7% +0.1% 2.7 +0.1%
variability (39) (39) (0.330) (30) (23) (0.002) (23) (23) (0.538) (40) (0.679)
Note: Data used in this piece were taken from Mackie and Rose (1991), from the online Election Results Archive hosted by the Center for Democratic Performance at the State University o
New York – Binghamton and from Rose and Urwin (1970). Two-tailed significance levels for differences between medians calculated using Wilcoxan Mann-Whitney U test. * = significant a
p 0.05, ** = significant at p 0.01, *** = significant at p 0.001. Party Age codes: Old = pre-1914; Interwar = 1914–1939; New = after 1939; NP = after 1970 and party platform suggests some
focus on new politics.

16. Analyse 1970-1995
 Worin liegt der Grund für die zunehmende Instabilität?
 JA und NEIN: das gesamte Parteisystem ist instabiler!
alte Parteien Table 3: Summary of als NP parties und interwar parties Period
weniger betroffen Stability Measures by Party Age and Time
Old parties Interwar parties New parties New + NP parties
Stability 1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 1970–95 Change 1945–70 1970–95 Change 1970–95 Change
measure (N) (N) (sig) (N) (N) (sig) (N) (N) (sig) (N) (sig)
Median 0.19% 0.15% -0.04% 0.19% 0.27% +0.08%* 0.18% 0.23% +0.05% 0.25 +0.07%
volatility (39) (39) (0.901) (30) (23) (0.031) (23) (23) (0.717) (40) (0.847)
Median 8.0% 10.2% +2.2% 5.8% 11.5% +5.7%** 7.0% 7.7% +0.7% 6.7% -0.3%
elasticity (39) (39) (0.197) (30) (23) (0.007) (23) (23) (0.460) (40) (0.830)
Median 2.7% 3.5% +0.8% 2.0% 3.5% +1.5%** 2.6% 2.7% +0.1% 2.7 +0.1%
variability (39) (39) (0.330) (30) (23) (0.002) (23) (23) (0.538) (40) (0.679)
Note: Data used in this piece were taken from Mackie and Rose (1991), from the online Election Results Archive hosted by the Center for Democratic Performance at the State University o
New York – Binghamton and from Rose and Urwin (1970). Two-tailed significance levels for differences between medians calculated using Wilcoxan Mann-Whitney U test. * = significant a
p 0.05, ** = significant at p 0.01, *** = significant at p 0.001. Party Age codes: Old = pre-1914; Interwar = 1914–1939; New = after 1939; NP = after 1970 and party platform suggests some
focus on new politics.

17. Analyse 1970-1995
 Auswirkungen:
+ NP policy parties profitieren von ansteigender Volatilität (7 von 11)
- Interwar Parties als große Verlierer (11 von 13)

18. Conclusio
 Sind Cleavages immer noch frozen?
 1970: Old parties waren die stabilsten Parteien.
 1995:
a) Die Tatsache, dass sich die Parteien wenig änderten, sie aber
immer noch die dominante Rolle spielen, könnte bedeuten:
cleavages are frozen
b) IW Parties wurden genauso instabil wie NP Parties. New Parties
beginnen, Old Parties Konkurrenz zu machen
cleavages are no longer frozen

19. Conclusio
 Sind Cleavages immer noch frozen?
Alte Parteien mögen zwar weiterhin dominant sein,
aber: der Aufstieg der NP Parties,
der starke Niedergang der Interwar Parties und
die Stabilisierung der New Parties
zeigen (laut Drummond), dass es seit 1970 keine starren
Cleavages mehr gibt.

20. KRITIK
 Unterscheidung der Parteien nach zeitlicher Entstehung
Bsp: Norwegen: Christian People‘s = Interwar
Denmark: Conservatives = Old
Austria: People‘s = New
Warum keine Unterscheidung nach inhaltlichen Gesichtspunkten?